Vacation Pundit Pap
for Sunday, August 18th
Old Warrior and Cold Warrior shill for Smirk's feud with Saddam
by JJ Balzer
August 18, 2002 -- VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. (APJP) - My Pundit Pap colleagues are all taking a couple weeks off. There are no national emergencies and no scandals (other than the Governor W. Smirk's Pretend-istration itself, which our publisher has taken to calling "the continuing crisis"). For that matter, there's just this lingering sense of fear and loathing as the Appointed Doofus continues on his hell-bent quest to settle his family feud with Saddam Hussein -- at what looks to be enormous expense and possible loss of life to our country.
So I took off for my dad-in-law's place for a week. It's hotter than hell here in the northern climes of the ol' Confederacy, providing this writer with a solid excuse for turning up the air conditioning, pouring myself an extra-large cup of very strong coffee, and test-driving my father-in-law's satellite TV and home theater system with a quick look at the most (self-) important Sunday pundit show, NBC's Meet the Press.
Tim Russert was still on vacation, which came as no surprise. And apparently First Lady Andrea Mitchell had the morning off too -- hopefully, she and President Alan Greenspan are enjoying some irrational exuberance.
So who did NBC's opinion mullahs turn to this Sunday morning? Why, Brian "Pretty Boy" Williams, the not-so-fair-and-balanced host of CNBC's The News with Brian Williams.
His first, hard-hitting questions: is the US ready for a preemptive strike against Saddam? Should they?
Williams welcomed his first guest, former secretary of state and renowned international war criminal Henry Kissinger, who sounded rather bellicose on this lovely morning -- in contrast to comments earlier this week in which he sounded a little skeptical of Generalissimo W. Bunnypants' call for ousting Saddam. Kissinger felt that Smirk "has made the intellectual case" for an attack insofar as the threats posed by Iraq are transnational, especially as they come from a nation that has used weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) already. Kissinger said that Smirk must now make the political case.
Now, it's almost a sure thing that the press is going to make much of Kissinger saying there's a case for intervention -- but watch HOW the press handles the story. Kissinger was framing his argument around the notion that Iraq's WMDs themselves are more of a threat than Saddam, but was less than emphatic about one key reason: the regime that replaces Saddam may turn out in the short or long term to be just as unfriendly toward the US, Israel, and/or other nations -- or perhaps more so -- than Saddam.
Must the attack be massive and crippling? Kissinger hinted at the above point when he said that the attack should remove the capability to use WMDs -- it is "absolutely against" the US and global interests for these weapons to be in a region that has spawned terrorism.
What is most troubling about taking this tack is that nobody is considering the threat posed by Pakistan's nukes. What should happen if Musharraf is deposed by self-styled "Islamic" extremist thugs? That would make Saddam look like a minor annoyance by comparison.
Williams then turned to retired general Norman Schwarzkopf. Should we go to war? Schwarzkopf didn't answer directly, instead saying that anyone taking on Iraq would face 400,000 Iraqi soldiers; you cannot discount the best, the 100,000 in his elite forces (including the Republican Guard), who have 8,000 tanks and plenty of artillery. It will not be easy to do alone -- during Desert Storm, for example, Saudi bases were indispensable. Schwarzkopf said the US does not "need" to go it alone -- a sort of roundabout way of saying it's not exactly feasible to go it alone and diplomacy would in his view yield help from other nations in Europe and the region.
Williams brought up the point few have discussed -- war on two fronts (i.e. Iraq and Al Qaeda). Schwarzkopf feels it unlikely that forces in Afghanistan would be needed for Iraq.
Williams then turned to one of the few sane and articulate voices on the Republican side of the aisle, Sen. Dick Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Williams read Condi Rice's bellicose comments from the Friday Washington Post about "The United States and other nations hav[ing] little choice but to seek the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power" with emphasis on his being an "evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population" with the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction, claiming we "do not have the luxury of doing nothing." Is her point enough of a case for him?
Lugar did not directly address the issue, but echoed Kissinger's concern that WMDs are the problem, whether or not Saddam is in power -- what happens if Saddam is replaced by an even more hostile regime? Where are our allies? Finally and emphatically, he asked, "Have we exhausted all of our intelligence resources? And do we have concurrence of the Congress to a vote to authorize this?" He suggested that the answers may be yes - and that there must be a yes before any campaign is planned, there will be massive casualties, and an all-out war must end with total victory. Lugar mentioned that there are some 300 "installations" where WMDs may be based. What kind of coalition can we count on? Lugar thinks Blair can get the UK behind a war and thinks Germany will be on board -- but we have to be certain that Russia is on board and our interests coincide with theirs, and coalition building "will require heavy lifting NOW" -- not to mention support of American people.
Williams asked Sen. James Inhofe (R-Moron) about getting Congressional approval. Inhofe, who has no problem with Smirk's authoritarian regime, said no -- waving the specter of dead American bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu while we wrung our hands.
The irony is, these deaths would not have been as likely to happen if Congress had reined in Bush Daddy.
Inhofe, imbecile that he is, added America is wringing its hands while Saddam talks about the "mother of all wars" (of course, most Americans are wringing their hands because the "vacationing" Chimp-in-Chief continues to rattle his saber like an irresponsible, tin-pot banana republic dictator).
Inhofe then LIED, blaming Clinton for the failure of Iraq's Kurdish resistance to mount a serious challenge to Saddam's forces in 1996.
Hey, Senator Stoopid, what about Daddy Bush's failure to take out Saddam in 1991?
To our delight, Lugar jumped on Inhofe, dismissing his talk about Kurds as a minor point, and made the point of the week: "Unless we plan this carefully, we’re likely to destabilize other countries in the Middle East, create havoc with regard to the energy situation worldwide -- including our own country. And there are other ramifications of this that do require sober analysis. And I think we need to take time, whether you're president or Congress or the public, to understand that."
Williams then read to Kissinger Scowcroft's assertion that a war against Iraq would undermine the global war against terrorist networks. How much work will Smirk have to make his case? Kissinger said Scowcroft is a friend whose views he respects -- but he disagrees, as he does not know which terrorist efforts would be affected by attacking Iraq. When the smoke clears, the counterterrorist struggle will be helped by dealing with the Iraq question (i.e. taking out WMDs). Kissinger also pointed out that Bush Daddy deployed forces in the region prior Desert Storm before the full coalition was fully in place. Kissinger again emphasized that the presence of WMDs is in fact the bigger issue than Iraqi regime change.
Williams went back to Scowcroft having suggested that Saddam, if backed into a corner, would unleash WMDs on Israel -- triggering a regional war. Schwarzkopf said that we have to act to prevent such a scenario -- and as a warrior, he knows that the most important element is to get the support of Americans.
Williams turned to the possibility of America having to preside over nation-building in Iraq and the newly announced Iraq/Russia trade deal. Lugar said that unless we send troops and pre-deploy, we will be left to use diplomacy; on the matter of the trade deal, many Russian oil execs are not sanguine about it because of regional instability. Russia, Lugar said, is obliged to enforce UN sanctions currently in place against Iraq.
Williams asked Inhofe to respond to criticism by many of there being no slam-dunk case that Saddam is in bed with terror networks. Stupidly, Inhofe said it's a matter of leadership -- and then said what if the Sept. 11 attacks were a nuclear strike? He called the pathetically incompetent "Doctor Dilettante" Condi Rice a star.
Schwarzkopf, on the other hand, said that he has no idea what intelligence reports say, but it is absolutely essential that the government make a convincing argument that action against Iraq is necessary. Williams mentioned that Smirk has toned down his rhetoric since meeting with his (much smarter and sneakier) daddy. Schwarzkopf said that he knows Bush Daddy, who has been statesmanlike about the decisions he made before and after Desert Storm a decade ago -- and he is convinced this is not personal.
Williams asked Lugar about the message in Scowcroft's article for Smirk -- and Lugar said that Scowcroft made valid points. How should Smirk sell war with Iraq? Kissinger said the president knows more about how to handle public opinion than he does, and is in a position to make arguments -- but must couple it with a clear plan while pointing out the existing dangers now and down the line, not only to the US but to Israel -- and Saudi Arabia!
Williams then asked Kissinger about the now-notorious "Rand briefing" declaring Saudi Arabia an enemy (he failed to point out that it was written and presented by an "ex" LaRouchie at the request of ultra-hawk Richard Perle) -- a briefing at which Kissinger was present! Williams called it a "sobering" briefing. Kissinger said that Saudi Arabia has been lax on security issues -- but it is "not prudent" (ha!ha! Henry used a favorite Bush Daddy term) to describe them as an enemy to be overthrown. He called it "reckless."
A shame Dr. Kissinger didn't name names -- including Perle's,
Following the break, Williams turned from politics to business with Bob Crandall, ex-CEO of American Airlines. Not much politics at the outset - there was some talk of changing business models, a need for greater security and less luxury orientation. Rep. John "Who the heel is he?" Mica (R-FL) said the industry is vital to the nation's economy and Congress has to be sure jobs don't vanish and the airways keep going (sounds like more corporate welfare is on the way). Williams talked "consolidation" (i.e. mergers) as a panacea -- but Crandall said that labor issues and discount carriers are factors to be reckoned with.
There was an interesting exchange when Williams brought up reported chaos in the Air Marshal program -- and Mica admitted there are unhappy marshals and problems with training. Williams focused on how easy it is to pick out air marshals by the way they dress, and Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) said the problem was that Smirk named an incompetent to run the Air Marshal service -- and then backtracked to slam the airline industry for poor service and bad business decisions, and now that the number of airlines are shrinking, there is likely to be a need for regulation! Poor Bob Crandall was stuck holding the bag, talking up "optimal efficiency" and said DeFazio was "cross" in calling the industry "incompetent."
Well, cry me a river, Bobby. What a joke. Crandall had ought to ask customers how THEY feel about air travel. One gets the feeling that "cross" would be an understatement of consumer sentiment toward the big air carriers, and "incompetent" would describe the most favorable responses to airline security and efficiency.
And naturally, there was little talk of airline security outside of profiling and the sky marshal program -- perish the thought that anyone at NBC would dare suggest that the airline industry sold out the security of passengers to the lowest bidder, staffing security points with illiterates and incompetents. Mica tried to claim that profiling is being politicized -- but did not assign blame to Democrats. DeFazio believes explosives hidden in luggage are now a larger threat than hijackings -- and accurate detection devices must be rolled out.
When Williams asked Michael Levine, a former airline exec turned professor, about the government stepping in, he whined about every bottle of hair gel being a challenge to machines.
That was hardly reassuring -- the pro-business Levine clearly considers the concerns of airlines over mounting expenses a far greater concern than passenger security and safety.
And that was pretty much the last word.
CNN Late Edition
CNN's Late Edition is rapidly becoming THE "must-see" political show on Sundays -- three straight hours of political pap hosted by wolf Blitzer. Granted, we've had our troubles with Wolf, and it's too much pap for one mortal to cover, but this week's lead segment was a doozie.
It seems that CNN's Afghanistan correspondent, Nic Robertson, has gotten his hands on some more Al Qaeda tapes -- including a "how to" video on making TNT, videotaped tests of what seems to be a nerve agent on animals, and a "summit" at which Osama bin Laden declares a jihad against America.
Hmmm... so Al Qaeda has successfully tested chemical weapons. Now, that's been assumed for months, but this is the first tangible evidence that Osama and his homeys are looking to inflict mass casualties with "the poor man's atom bomb." The big question will be where Al Qaeda got the chemicals -- or precursors.
CNN is going to be featuring the disturbing footage all week. It will be very interesting to see how the story plays in other media and on competing networks -- and how Prince George's Court spins the tapes.
JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690