American Politics Journal -- Pundit Pap

Pundit Pap
for Sunday, September 22nd
Resolution -- to spin, spin, spin
by the Pundit Pap Team

Sept. 22, 2002 -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- For the last week, the Smirkster has been demanding fealty from Congress for his plan to invade Iraq. He has proposed a "resolution" essentially giving him the right to give a go-ahead to invade Saddam's yard.

And, at last, a few members of Congress are saying no. Now, they're couching it in pink tutu terms like "amendments" and "UN Security Council" -- but the good news is that it's clear that the First Moron is not getting a pass on this one, and Condi "Dr. Dilettante" Rice, Dick "Dick" Cheney and Colin "Finally On Message' Powell were nowhere to be seen this Sunday.

The bad news -- Iraq will dominate the ratings-hungry "broadcast news" business, detracting from other key issues -- such as the sputtering economy, the exposure of GOP and think tank efforts to privatize Social Security, the enormous cost of prescription drugs and the collusion of insurance and big pharma in keeping prices in America artificially high, and other issues that actually affect Americans.

Here's the run-down of what we saw...

ABC This Weak
The worst gets worse!

Thanks to the geniuses at our local cable company, the first few minutes of This Weak consisted of dead air.

That, unfortunately, turned out to be the best part of the show.

When the signal kicked back in, the new lord of ABC's lame excuse for a political discussion show, George "Staphylococcus," was interviewing Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kyl -- two Republicans "debating" Smirk's call for Congressional rubber-stamping of his "Get Saddam" scheme.

We caught the end of Kyl's comment that anything coming out of Congress should specify some of the parameters of a "war on terror" -- in other words, there are some in the Senate who want to link any war against Saddam to the struggle to bring the thugs behind the 9-11-01 attacks to justice. Kyl also seems to think that the "issues" of nations sitting on the UN Security Council undercut America's security interest.

Oh, please. The top factor undercutting our security interest is the imbecile occupying Al Gore's house. Moreover, there's good reason other nations are reluctant to take on Saddam: some of them are awfully close to the action, Afghanistan's still a mess, and let's not forget that Arial Sharon and Yassir Arafat are not exactly best friends.

Both guests believe that a resolution will be passed by Congress.

Steph's next guest was Kenneth Pollack, author of "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq", and a former security advisor to our last real president, Bill Clinton. (Great -- ABC and "Staph" are shilling for Chimpy McSmirkster using a book by an ex-Clinton player.) The interview was preceded by a typical This Week "backgrounder piece" -- a complete waste of time. The time would've been better spent asking Pollack a few questions

Pollack was forced to admit up front that His Fraudulence is losing ground in his desire to go to war -- and should insist that the UN system has failed and it's time to end the danger Iraq poses.

Steph asked a softball question about other nations on the Security Council, and Pollack then admitted that "old fashioned horse-trading" is needed. (Huh? So we should "horse trade" in a "failed system"?) He added that the optimum window for a military incursion is between December and February, so America has time -- but until then, El Shrubbo has to get the UN, Congress and our Arab partners on board. Pollack also said that the Israel-Palestinian situation must be tamped down (which only served to point out Smirk's continued failure in the arena of diplomacy and furthering peace).

How will Saddam Hussein respond to an invasion? Pollack said that a former CIA colleague told him that he will not predict what Saddam will do -- then said Saddam would dig in in a similar manner to Hitler in his final days.

Interesting omitted was a scenario many fear: Saddam may launch Al-Qaeda-style terror attacks in America after the fact using his WMDs to get the last laugh. It's interesting -- and worrisome -- that nobody is discussing the possibility.

Then Staph turned to ol' fashioned politics, for a change. Unfortunately, the setup piece was on Iowa voters (yawn) -- but the report emphatically noted that the voter they spoke with are not as worried about Iraq as they are pocketbook issues.

Mark Halperin, ABC News' political apologist... er, analyst, said that there are concerns over pocketbook issues, but Iraq will dominate and the GOP will not lose too many seats. Democrat strategist Bill Carrick, on the other hand, said that where views are contested, people are listening to talk about corporate reform, prescription drug benefits and other issues. Bill McInturff, a real shill for the GOP, chimed in with the notion that the GOP could pick up the Senate; Carrick said that in the South, Republicans and Democrats are not talking about war and GOPers are trying to "immunize" themselves against the issues -- and not succeeding. McInturff talked about a Democrat ad that was quashed and supposedly "did not tell the truth".

Well, here's the truth: the ad is still on the air with just two words changed -- and the real reason the GOP pressured GOP-leaning stations in West Virginia not to run the ad is that it was HONEST about the GOP's efforts to privatize Social Security.

Predictions!
McInturff:Dems will pick up the two seats in the House, GOP picks up 1 in Senate, taking back control.
Carrick: Dems take the House with 8 seats, pick up seats in Senate.

Talk turned to the governor races: McInturff said that California is saddled with candidates their parties do not like. Carrick, on the other hand, pointed out an underreported story: New York governor George Pataki is actually in a contentious election this time around, and the race will not be a walkover for the incumbent.

The round table was so boring most of it was not worth mention -- even Michelle Martin and New Republic(an) editor Peter Beinart had little of interest to say.

But there was a great moment when Mister Free Market, George F. Will, blasted Jack Welch over his perks package -- unfortunately, he used a poor choice of metaphor, calling Welch's deal "looting the ghetto."

Yo, white boy, I feel ya on Jack, BUT...

-- JJ Balzer

Faux News Spin Day

"Peace through strength!" Tony Snow, always eager to get the message out, was Sunday pitch man for the new Smirk Doctrine: "We can do any goddamn thing we want, dammit!"

Before turning to political pap, Tony did a little fast catch-up on the dull standoff at Yassir Arafat's compound, turning to some beleaguered-looking FAUX talking head-ette for the latest word, complete with video footage of bulldozers demolishing more of Arafat's headquarters. The FAUX correspondent -- who doesn't look one-tenth as glamorous as most of the "journalist" babes in Roger Ailes' stable and actually sounded more articulate and journalistic than most of FAUX's so-called "reporters" -- had to admit that the latest Israeli ploy looks to have played into the hands of Arafat, whose popularity had been eroding until the latest Israeli incursion eroding.

Tony abruptly turned back to the niggling issue of that congressional resolution Generalissimo Stupido sent to Congress with wording that would essentially give him sole authority to invade Iraq.

The guest: Sen. Carl Levin, who has seen the resolution.

We're trying something a little different this week: the shorthand version of the "fair and balanced" interview, with the implicit "messages" clarified:

Tony: Will you vote on it as is?
Levin: No, it's too broad; there's no mention of the UN imposing inspections; Republicans and Democrats are going to work on limiting language.

Tony: How dare they!... er, I mean, what kind of language do you want to see?
Levin: There needs to be language tied to a UN resolution to force inspections.

Tony condescendingly said that Saddam has "in the last 24 hours" gone back on his word on inspections and has flouted the UN in the past.
Levin: "I want him to look down the barrel of a gun" from the world rather than unilaterally from the US.

Tony: But, but, but... the world is already lined up against Saddam!
Levin: Now, Tony, let's not try to spin a half truth here! They'll help us IF we have backing from the UN. It's not up to Saddam, it's up to the world and Security Council.

Tony: But, but, but... those RESOLUTIONS! There are already UN RESOLUTIONS! The world is ALREADY at war!
Levin: The best chance of avoiding war is if Saddam faces a unified world ready to take him on rather than a few allies going it alone.

Tony: Does he have WMDs? C'mon, lemme suggest he has nukes! Dirty bombs! Radioactive smallpox!
Levin: Looks like he has chemical and biological weapons, but it looks like he's nowhere near getting nukes.
Tony: So you can't RULE OUT nukes. See? I said it! He MIGHT have nukes, and that's real scary, so we gotta go in and root his nukes out! NOW!
Levin: Hey, Tony, North Korea has nukes. You haven't suggested we march into Pyongyang, depose Kim Il Sung, and spend a decade nation building -- and remember, they're a dues-paying member of the Axis of Evil ®!

Tony: Does the UN need to act first? I mean, really -- do we have to kowtow to the specter of internationalism?
Levin: The UN should lay down a date -- and authorize member states to use force. It's essential to giving the US credibility (God knows, Smirk doesn't have a whole lot), instead of having the world against us.

Tony: So we'll be going it alone, uh-huh! Yeah! Big ratings! Geraldo on the ground on the outskirts of Baghdad! That's GREAT TV...
Levin: Um, Tony, we had a huge alliance in Desert Storm. We've got bubkas now.

Tony: Should Congress wait for the UN to act? I mean, really -- what is your problem?
Levin: No, we should approve a resolution prompting the UN to act, and we should NOT say we'll act unilaterally if they don't; if the UN adopts a resolution backed if necessary by force, then our resolution should reflect that we authorize force IF and AFTER the UN does the same. Got that, Skippy?

Tony: Sounds like you don't think Saddam's a clear and present danger, you pinko wimp.
Levin: Saddam is a threat in the region. And the UN took action BEFORE Desert Storm. It is IMPORTANT that they act NOW. It would be GREAT if Saddam were out now. But he isn't.

Tony then quoted Robert Byrd blasting Smirk's transparently political call for military action.
Levin: This is not a political issue, this is a war and peace issue; there are NO limits on executive action in the draft resolution he's trying to shove down the nation's throat, and limits need to be in place before we even consider it.

Following the break, Tony briefly downplayed massive FBI and CIA intelligence failures in a bizarrely Orwellian interview with Rep. Porter Goss.

Tony first played vid footage of an FBI agent (identity concealed) saying he had been hampered in investigating two 9-11-01 hijackers because of rules in place.

Goss: There are too many rules, but we passed the PATRIOT Act, so everything is getting much, much better!

Tony: Has there been institutional change, and are agencies sharing info?
Goss: A little change and a little sharing; the Amurrican people MUST understand that stripping people of rights is now a part of a free and open society.

Brit Hume: I wonder if the public gets that more snooping and surrendering of civil rights is GOOD for them?
Goss: We need to soften up Congress first; law enforcement can't snoop and overseas agents can't capture so-called "evildoers" unless we erode constitutional protections, and fast!
Brit: So what legislation is needed?
Goss: PATRIOT is a good start in helping convict alleged thugs; Congress must provide resources (read: tons of funding boondoggles) for intelligence and law enforcement so that we can profile more evildoers.

Brit: You'd better pitch Snippy's version of the congressional resolution, especially after the way that weasel Levin shredded it!
Goss: Screw the UN, this is a national security issue, dammit! Congress should obey the Chimp and LEAD!
Brit: Some liberal whiners say the resolution authorizes the Bogus POTUS to attack anyone.
Goss: Hey, that's fine by me! Shoot 'em first, ask the hard questions later! Better safe than sorry -- this is national security, dammit!

Brit: Now, spin the "Saddam has nukes" rumors.
Goss: Give Saddam the gun and he'll pull the trigger. I don't think he has nukes but I. DON'T KNOW. And that's the scary thing, Brit. I DON'T KNOW. He wants 'em and we KNOW he'll use 'em. We just KNOW it. It's a sure thing, like the Yankees making the play-offs, like Florida holding crooked elections, like Prince George mangling the English language -- if Saddam gets nukes, he'll USE 'em. It's inevitable, He will. He just will. He's going to use them against US unless we fry his butt first.

Tony: Is he in league with Al Qaeda -- are they on his team?
Goss Oh, yes. Absolutely. I know that YOUR audience of sycophants and all the bad guys are watching. Let's talk overflights: Iraq "lights up" our aircraft with their radar. That's WAR, dammit, and we should shoot back! And make sure not to tell your "fair and balanced' sheep that Osama has denounced Saddam as a bad Muslim -- that might spoil the whole charade!

Tony: Are we moving toward something with unknown consequences?
Goss: Saddam is a THREAT! A THREAT! The big question is SPECIFICS, and our enemies are watching so I'm not giving any clues away, nosirree. Here's a cool idea: let's set up a 21st century Isle of Elba and exile Saddam, Milosevic and Arafat there!

I'm telling you, Pundit Pap fans, you can't make this stuff up. Mind you, a few of those comments were not made, but that's the exact gist of the first half-hour of FAUX News Sunday.

And yes, Porter Goss really DID suggest a modern-day Elba. Here's a though: tow Kennebunkport out to sea and build it there.

'Nuff said.

The round table followed. I changed the channel.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Deface the Nation

Bob Schieffer remains baffling -- sometimes tough on Dems, nowadays skeptical of the Texas Dauphin and his Get Saddam Crusade.

His first guest, Sen. Joe Biden, said that it's strongly possible that the US will act against Saddam Hussein's regime -- but it is highly dependent on what kind of support the US receives from the world and the UN. What happens if Turkey and/or the Saudis do not sign on? Biden replied that Shrub is going to have to deal with this in November (i.e. after the election).

Dick Shelby predicted that the Smirk Resolution will pass resoundingly -- but admitted in passing there would be "tinkering". He also said that the US would find out who our "real friends" are.

(Hey, Dick -- our real friends are the ones counseling us not to rush in halfcocked and without an international alliance.

Biden mentioned Kissinger's having bristled in print at Smirk's new First Strike Doctrine -- how can we pressure Israel or India not to do the same if we adopt such a policy? George the Lesser, he emphasized, has to tell America why we must act, explain it clearly. Biden made another strong point: "I think we're ready to support the President" -- but we'll have to stay in Iraq, deploying perhaps 75,000 troops for 4 to 5 years, and Smirk has to make the case for the fight and the commitment -- and it must be based on Saddam's WMDs, NOT on some first strike doctrine!

Bob picked up on Biden's notion -- Israel may act unilaterally. Shelby admitted concern, but Israel, he said, has a right to defend itself. Biden said the downside of Israel joining the fight may well be the Arab world backing off. If Israel strikes back at Iraq, what happens to Arab nations' support for fighting Iraq? Biden also said his numbers on deployment in Iraq come straight from military planners (i.e. Dr. StrangeFeld's team). Shelby flattered the "informed" public (as we laughed out loud).

Gloria Borger turned the focus back to UN inspections -- Iraq said yes, then qualified it by saying it must be under old resolutions. Shelby said time is on Saddam's side if he stalls. Is Bush baby locked into inspections? Biden said Russia is prepared to back a new inspection regime; Americans may be ready to support war against Saddam to strip him of WMDs, but the rationale MUST be explained.

Could September 11th happen again? Shelby said yes -- here or abroad, especially here. So the intelligence reforms are not in place? Shelby said he believes there has been practically NO progress, citing the testimony of that FBI agent earlier this week. Biden praised Shelby and his committee -- and said even Smirk is paying heed to the revelations of the FBI agent's testimony. Biden believes the intelligence culture is changing. Then Biden said he supports an investigation of 9-11, including a national commission, subpoena power, and a "patina of credibility".

Shelby said that the sensitive nature of the situation makes him reluctant to share some of what he has on the Sept. 11 attacks -- but he too supports a broad and thorough investigation, including immigration and intelligence.

We zoned out when Don Balz from the Washed-up Post turned up as the next guest -- until Schieffer opined that the Chimp-in-Chief is going to have to make a very compelling case if he intends to take any action against Saddam.

Wow -- Schieffer is making more and more sense with each passing week.

-- JJ Balzer

JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.

Dave "Doctor" Gonzo is a maverick record producer. He lives in New York City.