Pundit Pap for March 16, 2003
Coalition of Shilling
Diplomacy comes to an end as Bush Junta sets war in motion
by the Pundit Pap Team

March 16, 2003, 1:55PM EST -- NEW YORK (apj.us) -- As we went to press, George W. Bush was making an ominous statement from a podium in the Azores: tomorrow, he said, would be a pivotal day concerning the Iraq crisis. He clarified his statement for a member of the press: tomorrow is a deadline for the UN Security Council to vote up or down on how to go forward on Iraq.

Following today's litany of Sunday blather, this was no surprise.

To call the pap that passed for "discussion" of the Iraq crisis dismal would be a gross understatement of the caliber of, for example, saying that the former Texas governor was a bit thick in the head.

About the only thing that was more dismal was the prospect that the above-mentioned appointee to the Oval Office will be launching war against Iraq with a "coalition of the willing."

That term was the number one spin point of the weekend -- but failed to disguise two facts:

First, the US has failed to even get serious about wielding its quite formidable diplomatic clout to settle the matter of Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of chemical and biological weapons (and given the neighbors he has to deal with, we have nearly no doubt he has them as a deterrent).

Second, this "coalition" is thin cover for the de facto unilateral move by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld to inflict violence and terror on Iraq's leadership and, yes, citizens.

So this Sunday, we were subject to the coalition of shilling by Secretary of State Colin Powell and vice-presidential appointee Dick Cheney (who popped out of his "undisclosed location" after the white House Press Office issued an "Amber alert" late this week). Nobody can be happy with what was said -- save the war weasels and producers for 24-hour cable news operations scrambling to prepare for the major bump in ratings that accompanies military action.

Much of what Powell and Cheney said was redundant, so we'll focus on two of the Sunday yak-fests.

FAUX News Sunday
Final push for pre-war spin points!

Players:
Tony Snow, the unparalleled Sunday speed-demon questioner
Colin Powell, alleged statesman
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), sane Senator
Sen. John Warner (R-VA), ex-husband of Liz Taylor (where's Larry Fortensky when you really need some comic relief?)

At the top of this week's FNS, Tony flogged the Bunnypants Administration's "final push for peace."

The arrogance of this particular talking point is not to be believed. Chimpy's handlers have pushed a quarter million troops into fighting position, and we're making a "final push for peace"? Does ANYBODY actually believe this? Even Tony looked to be stifling something resembling a laugh as he read that point off the TelePrompTer.

Now, we'd heard a lot of that particular spin meme this weekend, and with each repetition it sounds more and more disingenuous.

FOX News correspondent Jim Angle was more with the spin points "endgame," "one grain of sand left in this hourglass," and the assertion that it is time to give Saddam an ultimatum -- all of these talking points were spewed before Angle even began talking about the Azores Summit. Angle even gave lie to the Smirky Team claim that this is "not a war summit" because, as he said, war looks "all but inevitable."

Tony then turned to Powell, whose spin points were:

1) "Leaders [are] getting together" at a summit to stop "a diplomatic window from closing" (What diplomatic window, Colin? Wouldn't keeping inspectors in Iraq keep that so-called window open?)

2) Tony essentially cued Powell to confirm that Junior is sending a message to Saddam to "get out of Iraq" to avoid war; Powell confirmed it.

3) Powell also claim that "diplomatic efforts" were under way.

4) On the matter of that UN Resolution authorizing war -- which looks dead -- Powell's spin is that the UK tabled it. (Translation; who needs a resolution?)

5) As a follow-up to the above point, Powell said that only force will "work against Saddam Hussein."

Tony then pushed Powell to deride a 25-page document which Saddam has just turned over to Blix -- a document claiming that his VX gas had been destroyed. Powell went off on a major spin tangent, emphatically condemning "12 years of games." (This "12 years" point has been a favorite talking point of the administration for the last two weeks. )

Tony then suggested it was a mistake to go to the UN in the first place. Powell gave a wordy reply, but his "We don't feel we need a second [UNSC] resolution" stuck out. (This of course helps reinforce the conservative push to deem the UN irrelevant. )

Tony then asked Powell to discussed "strained" relations with Germany and France, giving Powell a chance to blast France for not playing along with Smirky's war lust. (You just have to love the way that this constant talk France-bashing is at odds with the administration's spin point about "diplomatic efforts.") Tony asserted that relations between the US and France are damaged; Powell tried to gloss over of the friction -- a tacit admission that relations are bad. In a transparent effort to ratchet up hatred of France to the next level, Tony then tried to claim that Chirac and Saddam are buddies -- a spin point pushed this week by some of the most spurious and specious sources for conservative "news" -- and followed up by asking if France is "protecting" Saddam Hussein.

Not half as much as you and Brit Hume are "protecting" your smirking hero, Tony!

Tony pulled up some old quotes from Dominique de Villepain calling Iraq a threat -- and Powell even complimented him on it!

Amazing! It looks like to be administration has another poodle named Tony! Mr. Statesman Powell seemed awfully pleased that Tony had spent so much time demonizing France.

Powell then betrayed the near-certainty that war is on the way when Tony asked a question about a possible 14-30 days for UN inspectors to do their job -- and Powell replied by saying war could be started in as little as 2 hours. Powell also dismissed the possibility that "more meetings" can stop "this action."

Translation: Smirky will get his war! Tony followed up, predictably, by saying war is all but inevitable, with Germans warning their citizens to get out of certain countries -- will we be at war next week? Powell outright to answer.

Tony then shifted topics, saying that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is in a "strong leadership position... would not walk away from this challenge... the right thing to do, an absolutely noble thing to do... standing tall."

What a riot! In a matter of just a few months, Tony Blair has morphed from a liberal Bill Clinton clone to the darling of the conservative press!

Tony then decided it was time to play the infamous "if the UN fails to act it is irrelevant" card. Powell replied, "They will be with us for the next 50 years," as if the UN were some sort of festering, chronic disease. Powell made no attempt whatsoever to camouflage the contempt in his voice. Tony suggested that there may be an alternative to the UN. Powell dissed the UN for not acting on the matter of Kosovo simply because Russia would have vetoed action in the Security Council before launching into of unctuous praise of the "Coalition of the willing."

Tony then said Turkey won't help. Powell replied, "they're a good friend" (unlike those cheese eating surrender monkeys in France), but while parliamentary maneuvering got in the way, their prime minister has been very helpful.

That pretty much wrapped up for Powell. He was clearly sending a message to the whole world that our fearless leader intends to deal with the Iraq "Crisis" once and for all. And that is not a message that the rest of the world wants to hear. Powell is stuck with an even worse diplomatic portfolio that Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was stuck with just over a decade ago. And yes, Powell looked resolute and grave -- and very much on board with Junior's latest adventure.

Warner and Lugar got significantly less face time than Powell. Tony asked if we would be at war this week, and Warner gave a boilerplate "diplomacy and troops" GOP answer. Tony said that our troops are getting restless (as if this were some sort of excuse for them to go into battle immediately -- Lord knows, we don't want our troops to get restless!) and relations are poor with France and Germany (as if it's all their fault, not ours ) -- was the diplomatic track a bad idea? Lugar said no, but Saddam will be disarmed, maybe he will flee Iraq but if he doesn't, there'll be "trouble." Tony tried to claim that some are complaining that Smirk has failed to publicly justify his feud with Saddam, and asked Warner to back up the notion that the US has secret justification that makes war perfectly OK -- but Warner assured viewers that the US has shared all "relevant" information with UN inspectors. (Does that include the information that turned out to be BOGUS? ) Tony asked Warner if there is information that the weapons inspectors have not acted on. To our delight, Warner said no -- and that inspection teams are UNDERMANNED!

Tony then brought up another favorite spin point: that Saddam's invitation to Blix and al-Baradei is an attempt to use them as human shields. Lugar responded with the notion that Saddam may give chemical or bioweapons to terrorists. (Huh? It's unusual for Lugar to reply to anything with such a blatant non-sequitur.) Tony asked if Chimpy could have handled the diplomatic end of going after Saddam better -- and Lugar said yes. Warner said it is time for the UN to get tough on North Korea -- "the UN is deadlocked." Tony said that coalitions of the willing can be expensive and a strain on diplomatic relations. Warner gave a little speech about keeping Iraq together. Lugar is not confident that Iraq will stay together following a war.

Yes, the final minutes seemed to spin out on all sorts of tangents -- but it is interesting that Tony and other conservative types are openly admitting that the Iraqi adventure is going to be hugely expensive. Mind you, it won't stop those sorely-needed (not) tax cuts -- but it will prove a great excuse for killing "entitlements." And that seems to be the only reason they are admitting it -- to pave the way for more such cuts.

Face the Cheney

Players:
Bob Schieffer
Dick Cheney, pale and pasty court appointee
Tom Friedman, pessimistic New York Times columnist

Bob Schieffer framed his first question to Cheney by saying that Junior has a tough decision in the next couple days. Is war inevitable?

Cheney gave a long, droning non-answer, first citing the "summit" in the Azores, then a claim that "diplomatic maneuvering is at an end" (he forgot to say that it's over by Shrub Regime fiat), followed by an assertion that if the UN won't enforce its own resolutions, we will (as if they've even had half an opportunity to do so), and finally saying yes, Chimp Boy is close to the point of making a decision (read: having it made for him by Team Chickenhawk).

Short of leaving the region, is there anything Saddam Hussein can do to stop a war? Cheney essentially said no, claiming that Saddam has a chemical and biological program -- "it's been his pattern for over 20 years" (thanks to the generous help of the US government and industry -- but somehow, Cheney chose to omit mention of that telling point).

What if he left today? Would we still go into Iraq? Cheney seemed taken by surprise, sputtering an answer about the need to protect the integrity of Iraq and a vested interest in a new and stable government; Saddam cannot turn the government over to a son or crony. (We take that as a great big yes.)

Will His Doofness announce a timetable today? Cheney deferred to his alleged boss (snicker), refusing to answer: "We are approaching the end of the diplomatic phase" and what comes next will soon be discussed.

Schieffer said that there have been reports that inspectors could be given 30 days to do a thorough job. Cheney derided Jacques Chirac and than dismissed leaving the fate of Iraq to the process. Cheney claimed, "We've had 12 years"of noncompliance from Iraq, and asserted that the French have refused to help time and time again, listing a slanted litany of French no-nos; "It's impossible to take the French seriously." (Right -- but how possible is it to take a bunch of court-appointed stealth fascists who seem to have been looking for any excuse to go to war with Saddam seriously as "peacekeepers" or "diplomats"?)

If we have to go to war, will it be long or short? Cheney predicted a war would be "weeks rather than months" and acknowledged a possibility of "complications" before expressing full confidence in Tommy Franks and the Joint Chiefs.

Is it possible Saddam will strike the first blow? Cheney says the chance of that increases with diplomacy! (So THAT'S the new mantra: striving for peace makes war more likely!)

Cheney then tried to blame part of the mess on terrorists, citing America's lack of response to terrorists since 1983. (What? He's blaming Reagan? That's heresy!) Schieffer said Cheney is suggesting that we are still not doing enough; Cheney tried unsuccessfully tie the terrorist threat to not doing enough about Saddam Hussein, claiming we have to take ol' Saddam on now before he gets nuclear weapons. (Gee, then why not take Kim Jong-Il on right now before he sells some nukes to violent Islamists? Is there a huge disconnect between Cheney's spin points and reality, or what?)

Schieffer called Saddam"one of the great criminals of the world, a mass murderer", then grumbled something about hatred of the US. Cheney went off on a tangent of "containment" and the dramatic "change in threats" since September 11th and the possibility of terrorists using nuclear weapons. We've been through the watershed, he said, because of 9/11 and hopefully our allies will come around.

Next up was Tom Friedman; Schieffer called his interview with Cheney "sobering"; Friedman said he suspects that Smirk will address the nation tomorrow night, and there will be war. Schieffer said the prediction is for a short war; Friedman said that he believes the Junta thinks "the war will be self-legitimating", they believe will "get" Saddam, and they also believe allies will line up behind us, and -- in an amazing linkage of Smirk's priorities -- that GOP-engineered tax cuts will continue. This, said Friedman, is the biggest gamble any American "president" has taken in his recollection. Schieffer said the big surprise for him concerning the Cheney interview was that the US may go in even if Saddam leaves. Friedman said he thinks we are going in no matter what.

Schieffer's final word was longer than usual --- focusing on Smirk's belated Arab-Israeli plan and the hope that being a peacemaker will do more to ensure homeland security than metal detectors.

-- JJ Balzer

Craptacular Gang
CNN's Top Pundits Whip Out a Lugar, Shoots War Arguments In Foot

Players:
The gang - Bob Novak, Margaret Carlson, Al Hunt and Mark Shields
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), seemingly from another planet

Mar. 16, 2003 - MOLINE (apj.us) - In today's turgid episode of CNN Craptacular Gang, Dick from the Planet Lugar shows us how to support the war while, between the lines, admitting it makes absolutely zero sense and proves loyalty to an unelected disaster trumps plunging into unprovoked war.

No one believes for a moment that the Bushist plan for unprecedented, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country is a good idea - save those whose continued enrichment depend on a Bush regime and the Moron American demographic. Yet it's easy to find any number of these pod people on the airwaves, bravely resorting to arguments so tortured, so absolutely upside-down and inside-out as to be mind boggling in an effort to support the insupportable.

Richard "Dick" Lugar, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations committee, filled that role today on Craptacular Gang.

As I sit here in the heart of the Heartland with the suddenly common sound of jets screaming overhead and heavy helicopters throbbing past at all hours of the day and night, I'm reminded of just how much this war will affect the country and just how many billions of desperately needed dollars are going to be first squandered on leveling Iraq and their oil fields with one hand, and then doled out to administration-friendly corporations to rebuild it all with the other.

And I'm shocked at how disconnected the discourse is on our airwaves. The pundits are still locked in glib pundit mode for the most part, and the War Fans are sounding increasingly out of touch with reality.

Dick Lugar is one strange-looking guy. Perhaps this is due to his being a Congressman for decades, but his face has frozen into this peculiar mask where it looks like he's perpetually amused, about ready to break into a big grin, even when he's discussing issues involving the lives and deaths of thousands of people and possibly changing the course of our nation for the worse for decades to come. And like many Republicans (Ari Fleisher springs to mind), his eyes betray not a trace of emotion or flicker of a soul.

The effort to drag, bribe, threaten, arm-twist, and beg other countries to support us in the United Nations Security Council was the first topic. It was established that France will not agree to any plans for invasion, and that the US in the person of Colin "Has anyone seen my honor and dignity laying around anywhere?" Powell, has said we will be willing to go it alone.

(And I mean VERY alone.)

Al Hunt expressed puzzlement that Bush is losing big in a public relations war with one of the world's most brutal dictators, but expressed the curious viewpoint that if Bush and his thugs had done things differently, at least we would have had the "moral high ground" going into Iraq.

Consider that argument: it's sadly typical of this pundit corps. Those that should be strident in their condemnation of the Bush policy are only willing to bite his ankles with lame, after-the-fact criticisms about "strategery" and timing, while completely sidestepping the only key question involved here, namely, whether this folly is even necessary at all.

They don't dare suggest the obvious: this war is not only unnecessary, it's disastrous. Instead our opinion shapers tippy-toe around it by suggesting that if Bush and crew hadn't bungled their way to alienating all but a handful of our potential allies, we'd be going to Iraq and slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women, and children, but at least we'd have the "moral high ground".

Al, how sad you don't realize that there can never be any "moral high ground" involved in supporting an immoral act of aggression.

And how strange that Hunt would appear totally perplexed that Bush didn't come out occupying the "moral high ground" in this. That has always been an impossibility. The only moral high ground available is strong opposition to immorality, a place currently occupied by France officially and about 99% of the world's citizens. I'm surprised even these brilliant pundits still can't conceive of the logic here. When you stake out an immoral course, don't be surprised when those opposed to you and the target of your immorality gain the moral high ground, no matter how reprehensible they may be.

"It appears that way," was how Lugar responded when asked if we were going to war. He then went on to cause a bout of acid reflux by having the sheer nerve to repeat one of the many loathsome catch phrases manufactured by the "War R Us" department of the White House. He said that he thought the Azores, the island where Bush and his lapdogs are hiding out from massive demonstrations to divvy up the spoils of conquest and to hand Blair and Spain's president Aznar their scripts, would be where we'd see the emergence of the (cough) "coalition of the willing."

Well, I guess I must admit.

It IS a coalition of the willing, but it's kind of hard to ignore that it only numbers one other country willing to supply military aid, and about 80% of that country's citizens are virulently opposed to our war policy and have a visceral hatred of our unelected president.

I wonder, is two officially considered a coalition? Shouldn't Lugar instead say that we'll see the emergence of Blair's Ed McMahon to Smirk's Johnny Carson? (Apologies to Johnny Carson.) Or perhaps more accurately the "coalition of Britain and the weak and easily intimidated emerging nations who will commit in word only and by allowing our planes to fly through their airspace in exchange for billions of dollars in bribes"?

Lugar went through the looking glass in attempting to simply dismiss the almost universal opposition to the war by saying that France probably would have never gone along no matter what we did (false) and that Germany and Russia were taking "cover" from that (debatable). Lugar then went "Moonbeam" and said that while the members of the U.N. security council will never support this folly, "there will be others who will."

Ah yes, I recognize it well. The right used to, and still does, routinely mock the left as pie-in-the-sky dreamers when they suggest we can actually prevent the destruction of the environment, that peace is possible without massive war, and other ideas they consider crazy. They even labeled the liberal Jerry Brown as "Governor Moonbeam" for his liberal goals.

But if anyone is exhibiting a raging case of pie-in-the-sky, truly delusional faith in fairy tale scenarios, it's the entire American right wing and the Chimp Administration. They are the new "moonbeams".

It's equivalent would be a Democratic president making it the obsessive goal of his administration to have every man, woman, and child in the United States gather and hold hands and sing Kumbaya while holding government-issued crystals and wearing pyramid hats. Then all other Democrats would solemnly appear in the press and tell us that they were firmly convinced this would lead to the creation of favorable vibes and end all the problems the country faced and they felt the president was very "audacious" and "bold" to propose it. And no one in the press dared question it, other than a meek suggestion that maybe they could have picked a more sensible date than mid-January to do this, due to the sub-zero cold in much of the nation which would no doubt lead to many frostbitten children and elderly people.

But Lugar thinks that we'll miraculously have this big coalition of support, and then admitted that it's "imperative" to have many allies to support us in the post-invasion period.

This is just nuts! But it's exactly what we're fed over and over. Sane people ask, "Aren't things going about as badly as they possibly could?" Lugar seems to say, "Well, yes, but maybe it might all work out, after all, this war will be a disaster of monstrous proportions if they don't." Mighty reassuring, isn't it?

And these "cross your fingers" justifications for this war are offered by SUPPORTERS of this war. This is the best they can do. How can they so blindly support this obvious disaster based on nothing more than hoping and wishing that things will somehow work out? It's absolutely horrifying that they would go along with this when it's clear that even they have no faith in the wisdom of it at all. It's as if they just say, "Oh well, we'll let Bush have his fun and see what happens."

Their allegiance is to the ultra elites and corporate giants over any concern for the well-being of this country or her people. That can no longer be in doubt. This war will enrich them and not endanger them in the slightest. How else to explain this eerie and shockingly blasé attitude towards blundering into such a morass?

It's clear that the only thing that could stop Bush from getting his war on is if he actually had to serve in the military himself. After all, he lost interest in his duty to his country after the cool jet flight training and "cut" the entire last year of his national guard duty as if it was elective.

Then they asked Bob Novak what he thought. Novak is clearly honest enough to realize this disastrous course for what it is. He said, "The historians are going to be studying what in the world we were doing here for a long time to come", then went on to voice skepticism about the reckless course Bush has put us on.

On this Bob is surely correct. But the judgment won't be decades from now but as soon as the people regain the popular press in this country. At that point we will find out that this administration was even worse than we already fear, and that's hard to imagine. There is simply no doubt whatsoever that this administration will go down as one of the worst, if not THE worst, in American history.

Mark Shields, the kind of guy that makes America great, then brought up the subject of the Azores "summit" and how it relates to Tony Blair.

Margaret Carlson, hewing the trivial line even in these perilous times, noted first that Blair looked "wan, his hair is thinning", showing that evidently this is more about Rogaine and celebrity watching than the future of the world. She struggled to remember her clever, prepared bon mot by saying that originally they'd wanted to hold the summit in England, but then remembering that Tony Blair is widely regarded as Smirk's poodle, they decided to meet in the Azores, in light of Chimp being "about as popular in England as Princess Di's butler."

Ho ho ho, Margaret! Way to bring some fun into impending slaughter and mass destruction. It's clever quips like that that keep you on TV.

Carlson said that Bush could have declared that resolution 1441 was enough of a justification for invasion, but that he went along with going for a second resolution in order to save Blair's hide, but of course, this turned out disastrously as well and "exposed our weakness in the UN."

Huh? Does Margaret think that the failure of this second resolution is what suddenly let the cat out of the bag? Is this the first time the world has found out that we have basically no support in the UN? Come on, Margaret. Bush thinks he can win ANYTHING he wants. He probably thought they'd be able to buy off enough votes to win and save Blair. But of course, thankfully, there are some democracies that can't be sold to the highest bidder (unlike our country), some nations with the guts to tell the Boy King, "No!"

Al Hunt then swooned over Blair, waxing rhapsodic about what a "profile in courage" Blair represents for standing firm with Dim Son despite it being the equivalent of committing political hari-kari. Hunt then said he didn't understand why Dr. Strangefeld undercut Blair last week, but added that he doesn't understand much of what Rummy does anyway, noting that Spain asked Rumsfeld to "shut up" last week.

Then it was "Lugar in Space II: The Thrilling Sequel." Here is his "defense" of this offensive policy: the US and Britain are the only two countries with troops on the ground in the Iraq theatre, the US with "a lot" and Britain with "some." He said this armed presence is really the reason that there are any "negotiations" at all. (Strange, I don't recall hearing of any negotiations with Iraq. That might be a good idea.) So Lugar continued, the other nations are simply "playing off" of America's and Britain's military pressure (stay with me) and that we should "revere" Blair for remaining constant.

Then he offered this gem of a rationale. Only the US and Britain have the "lift capacity" to stage massive military attacks around the world. (Clearly, like many in Congress, Lugar has fallen prey to being blinded by the macho kick they get when briefed by military types and has taken to living in the world of military theory, rather than the real one. In this instance, we're justified to invade a country who poses no imminent threat to the US with the support of only one other country because we both have "lift capacity".)

What does this "lift capacity" have to do with this disastrous course Bush has set us on? Well, see if you can hang on and follow Dick's logic. Because of this "lift capacity" that Britain and the US has, Dick says, we're the only countries, and get this, "that can make a difference anywhere in the world right now." Hmm. Perhaps. But you didn't say whether that difference was for the better, or to make things immeasurably worse.

And once again, this is precisely the mindset that is infuriating the globe against us. It's one thing to realize that you're so big and mighty that you dominate the world, it's another to use that fact as the sole justification for imposing your will around the world. Lugar is just one of the many that still don't get it.

He then said that maybe France will "get there someday", and maybe Germany and Russia, meaning presumably that they'll develop this crucial capacity of "lift". But according to Lugar, until they do, the only other country that is of any importance to have with us happens to be the only other one that has this crucial "lift capacity", namely Britain. Who knew?

I made that as clear as I could, but it's pretty tortuous logic. Yes, it may be a valid point, but that's going pretty far a field to suggest that having only one ally is really no cause for alarm.

These politicians are no longer working to protect and defend the US and it's citizens. They're no longer concerned with it's long term prosperity or the certain economic suffering that the vast majority of Americans will suffer due to this reckless course. No, not a bit. Job one is for them to laboriously come up with lame and often ludicrous spin to make this invented war seem remotely sane. Other than that, they truly don't care. Of course one must wonder why someone would abdicate their responsibility so thoroughly. Only the individuals involved know the answer to that. No doubt they feel that they will be enriched immeasurably down the road in exchange for their support. And perhaps they're truly too stupid to realize a bad investment when they see it.

Then Shields asked Novakula about the challenge of nation building. (You remember that, don't you? That's what Bush pledged during his campaign that he would not engage in while condemned Clinton for engaging in it in the Balkans and elsewhere.)

They showed Sunshine Bob, who was in Greensville, NC for his beloved NCAA basketball tourney (these people aren't going to let war dampen their opulent lifestyles). Bob was sitting there with such a long face that he looked like the monkey sidekick on "The Wild Thornberrys" cartoon, and stated the obvious, which could get him shot for high treason by the rabid right, by saying that it's pretty damn tough to go to war "when most of the world is against you, most of the people of the world are against you, and then afterwards to have cooperation in a rebuilding effort."

Shields then tried to ask Lugar, the head of our Foreign Relations committee in the Senate about the aftermath of this foolish invasion. Shields asked, "This is going to be a major, enormous undertaking, isn't it?"

I was on the edge of my seat. Here is one of the key guys that know what it's going to require, or at least should. Here was a direct question to him, now we'd find out just what we're looking at in the aftermath of an unprecedented unprovoked invasion half way around the world.

Here's Lugar's response in full:

"Yes. And that's why our committee has tried very hard to get the administration to testify about it, and they're, they're working hard at it. [!] But it is big, it is immediate, it is feeding, policing, the boundaries, the Kurds, the Turks, the Iranian tribes -- all of these things, and as many countries brought into it as quickly as possible."

Wow. Even he doesn't have a freaking clue.

And the cost?

"Well, tens of billions of dollars and many years", said Dick, "And we better get that straight in the beginning or the American people will be misled."

Sorry, Dick. Despite your feeble efforts, we've already been massively and criminally misled, and it's guaranteed that it will only increase during this war and it's aftermath. We live in a weird information vacuum unique in the entire world. Information that is freely available to citizens around the world is disappeared and not reported here, while the weird pro-war spin is given top billing. As far as Americans being misled, that began as soon as this callow dunce announced his candidacy, continued unabated through his theft of power and has been going on non-stop every since. Gee Dick, your concern is touching, but talk about a case of too little, too late.

The second segment was about the latest "bait and switch" swindle put out by Bush, yet another of his now familiar phony plans offered with no serious intend to ever actually see it through. This time it was his "roadmap" for Mideast peace. (Two words that are starting to sound weird together, like military intelligence.) This shallow bumbler in the White House couldn't care less about peace unless it's a monetarily profitable proposition. He's done nothing but exacerbate the entire situation there since the moment he subverted democracy and moved into the White House.

They showed a Palestinian spokesman, Saeb Erakat, saying that he hoped that Bush indeed did implement this roadmap, as it was the only chance for an end to the deadly cycle in the region. Showing how amenable to peace they are, a response to this from an Israeli government official (who looked a lot like Herman Munster in Goth makeup) was shown.

"Mr. Erakat is again not speaking the truth. ... An empowered Palestinian Prime Minister will be Israel's partner who together with Israel will comment on the proposed road map."

What the hell? The Palestinian representative says he hopes this road map for implementation will happen so the vicious cycle of brutal violence will be broken, and this guy comes out and calls him a liar? And not only that, but all but says that any Palestinian Prime Minister will be a toady of Israel and will say exactly what they tell him to say, when they tell him to say it. At least that's how I read it.

It appears that Bush learned everything he knows about diplomacy from the current Israeli government. As long as you've got vastly superior military might, you can try to ram your will down your opponents throat at the point of a gun. Even when your opponent signals a willingness to work for an agreement, it's not good enough, and you impugn them and rush to make it clear that YOU, not them, will dictate completely how things are going to be.

No wonder we're in such a mess.

I think we should give Bush and Sharon a province in Siberia and let them have their fun away from civilization. If the world stage were a school, they'd both be expelled for being incorrigible bullies incapable of dealing with problems in any other way than threats and the application of brutal physical violence. Actually, they'd probably be in jail.

Shields put it to Novak as to why Bush would, at this time, bring up the issue of a Palestinian state. Novak says for one, that Tony Blair insisted on it, and that "our friends in the Arab world" said that we had to do something about it; that we can't continue to be seen as the "toady of Israel. And I can tell you, that the Israeli government and it's many friends in the United States do NOT want a Palestinian state", continued Novak, and noted the obvious, that by requiring this hand picked Palestinian leader, Smirk introduced a "Catch-22" into the proposal that makes it all but impossible. Novak also noted that Sharon's suggesting that all terrorism in the middle east will cease as soon as Saddam is removed, is just "ridiculous".

Shields cited Blair saying that the US has to get serious about dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian situation and that we simply had to adopt a more even-handed policy in the area that isn't so blatantly skewed towards Israel, as well as at least pretending that conquering Iraq wasn't our only concern in the region. He asked Lugar if that wasn't a reasonable view.

Lugar began his peculiar twaddle by launching into another serpentine defense of why King Smirko's latest feint at appearing to give a damn about the area is bound to fail. He called this road map for peace "very controversial". Duh! He said there was a lack of a "benchmark" to tell when "terrorism" has been stopped. Then he cited the fact that the settlements are a very big issue in Israeli politics. Then he said Chimp was "very courageous" to proceed in this area. (Gag me! How is it courageous to announce a plan with a caveat that makes it next to impossible to achieve?)

"Better now, while we still have some hope of a diplomatic solution in Iraq" than afterwards when it's "obscured by military strikes and whatever may follow.", said Lugar. It's obvious that Lugar doesn't have a clue as to "whatever may follow", and worse, he clearly isn't too awfully concerned. And with Smirk emerging later in the day to announce that, damn it, he's getting his war on… Lugar's strange defense of Smirk falls to pieces.

Shields noted that this administration has been so blatantly joined with Sharon that during the Israeli elections the Labor party opponent to Sharon wasn't even allowed to visit the US and meet with any officials of our government.

Well, as I said, this is no shock. Sharon, Bush. Bush, Sharon. Two peas in a pod, and the only leaders of major powers left that immediately resort to violence when faced with any thorny problem. Of course, other leaders of lesser countries do this, such as Saddam, but we're told he's "evil", and I guess if you do your from thousands of feet in the air, or with a remote control missile fired hundreds of miles away from the humans you're killing, that makes it alright with God, and thereby "un-evil". As long as your killing methods are obscenely expensive, it's cool.

Next topic; the insanely stupid Republican budget proposal in which they are slashing everything to the bone, including Medicaid and Medicare, in order to preserve this multi-billion dollar tax give away to those that don't remotely need it. And, just for the heck of it, the budget doesn't even include any estimates of the cost of this misguided multi billion dollar invasion of Iraq.

Margaret and Bobby got into a spat, with Margaret insisting that even Republican moderates are ashamed of this draconian budget proposal, and Bob insisting she was dead wrong.

Hunt takes the curious position that even though the budget is dangerous and devastating, "at least it's honest", suggesting that at least it shows just how much pain and devastation is going to be caused domestically in order to hold on to massive tax cuts for the very wealthy at a time when it should be immediately scrapped.

Of course, these was fightin' words for Novak. He immediately got his undies in a knot and started resorting to puerile and idiotic spin, trotting out such utterly false chestnuts as justifying the enormously wealthy getting tens of thousands in tax cuts while those making $40,000 will only see a couple hundred by noting (utterly falsely) that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes.

As if this were true anyway, these folks can also afford to play the game and avoid paying taxes altogether. And even if it were true, if I'm making $600,000 a year and paying 20% or $120,000 in taxes, I have $480,000 left over to play with, far more than I need to live in luxury, as well as being able to use that money to make even more money by investing it. But if I make $30,000 and pay a smaller percent of that as taxes, say 10% (actually, lower incomes pay MORE when all taxes are factored in) or, $3000, I have $27,000 left over to try to get by on. (IF I haven't been laid off due to the Bush economic disaster.)

Yet Bob and Bush are trying to say that those that have hundreds of thousands in after-tax income to enjoy, somehow deserve to pay even less taxes. It's insane and makes no sense either in fairness or social responsibility.

Al Hunt summed it up by noting that the very wealthy will be getting a LOT from these tax cuts at the very time that all Americans are being asked to sacrifice for the sake if the Boy King's war, and that "telling people on Medicaid that they're going to be tossed off the rolls is unconscionable."

While Shields said, "Amen brother Hunt", Novak's lonely voice could be heard in the background, forced to resort to the lowest of the low, repeating , "That's class warfare!"

You're damn right it is, Bob.

It's war against the middle and lower classes by Bush and the other ultra-elites.

That brought the first half to a close, and with it, I'll bring this column to an end as well.

Remember, it is NOT reasonable to expect those who oppose this war somehow stuff their firmly held views just because our troops are in the field. Nowhere in this country's best traditions is it expected that it's citizens must all undergo a mind-meld and march in lock step behind a leader who has led us into a disastrous and divisive war. Those in opposition to this immoral war cannot be expected to check their beliefs at the door somehow. And fight tooth, fang, and claw against the utter falsehood that if you are firmly opposed to the war, that you somehow are disloyal to the troops. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If anything, you are the ones who truly care about their welfare, not the ones who are so mindlessly willing to send them to a place where death and destruction will surround them, and where even if they survive, they'll carry the scars of the experience for the rest of their lives.

Stand up and hold firm to your views and do not be dissuaded from voicing them.

-- Dash Riprock

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

Dash Riprock is a free-lance smart aleck based in Moline, IL who's in a surly mood these days, but always willing to hear from his alert readers. Something rattling around in your head that you'd like to share? Contact him at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com If you could tuck a dollar or two in with your e-mail, it would be much appreciated. He's low on duct tape.