American Politics Journal

americanpolitics.com and correntewire.com present
Pundit Pap
for October 15, 2006
Neoconned by Bolton Again...
Wolf beats up Mehlman...
... and a morning of dial-twiddling
by Corrente's Leah
with JJ Balzer

Oct. 15, 2006 (apj.us | correntewire.com) -- Heckuva week, Bush!

First, the brouhaha over North Korea and the imposition of sanctions on the midget nuclear state only served to remind thinking Americans that this never happened on Clinton's watch -- and wouldn't have on Gore's.

Second, Marc Foley. And Denny Hastert. And Bob Ney. And the entire House Culture of GOP Corruption. I think we're all up to speed.

Third, countdown to Game Day. With each passing day and pile of polls, things are looking really bad for the GOP. Word has leaked out that the Bush Cadre has not even planned for the loss of the House of Representatives to the Democrats -- and maybe the Senate. Are they planning to steal it again? Or are they just following the old pattern of "supreme confidence in the coming victory" that has fed their hubris for the previous three election cycles?

Here's a look at what we saw this Pundit Sunday, with detailed coverage of NBC's "Meat for the Press..."

Sunday Gasbaggery: Meet The Press Does North Korea and the MN Senate Debate (Kennedy v Klobuchar)
by Leah

This morning's headline goes to Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin MN County Attorney who is Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party candidate for US Senator from Minnesota -- and who successfully boxed rival candidate, Republican Congressman Mark Kennedy, roundly about the head and shoulders.

And boy, did he ever ask for it.

But first, as our wee interlocutor, little Russ, intoned, came the serious matter of North Korea, which was discussed with only one guest, John Bolton, our as yet unconfirmed Ambassador to the UN.

Try as he might, Russert simply couldn't get Bolton to deal with the reality of how the world has changed strategically as a result of North Korea's test of a nuclear device, even if a tiny one, even if it was something of a dud. The reason Russert couldn't was largely because of his own inability, along with the rest of the so-called liberal media (SCLM), to get straight the recent history of our relationship with North Korea, stretching back to the first Bush administration. These journalistic jugheads can't even get their first draft of history right.

Although for the most part the SCLM isn't ready to hop aboard the Bush blame train this time, they appear to be too scared to present to the American electorate the clear difference in results between the policy of this Bush and that of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, under whom North Korean steps to refine plutonium from spent fuel rods that started under the first Bush were _reversed_, plutonium production was _stopped in its tracks_, with _no possibility of cheating_ because both the means for refining more plutonium and the plutonium refined under Bush One's watch were locked away, sealed, and under constant inspection both by on-site cameras and by UN inspectors, resulting in no advances made toward becoming a nuclear power on Clinton's watch.

Bolton, like Condi, wants to view the Bush record in dealing with North Korea in a long-view context which stretches back to 1945 and the “supposedly” temporary partitioning of the Korean peninsula, which is meant to becloud the clear fact that this administration has watched since 2003 and essentially did _next to nothing_ while North Korea proceeded to tear off the seals, reopen its facility for refining plutonium from spent fuel rods -- all out in the open -- as it asserted with equal openness that its intention was to proceed to make nuclear bombs.

Yes, the idea of employing multilateral diplomacy is a fine one, but also a limited one, and led by this Bush contingent, one that offered neither carrots nor sticks, except for the occasional stamping of the presidential foot as he reiterated that he would not tolerate North Korea becoming a nuclear power. Well, it may not yet be a power, but with that underground test, it has joined the nuclear club. On Bush's watch.

None of this was Russert able to use to challenge Bolton. What few challenges he was able to pull out were the usual Meet The Press staples: "On this date you said this... on this date the President said this... what do you have to say now?" And that was a perfect setup for Bolton's smooth brand of verbose bullshit.

To hear Bolton tell it, every step taken by the Bush Administration has been exactly as planned and represents a triumph of diplomacy, leading inexorably to the imposition of just voted-upon UN sanctions, just as planned.

At no point was Russert able to articulate the fairly easy to understand fact that when Bush took office in January of 2001, North Korea was not a nuclear power, nor anywhere near to becoming one, and as a direct result of actions taken by this administration to toss aside the Agreed Framework, while replacing it with nothing, North Korea is now a nation in possession of enough plutonium for at least 13 nuclear weapons, and may, indeed, have some of those already. After all, once Bolton had stated that North Korea has wanted nuclear weapons for twenty years, what more was there for Timmy to say.

I should note that Bolton told a few lies along the way to his reassuring “we are in command of the universe” narrative; for instance, North Korea only rejected the Agreed Framework AFTER it was junked by President Bush, in what appeared to be a fit of irritation with Kim Jong Il's shortness. Bolton also insisted that it was Kim and the North Koreans who rejected the recent offer of a Secretary level face to face with Condi Rice, when, in fact, it was the usual internal disagreements within the Bush administration, between the Cheney hawks who want to bring down Kim's regime, and the State department contingent, including Condi, who were ready to try some form of bilateralism, that undermined the offer. I know, Bush is the decider, but he apparently forgot to decide on this one.

We can only hope that voters are finally tired of this administration's embarrassing penchant for blaming everyone but themselves for what happens on their watch; like the President, like the Vice-President, like Condi, and John Bolton, and every damn Republican I can think of, the buck always stops over there, or over there, or over there, or over there, but never where are located those who claim to be in charge of our national destiny.

And now to the important stuff: the potential changing of the Republican guard.

Paired in real time and space, sitting next to one another were rep. Mark Kennedy, the Republican congressman who is running for the open Senate seat from Minnesota, and Amy Klobuchar, his Democratic opponent, who is currently the DA for Minneapolis.

Here's what happened; Kennedy was on the personal attack against Klobuchar the entire time, leaving Klobuchar free to talk about issues -- and except for her first answer, which was about North Korea, Klobuchar took Kennedy down more than best of three falls standard in most wrestling matches.

There was more than a hint of desperation about Kennedy; not surprisingly, with poll numbers that show Klobuchar ahead by 21 points, her exposure to a national audience should only help in keeping that lead.

Her "weakness" on North Korea was a reluctance to be critical of the Bush Administration's sorry record, and a failure to point out, when Russert tried to fudge the actual record and show both Clinton and Bush saying that they will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea, what Russert didn't, that Clinton made good on his vow to keep North Korea out of the nuclear club, Bush didn't.

Other than that, Klobuchar klobbered Kennedy, not only fielding with aplomb his spitballs -- such as the accusation that she was against providing body armor for our troops in Iraq -- but managing as well, despite Russert's inability to keep Kennedy from monopolizing more than his fair share of the time allotted, to point out the kind of desperate personal attacks which Kennedy returned to again and again.

On Iraq, Kennedy went for the cut-and-run card, but what was most clearly dramatized was Kennedy's inability to say that either he or Bush were wrong about any aspect of Bush's policies in Iraq. Klobuchar was clear that what she is talking about is a change from a failed policy there, in the face of an actual civil war which can only be solved by diplomatic and political means.

Klobuchar's strongest moment came when handling Kennedy's accusations that she was soft on security because she had questioned Bush's NSA program, and was critical of the detainee act recently passed by Congress.

Not retreating from either position, Klobuchar made clear that rejecting that bill was about being strong on national security, and that the bill's likely unconstitutionality was the result of a politically motivated rush to pass a bill so radical it will probably come undone, solely for the purpose of being able to attack Democrats for voting against it.

But let Amy Klobuchar speak for herself; be aware that this is my own transcription of what I thought was her strongest moment, luckily, also, the last thing she said:

"Tim, this is why we're in the mess we're in in Iraq, because of this political gamesmanship. Congressman Kennedy didn't answer my question, and instead proceeded to ask many questions. And I will tell you a few of these answers.

"I am committed to this war against terror. I am someone who puts people in jail for a living. I am tough on security. And I believe that the people on the front line have to have the tools to wire-tap, they have to have the tools to do the surveillance that we need. I supported the Patriot Act, I did support some of the changes that were later made to the Patriot Act with library books, library records and things like that. I also believe that we should have gotten that detainee bill right, something like what was originally passed out at the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Supreme Court gave this Congress a duty, and said 'Get this right.'

Instead, they passed a very broad bill that I don't believe will meet constitutional muster.

"I didn't have to take this position, but I feel it's the best position because they were putting their short-term political gain in front of the bigger issue of winning the war against terror so that they could go on Sunday morning talk shows like this one and claim that their opponents were weak on security and weak on terror. I think Democrats should welcome this debate on security. And we're having it in our state, and the people are listening."

That's exactly what all Democrats should be saying, and after hearing and watching Ms. Klobuchar, I feel a whole lot better about those upcoming elections.

Damn, don't you all wish they were next week; so much is at stake, and the suspense is killing, isn't it?

Quick Takes (and some not-so-quick)
by JJ Balzer

One of the advantages of going to visit friends in upstate New York is the ability to glom onto their DishTV -- and watch the Sunday shows from different network affiliates running them at widely spaced times. In new York City, the de facto media capitol of the Known Universe, ABC This Week starts at 10AM, and Meet the Press, CBS Face the Nation, and all start at 10:30AM. Brilliant way to accommodate news and politics junkies, don'tcha think?

Well, not this weekend. I channel surfed for two and a half hours and here's what I caught.

ABC This Week: Bolton Rerun

George Stephanopoulos's first guest was studio-surfing john Bolton; here's the Campbell's Condensed version of their interview:

Bolton: The world, or at least the UN, is united against North Korea having the bomb and must resolve this by coming back to the 6-party talks. We stood tall, George! Tall!
Steph: Oh, really? So why won't China inspect shipments into and out of North Korea?
Bolton: But... but... there should be sanctions, blah, blah...
Steph: China says they're not going to inspect -- and that's in your resolution!
Bolton: I can't believe they won't comply. China has a heavy responsibility. The nuke test must have been humiliating to China.
Steph: You're trying to goad China!
Bolton: China and North Korea were very tight, now North Korea has defied China. We need to wait and see North Korea's more definitive response to the resolution.
Steph: Did Bush say that we will act militarily if North Korea does not comply?
Bolton: Not at all -- he'll use political and economic pressure, working with China and others, to get NK to do what Libya did.
Steph: This is the second time Bush used the word "grave threat" -- the first time, he invaded Iraq shortly after.
Bolton: Presidents apply multilateral pressure.
Steph: If North Korea does not give up nuclear weapons, how concerned are you that SK and Japan will start nuke programs?
Bolton: We are concerned blah blah blah our objective is to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Note that George failed to mention that Bolton and his Neocon cohorts have nothing but supersaturated contempt for the UN unless it does as the Bush regime demands (which they did, this time -- and which George proved was toothless). Note that George also neither credited his former boss's administration for putting the diminutive film buff Kim Jong-Il on a really short leash when it came to nuclear weapons, nor mentioned that Bush's failure to do so is perhaps the biggest foreign policy debacle of any president since the Iran hostage crisis of the late 1970s -- or, better yet, the intelligence geniuses under Reagan and Bush's dad having failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union!

One weird moment is worth mention: Steph quoted tough talk from Bush, then asked Bolton if Bush's hard-line proclamation meant the United States would use military force against North Korea. Bolton replied "No" -- but then backpedaled quickly. So we guess the answer is "No, but maybe, depends."

That was reassuring. Not.

The second segment of This Week focused on the contest for the open Senate seat Bill Frist is vacating to become a lobbyist and maybe euthanize a few cats here or there just for old time's sake. George first talked to Harold Ford on the campaign trail and brought up old political scandals involving members of Ford's family just so he could fool viewers into thinking he might be as tough 9and low-blow-prone) as Tim Russert. Ford basically smacked the question to the side and questioned both the honesty and sanity -- yes, sanity -- of the Bush Regime over its Iraq policy. (Memo to George; try to focus on issues that matter to viewers. You'll actually gain a little credibility.)

Steph then joined Ford's rival, Republican Bob Corker, on the campaign trail. Is the Prez dragging you down, asked Steph? Corker's reply: I don't know. (Translation: Yes.) Steph them played a Ford campaign commercial focusing on a Corker "stay the course" statement concerning Iraq. Corker sounded hysterical, chiding Steph by claiming that "that was out of context." (Translation: ... if you parse maybe one or two words in the commercial; otherwise, Ford's right.) Corker then called for more troops to stabilize Iraq while seeking to downplay the miserable failure that is Iraq in anarchy and a low-boil civil war: "I know I'd choose to focus on the future." Right -- you look at what's going on today and, heck, you might just vote Democrat. But Steph knew he could toy with the off-balance Corker, helpfully pointing out that there were no WMDs in Iraq the way Cheney and his assistant Bush kept telling us. "I don't think it does us any good to focus [on the past]."

Then he tried to bad-mouth Ford when talk turned to negative campaigns and innuendo about Ford's social life: "He's running away from who [sic] he really is... (okay, Bob, let's play along)... [he] went to Ivy League school (well, golly, so did George W. Legacy!)... [he] inherited his father's Congressional seat (Inherited? Really? Like, in his dad's estate? Here's an idea: how about amending that 'Death Tax' legislation to put an end to the practice!)... his voting record (gee, he tends to vote against greedheads, crooks, liars and Republicans. What's so wrong with that?)... Opposed tax cuts, simple tort reform, intelligence (the first two? with good reason! that last one? he voted against, um, torture!) ... [he is] out of step with Tennesseans (okay, he's out of step with rich, classist, racist Tennesseans, which is where your money comes from, Bob)." His last talking point: "I have faith in the voters of our state." Up until Election Day, that is...

We skipped the round table (any opportunity to miss George F. Will is a small blessing) to head over to...

FOX Don't You Just Want to Smack That Insolent Smirk Off Chris Wallace's Face: Gremlins Attack the Ailes-casts!

Oh, my! After all the money they laid out for those fancy graphics, it's beginning to look as if Roger Ailes should've paid for better basic broadcast gear. FOX News Sunday had a terrible start after Chris Wallace welcomed Condi Rice to talk about North Korea, Iraq and other US foreign policy disasters. But the feed kept crapping out, with Condi segueing to white noise and static, leaving a sheepish-looking Chris saying, "I think we've lost her."
And just in time. You see, over 20,000 people (with a little help from MediaMatters.org) had written in telling Wallace to ask Condi the $200,000,000,000 question: "Prior to 9/11, you had eight months to respond to the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. Why didn’t the Bush Administration take action and put Al Qaeda out of business?"

Between the bad feed and yet a third instance of FOX News misidentifying the party affiliation of another national-level politician during yesterday's episode of The beltway Boys (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2397204&mesg_id=2397204), you just have to wonder if this is all being done intentionally.

A little later in the show, reliable Neocon tools Brit "Thank God My Wife Doesn't Work Here Anymore" Hume and William "No, I Wasn't In 'When Harry Met Sally'" Kristol chimed in in favor of Bush moving unilaterally against North Korea -- which anyone familiar with troop deployments and military strategy will tell you would lead to casualties in the tens of thousands on the US side within less than a day.

We tuned out before Hume evidently claimed Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, "is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally." Gee, Brit -- the poll numbers don't back up your assertion. Where'd you pull that one out of? Media Matters has the disdainful details at http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005 -- if you have a barf bag handy, you can even watch Brit saying it.

CBS Face the Nation: Warner wants the rudder!

We weren't taking notes during Face the Nation, but we did make a mental note of Senate Armed services Chair John Warner (R-VA) making a second call in a week to cut and run from Iraq! W? Karl? Dick? (Cue the crickets...)

A couple news services picked up this quote from Warner: "In two or three months if this thing hasn’t come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control, I think it’s a responsibility of our government to determine: Is there a change of course we should take?"

CNN Late Edition: Wolf's New Spine

Oh, no! W? Karl? Dick? Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is a cut-and-runner too1 Here's what he said to Blitzer: "The American people are not going to continue to support, sustain a policy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war. So we need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq, because the entire Middle East, Wolf, is more combustible than it’s been probably since 1948, and more dangerous, and we’re in the middle of it."

That one made the wire services too.

But the highlight of Late Edition was a pair of back-to-back interviews with Howard Dean and Ken Mehlman.

Dean on talk of an Iraq timeline: "So you know, I do believe what Jim Baker says, that we ought to talk to our adversaries. But I think that we've seen these propaganda videos in the past. We don't know if this is real or not."

Blitzer played video of Dick: "If the Democrats take control, American families could face an immense tax increase and the economy would sustain a major hit." Dean: "That's nonsense. We have no interest in doing that. In fact, 80 percent of Americans have seen their income go down. The reason the economy doesn't work for the president is only his friends have benefited from increased earnings and corporate earnings and so forth. What we're interested in doing is building a health care system that works for everybody. Initially, I think what we'll do is raise the minimum wage, which the president refused to do without giving tax breaks to his contributors."

Blitzer asked dean about rolling back tax cuts -- and Dean seemed to surprise Wolf: "The principal tax cuts that we need to eliminate are the tax breaks that the president gave to ExxonMobil and the other oil companies, and the secret tax breaks they gave in the middle of the night to HMOs and insurance companies. That would save us $36 billion a year. We plan to make sure that middle- class people pay less taxes, not more -- AND that they make more money."

Blitzer was obsessed with taxes, so Dean shifted the paradigm: "[What] I'm interested in is ethical reform and honesty in government. I'm interested in balancing the budget, which we haven't -- which the Republicans have made a mess of. I'm interested in restoring moral values to the Congress of the United States. Those are the things that I think you're going to see high on the Democrats' agenda, should we win three weeks from now."

Dean savaged the North Korea debacle: "I would argue that the Democrats are likely to be much stronger own defense than Republicans. I think they're weak on defense. They talk tough to scare the American people at election time, and in the meantime don't do anything. Look at the U.N. resolution. Big thing I saw on all the talk shows this morning, Josh [sic] Bolten [Wolf did correct him -- Dean meant John Bolton], oh what a great U.N. resolution. The Chinese have already, before the ink is dry, said they're not going to search any North Korean trucks going into North Korea. This a _toothless administration_. They have _not_ defended the United States of America, and we need a tough and smart defense policy, not just talk tough at election time."

Blitzer brought up Bush's ridiculous assertion that Democrats want to wait for America to be attacked again. Dean: "That's George Bush having been basically incompetent in managing the budget, incompetent in managing natural disasters, incompetent in -- his party being incompetent in managing attacks on children -- or seductions of children in the Congress. And now incompetent in defending America. They talk big at election time. They don't deliver. We want is the policy of Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt and Jack Kennedy: Be tough on defense, but be smart. Be able to tell the difference.... Listen to our military, which nobody in the administration did other than Colin Powell, who was fired for his trouble. We can do better than this, and we will do better than what's been going on in the last six years, both in defending America, in having a real economy where 80 percent of the Americans benefit, not get hurt. And in responding to natural disasters the way Bill Clinton and James Lee Witt would have, had they been in power when Hurricane Katrina hit."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how it's done. And Wold was neither playing the part of a GOP shill nor throwing softballs this Sunday.

The real fun began, however, when Mehlman turned up, with that big, smarmy "Nice to be here on friendly territory" grin on his face.

It didn't last long.

First, Wolf asked Mehlman about the Foley scandal -- "The widespread assumption is that there is some sort of cover-up going on for Mark Foley" -- and would not let Mehlman get away with the talking point answer, "[We] could not have been more aggressive [in dealing with Foley]." Blitzer dogged Mehlman -- on the phony "Democrats knew" meme, on the litany of editorials, including the National Review, all but calling for a total purge of the highest echelon of the GOP, on who really knew about the e-mails and IMs and when, on the President in effect snubbing Foley two years ago (did the white House know?). Wolf even asked if because it was widely perceived and assumed that Foley was gay, was that the reason? Ken said "absolutely not" in a huffy, high-dudgeon tone we've never heard him assume on TV.

But Wolf wasn't finished. He confronted Mehlman about the blockbuster story in the Sunday LA Times reporting on Mehlman doing Jack Abramoff's bidding before he became party chairman, back when he worked in the White House. Mehlman's answer was something one hears a lot in criminal and civil court to avoid answering a question honestly: "I also don't recall the specifics of this matter involving Mr. Stayman... I don't recall that specific matter that he came to me for... while I don't recall it specifically, I have seen some articles... I don't recall this specific matter."

Was someone prepped by his party's legal counsel?

Mehlman looked as if steam was coming out his ears by the time Wolf grilled him about David Kuo's new book "Tempting Faith" in which Kuo reveals that the highest echelon of the White House seems to have nothing but contempt for evangelical Christian leaders.

In fact, Mehlman actually appeared to be sweating as the interview wrapped up, with Mehlman making ridiculous predictions about GOP victory in the House of representatives.

Right, Ken. And we can win the war in Iraqnam!

Universally acclaimed as boldly shrill members of the reality-based community, the Bloggers of Corrente can be reached off the record, on the Q.T., and very hush hush at their highly fortified headquarters, The Mighty Corrente Building.

Search the APJ Site Archive