Face the nation / Rice, Dean, Bumiller

This is the first time I've fired up The Tube in about three years. In fact, if I think back, the last time I had the TV on was to watch the twin towers go down. Oh yeah, and watching the Gilmore girls once when I was really sick. It was the only thing on, I swear! So, the casing is covered with dust. And no matter how I twiddle the rabbit ears, the snow on the screen is as heavy as the snow outside--too many tall buildings in Center City, Philly. No, I don't have cable....

PREVIEW: Dean said that if what Scooter Libby says is true--that his superiors told him to leak--then Cheney "cannnot remain in office."

MORE TO COME. I'm going to make my way out through the drifts and see if there's any place open where I can achieve a state of caffeination, and file the rest of this story.

UPDATE Yes! They're open! In a blizzard that's still going on! My local, Hausbrandt, totally rules. Plus, they don't burn their coffee and the WiFi is free.

Dramatis Personae

SCHIEFFER Bob Schieffer, CBS news anchor

ELIZABETH BUMILLER Girl reporter from The World's Greatest Newspaper (not!)

CONDI RICE Bush's Secretary of State

HOWARD DEAN Chair of the Democratic National Committee

Condi Rice
In some ways, the snow on the screen was an advantage this morning, because all I had to go on was the voices. I'm sure that Condi looks confident, and her words are well-chosen and on message, but her voice is high-pitched, breathy, and very stressed. I think she questions her own adequacy and the pointy shoes are over-compensation. Then again, maybe it's just that her feet hurt.

SCHIEFFER The cartoons.

RICE Outrage... Press freedom... Responsibility.. Killing innocent people
is unacceptable. "Sistani spoke out againt this." Iran by contrast prints
anti-Israel cartoons. These are "incited." A question of how governments respond
not people.

I have to say that the cartoon controversy strikes me as a very smart move by Iran, obviously designed to make it hard for Bush to get Israeli help in taking out Iran's nuclear program.

[Troll prophylactic: The Iranian regime, like all theocracies, is a Bad Thing.]

RICE We would draw a distinction between peaceful protests and incitement to violence; that is beyond the pale.

SCHIEFFER Kofi Annan says there's no evidence of incitement.

RICE These are regimes that do not permit spontaneous demonstrations.

SCHIEFFER Why would Kofi Annan say what he said?

RICE I don't know. I won't get into that argument, we have the same view. Governments need to tamp down and not stir up. If publishing cartoons denying the holocaust isn't incitement I don't know what it.

The "need to" locution really grates on me, as it must on other. "What X needs to do is..." The Republicans consistently take a rhetorical stance that infantilizes the other; or, in less hifalutin' language, these guys treat everybody else like five-year-olds. Probably that "strong Daddy" frame Lakoff speaks of. But it gets old, doesn't it?

BUMILLER What's our strategy on Iran? Isn't it inevitable that Iran will get nuclear weapons?

RICE That's not our view.. Robust international response in the Security Council... Unity demonstrated in recent weeks... China, Brazil, India, they are all saying to Iran that you can make peaceful use of nuclear power but not weapons...

BUMILLER Is the pressure cornering Iran?

RICE What's pushing Iran into a corner is Iran's own behavior.

Last year, people thought the US was problem [I wonder why], but we supported the various proposals to demonstrate to the world that Iran is isolated....

We don't have a problem with the Iranian people but with the Iranian regime. The regime could take any of the several proposal on the table, have a path to peaceful energy, and be "back in community of responsible states."

Returning the United States to the "commmunity of responsible states" is exactly what the Democrats want to do and this crowd can't. After WMDs, Abu Ghraib, prison camps...

SCHEIFFER The Iran question moved to UN, but you slowed down the UN taking action at the request of Russia. More and more, Putin takes positions that differ from the United States. For example, Putin says he'll invite Hamas to Russia. Are you satisfied with the way you are handling him?

RICE In general, we have good relations with Putin. On Iran, good cooperation with Russi. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little. A delay gave time for the Russian proposal. The wanted to look at what the IEAA was saying, we said, it has to go before the Security Council, ultimately we got agreement.

On Hamas, Russian says not Hamas is not a terrorist entity. However, Russia is also a member of the Quartet, which has signed onto a statement that that a Palestinian government must accept Isarel right to exist, give up
violence, and accept a two state agreement. Russia has agreed to this.

SCHIEFFER Israel says this is a stab in the back. Is Russia trying to reestablish its former position in the middle east?

RICE We're concentrating on making the message to Hamas consistent. How can you have a two state solution if you believe in violence?

BUMILLER Did Bush misjudge Putin when he looked in Putin's eyes and saw his soul?

RICE The President retains a good relationship with Puian. We are concerned with democratization. This is not the Soviet Union. I was Soviet Specialist [her voice strengthened and became more confident here], what we see bears no relation to the Soviet Union.

But clearly,the use of energy as used in Ukraine, for example, is a problm. Russia is President of the G8 now. We hope for fitting behavior.

SCHIEFFER Does Putin share the values of the G8?

RICE Putin is a Russian patriot who believes in a more open Russia. I don't see anything positive to be gained by the isolation of Russia. The challenge to the Russian polity is to integrate G8 values.

Bottom line: Condi's weak. That means Bush likes his cabinet members weak. Probably Condi's only asset is her relationship with Bush.

Howard Dean
Howard Dean's voice has deepened and changed since I saw him in 2004. It's an improvement. Dean too stays on message, doesn't let the questioners shake him, and doesn't get irritated, or raise his voice. Here's a man who can learn, and who keeps getting better at what he does. Somehow, I don't get the feeling Dean wears pointy shoes--or needs to.

SCHIEFFER What would the Democrats do about Iraq?

DEAN This President is weak on defense. North Korea nothing done for 5 years, Iran nothing done for five years, and the President sent us to Iraq not Iran. In Iraq no armor "and on and on it goes." As far as Iran, "no option should be off the table."

Reiteration of the Republican talking point on "options"--which commits nobody to anything--without any expression of support. Nice little piece of jujitsu.

[NOTE: I'm not sure whether Dean actually used that insanely irritating formulation "this President" that the Republicans used for Clinton, but if they aren't I think they ought to. In every turn of phrase, the Democrats must signal that Republicans are not fit to govern, and have forfeited the respect that their high offices would otherwise have entitled them to.]

BUMILLER Some say that the Democrats are losing their voice. Do you agree?

DEAN We have an agenda:

1. Honesty and open government
2. A strong national defense based on truth
3. Jobs in this country based on energy independence
4. A health care system that works for every American
5. Strong public education.

And he rattles them off, just like that. Nice work. Short and concise. Is this a rollout of the Democratic 2006 message? Readers?

BUMILLER Do you think your message will have a hard time getting traction?

DEAN Senator Reid worked hard with his caucus to secure agreement. If we are the party of change we will win. And we'll get our troops "out of harm's way in Iraq" and focus on Iran and North Korea...

Sounds a lot like Murtha...

SCHIEFFER The President and the Vice President suggest that the election should be about national security, and that eavesdropping should be on the table.

DEAN The Vice President was leaking national security information in time of war. The Vice President has no credibility on national security. If it turns out that Libby was ordered to leak for political reasons, "this Vice President may not be a Vice President."

SCHIEFFER [Brief explanation of Plame affair.]

DEAN The President said two years ago that anyone who was involved in the leak should be fired. Now if it turns out that the Vice President has knowledge of the leak, he should no longer be Vice President.

SCHIEFFER What's the remedy?

DEAN I suggest that first we need to find out if this is true. If it is true, then the Vice President cannot remain in office.

SCHIEFFER But should he step down? What course of action do you recommmend?

DEAN First, let's find out if it is true.

SCHIEFFER Impeachment?

DEAN First, let's find out if it is true. Libby was indicted, and said his superior told him to leak classified information. If that's true, his superior cannot remain in office. Cheney is Libby's only superior.

Nice work again. "Let's find out if it is true" is a statement that is useful for any Republican scandal (and there are so very, very many of them), and it ties into the notion of truth-seeking through evidence and reasoning--see points 1 and 2 in the agenda above. Also, though Schieffer tried to sucker Dean into using the I-word, Dean was having none of it. Finally, it was wonderful to hear Dean say "the Vice President has no credibility on national security." That exact sentence should be used by all Democrat whenever they're discussing national security.

It's also interesting to contrast "let's find out if it's true" with Republican behavior during the scandals they themselves ginned up during the Clinton years, when literally anything and everything the VRWC said was treated as gospel, by Lizzie Bumiller, among others, no matter how ludicrous.

BUMILLER Ken Mehlman says that Hillary is too angry. Do you agree?

DEAN I don't want to talk about 2008, I have to be the referee in that race. Let's leave Clinton aside. But there are some things Hillary said I can agree with... Recall Clinton said Bush was the worst President.... Bungled the response to Katrina and then mislead the American people, mislead in Iraq, mislead on prescription drugs...

BUMILLER But [laughing contemptuously] is Hillary too angry?

DEAN I won't talk about the 2008 race. Mehlman was upset because this President's record of accomplishment is very short.

This "angry" meme is like a constant low-grade infection in the American body politic. I would prefer to see Dean address it head on.

The segue into "mislead" was a pleasure to see, though. Seems like we've settled on "mislead" instead of "lie." Excellent! Because now we can dust off all our old "Dear Misleader" snark.

But Dean might have been more effective if he had said something more like: "With this President misleading on Iraq, Katrina, prescription drugs, and on and on and on, it's only natural that people might get a little irritated. Some people take being misled very seriously. I don't know what was in Hillary's mind and heart, of course. But I agree with what she said about the President continuing to mislead."

Late Edition / Blitzer, Hegel, Leiberman, Allawi, And Representing Egypt, Israel, the Palestinians...

Gasbaggery indeed.

No longer the latest in Sunday talk, since CNN moved the program up to compete with MTP and "This Week," Wolf hosted a full house, mainly from abroad, sandwiched around two Senators clearly picked for their Tweedle-de-dum symmetry.

The headline for the two hours is no doubt this comment from Chuck Hagel, cast as a Republican maverick to Joe Lieberman's version of a Democratic one, an almost casual remark which must have made the good Senator from Connecticut gulp:

We must be very careful what we’re doing here, because in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven’t gone the way the administration said and others said it was going to go. In fact, I think we’re in more trouble today than we’ve ever been in Iraq...

Wolf's first guest was the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, being everything you'd expect a Danish Prime Minister to be, handsome, intelligent, measured, and as scintillating as a Hans Christian Lumbye polka.

PM Rasmussen mouthed all the correct words, the sacred twin freedoms of speech and the press; then again, no freedom sans responsibility; no, no, Danes don't see this as a clash of civilizations; no, no, no, Danes aren't reluctant to welcome immigrants, and yes, there does seem to have been an over reaction on the part of Muslims around the world.

Next, Wolf ushered on the matched set of Senators, though Hagel was to prove himself a good deal less tweedle-de-dum, both Senators gave a pretty good imitation of the Tweedle twins in responding to the "cartoon uproar."

Both were all in favor of our western freedoms, and of responsibility in their use, in these "combustible times," as Hagel put it. Both roundly criticized those who would seek to fan the flames of Muslim outrage, like say, Syria and Iran, special emphasis on Iran's naughty role here from Lieberman, along with the smug observation that in the face of similarly outrageous cartoons aimed at Jews or Christians, neither riots nor violence ensued. No one thought to point out, of course, how difficult it is to think of a recent instance of a Christian or otherwise Western country being invaded by a Muslim one. Indeed, what was totally lacking from these two hours, as from almost every other discussion of this subject I've listened to, any impulse to ask what would seem like an obvious question: is there a relationship between the stunning eruption of deadly fury anger by Muslims we've seen displayed around the world, and the response of the Bush administration to 9/11, i.e., their version of the War On Terror?

In fact, Lieberman went in the opposite direction:

It should tell us a few things. One is that the war against terrorism is a world war, that the worldwide reaction stimulated by the extremists leading to a point of people shouting, "behead the cartoonist, death to America" -- America had nothing to do with it. In fact, our president and secretary of state condemned the cartoon as offensive -- reminds us this is a world war.

I want to say one other word. We have said, and I believe we're right, that this war against terrorism is mostly being fought out within the Muslim world. And the question is to strengthen the moderate voices. Where are the moderate voices? (all quotes are from my notes, no transcript being available yet)

Lieberman did point to a few such voices, and rightly lauded the Muslim-American community for it's loyalty to American values, even while many were appalled by the cartoons themselves.

And speaking of Iran, Wolf wondered if the "use of force," was "on the table." While acknowledging such is always the case in like situations, Senator Hagel came down hard on the side of caution:

But I think we are a long, long way -- I hope we are a long way from seriously considering a military option, because I don't think it would result in the objective here.

While acknowledging the genuine threat a nuclear Iran would pose not merely to us, but to much of the rest of the world, and praising the administration for it's willingness to work with other countries for a change, and through international channels, lest the administration has any notion that the run-up to the Iraqi invasion is a model for gaining acceptance for the use of a military option, Hagel made it clear, he won't be on board.

It may well be that the United States is going to have to find some way to engage the Iranians off channel. That doesn't mean negotiate. That doesn't mean diplomatically recognize them.

But if we are to get to the core of the issue here, the Iranians are surrounded by, in their minds -- reverse the optics for a minute. When you're talking with people you always have to -- Israel with nuclear capacity, the Paks, the Indians. And sure, they're going to have some sense of their own national security interest. I'm not defending that. And I found it very interesting today, too, and we need to be careful with this and work with those inside Iran on this issue.

Former President Rafsanjani, the former speaker of the parliament, said some things today -- yesterday about everybody calm down here, let's talk this through. That's the more responsible way to do it. And I think some incentives within the framework of how we deal with Iran is the way we will get to the objective.

Blitzer immediately pointed out that Rafsanjani wasn't elected, music to Senator Lieberman's ears. Again, no one ventured to ask what pressures brought to bear by us might have contributed to the election of President Ahmadinejad, but Joe took as his text, the extreme nature of Iran's new President - this man's presence in Iran makes it "another front in our war against radical Islamist terrorism, because Ahmadinejad has proclaimed himself, in some sense, the leader of those forces."

Going to be interesting to see how, with the help of Lieberman, the administration is going to be able to paint a duly elected President of a country which is acting strictly within its own borders as a terrorist and his country, a terrorist state, but I don't doubt they'll find a way.

Any doubts you might have had that Lieberman has learned absolutely nothing from our experience in Iraq, you can set aside:

And yes, I agree with John McCain, in the last analysis, if we're that serious about the danger that Iran with nuclear weapons poses to the rest of the world, and most particularly to us, the United States of America, we've got to leave the military option on the table.

Think it's fair to say that John McCain isn't exactly a quick learner, either.

It was in the context of Iran that Hagel made his headline-worthy statement about Iraq, when Wolf asked Hagel if he was sure that our intelligence agencies had it right about Iran's nuclear program.

I go back to the conversation we just had here, the three of us, over the last five minutes, about Iran. We must be very careful what we're doing here, because, in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven't gone the way the administration said, and others said, it was going to go. In fact, I think we're in more trouble today than we've ever been in Iraq, and that limits our options in Iran, it limits our foreign policy options everywhere.

We need to think through where we're going. We need to think through consequences. We talk about sanctions. Well, sanctions, that's fine. Where would that lead? Where would that go? We've got to bore down here a little bit more in our thoughtful analysis.

Intelligence is a very key part of that. But it's imperfect. We don't have all the pieces. One of the -- I think one of the results of us having no relationship with Iran, when all of our allies do, is that the intelligence we get is pretty much third-hand. We don't have any presence in Iran.

To sum up: Chuck Hagel thinks the last thing we ought to be thinking about is doing anything with a military option but leave it on the table, while Senator Lieberman is forging yet another test of foreign policy seriousness by daring America to be unafraid of an option that will probably result in a 100 years war with a billion Muslims. Good one, Joe.

If the subject of intelligence is raised, can the issue of those NSA warrantless wiretaps be far behind? Give Wolf limited credit, he did use the word "warrantless," but he didn't use the word "domestic," although he did use the word, "surveillence." Once. Come on, you couldn't seriously have thought he was going to put the two together?

Here's the context: Hagel is the cover story on the NYTimes magazine this Sunday, which provided the explicit set-up for Wolf to pair off Hagel and Lieberman as Senators who remain stubbornly independent of their parties.

Hagel was a good deal more impressive here than Lieberman, making the point that, though a Republican, his first responsibility is to his constituents, the country as a whole, and to the constitution. Lieberman, presented with that loathsome statement he made about Democrats needing to accept the fact that Bush is president for the next three years, made a meaningless distinction between being critical for partisan reasons, which is bad, and being responsible and non-partisan, which seems to mean, one simply doesn't criticize the President, especially not on his foreign policy.

Which led Wolf to the NSA:

BLITZER: Are you on board with the president's decision to go ahead and authorize these warrantless wiretaps without getting any congressional authority?

HAGEL: Quick answer is no. We have a law on the books. It has worked. But more to the point, we are a nation that not only respects our laws, but we are a nation rooted in law. And that foundation has been built by the Constitution of the United States.

For over 200 years, we've protected civil liberties of Americans and our national security interests. We can do both. We have done both.

I think we need to accommodate, at a time when technology has changed, threats have changed, a new way to respond to these threats.

edit

But any president can't just unilaterally, arbitrarily say, We believe we have the authority and the power, and you go around a law that has worked very well.

Interestingly, Wolf didn't ask Leiberman his view, and the Democratic Senator (I have to remind myself) didn't indicate he had anything to say on the matter.

Katrina and her discontents rounded out the Senatorial portion of the program; quoting from a Wa Po article that states a Republican report is about to come out which says Michael Chertoff was detached from what was going on, and that the White House failed to engage the President in what was going on - the quote didn't make much more sense than that, Wolf then asked Lieberman if his Senate committee investigation will show the same thing, to which Lieberman was only too happy to say that yes, that is exactly what he and Senator Collins are finding.

The rest was a perfect example of Lieberman's conception of not being partisan, which seems to translate into an almost automatic need to exempt the President from any responsibility for his own administration's actions, i.e., after a long list of the failures of the administration in responding to a predicted disaster, Lieberman's final conclusion was this:

I'll tell you, the president ought to be outraged. This -- our whole apparatus failed to protect the people of New Orleans. And next time, God forbid, it could be a terrorist attack, and there's not going to be a warning from the weather service.

We got a lot to do, and we better do it together and quickly.

Couldn't agree more, Joe, but I wonder how you've managed not to notice that this White House has no desire to work together, not with anyone who isn't already in their pocket.

2nd hour had Allawi talking about Iraq, and three Middle East Ambassadors; summary to follow.

Meet The Press / Daschle, Roberts, Harman and Hoekstra

Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law!

MTP opens with two video clips, the second one is from Bush's January 23, 2006 speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan.:

...when people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law'. If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?"

Followed by a very audible "heh" while he leans forward on the podium and smirks at the audience.

This Contra Costa [CA] Times
article has that quote preceded by "It's amazing.."

Yeah, amazing stuff. Who are the "people" who say to Bush that he was breaking the law? Rove? Andy Card? That would be truly amazing. What Bush means is "when I hear that some people are saying..."

Bush's embarassingly poor command of the English language coupled with his exaggerated Texas accent and his sarcastic posturing make him sound like a dimwitted Cowboy Movie villain sippin' some whiskey at the Saloon.

Are You Being Briefed?

Right after the clip, Pumpkinhead [Russert] launches aggressively into the questioning starting with Daschle:

Russert: "...were you briefed and to what extent?"

Daschle's answer is rambling and far too long. "I can't get into the details...".

He tries to make the point that he knows far more now about the surveillance program from the news articles than he knew after he was briefed 2-3 years ago. So, no, he was not fully briefed at all. Good point, but poorly executed.

Tom Daschle's way of speaking on TV always annoyed me. From the days when he would give the Democratic "response" to the State of the Union. Then, as now, he sounds patronizing. Smiling as he speaks slowly and softly. He needs to hire Howard Dean's Media Trainer.

I Object!

Russert: In those briefings, did anyone object to the plan?

If this isn't a GOP/White House talking point already, it will be soon. "If this NSA surveillance program is so illegal and terrible, why didn't you Democrats say so at the time? Why didn't you try to do anything about it?".

Somewhere in his rambling response Daschle mentions Sen. Rockefeller's letter. A concise response would have been to say "Sen. Rockefeller raised objections to the Vice President and he was ignored".

Sen. Pat Roberts follows the Right-Wing storyline by saying his recollection of the briefings is that nobody raised any objections. He says the briefers would ask the briefees if they had any questions or concerns.

Luckily for Daschle, Pumpkinhead helps him out by reading Rockefeller's July 2003 letter.

Tell No One About What You Have Seen Here

Roberts responds with a stream of absolute horsehockey:

Sen. Roberts: Well, you know, that letter was kept in a safe for three years.

What is he trying to imply here? That Rockefeller waited three years to send the letter? This is demonstrably false. That Rockefeller should have taken the letter out of the safe and leaked it to the press sooner?

According to Rockefeller he wasn't even allowed to tell his fellow Senators about it. It was classified information that had to be kept super-secret.

These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.

Roberts goes on to say that Representatives and Senators have a "variety of tools at their disposal" if they're upset with the program. He mentions that they could "de-authorize the program" or write an amendment. He says that "feigning helplessness" is not a useful tool. Daschle has a look of quizzical amazement on his face, but tries to smile at the same time.

Democrats could never have de-authorized the program all by themselves, without the cooperation of the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee (Roberts). It would be especially hard to introduce an amendment on the floor if they were forbidden from even mentioning the program's existence.

This is a lesson Democrats repeatedly fail to learn about their "go along to get along with the Bushies" strategy. The GOP/White House gets what it wants, Dems get nothing in return and when things go horribly wrong (like, Iraq, fr'instance) they turn around and say "you guys signed off on this, or at least you didn't try to stop us, so you're just as responsible as we are".

Why Didn't You Say So Sooner?

Rep. Harman: I talked to absolutely no one about it, because I would have been violating about three federal criminal statutes had I done so.

Pumpkinhead grills the Democrats about why they didn't singlehandedly shut down the prorgram or why they didn't raise more objections, sooner, to more people. Harman responds with a good point:

She could not even ask her staff or outside experts to advise her on the constitutionality of the surveillance program under penalty of law. Only after Bush spoke about it after the NYT article was published, she began to have people research the legal issues. That is why the Democrats didn't speak out in public about it then and why they are doing so now.

Jane Harman looks and talks like someone who you don't want to mess with. Despite a couple defensive assurances that she supports the program and the war on terra, she was direct and convincing.

Above the Law

Pumpkinhead changes the focus to FISA.

Roberts: The President has the constitutional authority, it rises above any law passed by Congress.

Roberts rattles off the GOP FISA talking points:

- It's hard work

Roberts makes a hand gesture to indicate the thickness of a FISA warrant application. Daschle shakes his head.

- It's old

Why not try to revise it to account for modern technology?

- It's legal anyway because the President has the constitutional authority to operate outside the law in time of "war"

Says who? Why don't we let the congress and the judiciary branch make that determination rather than take the executive branch's word for it?

- It's too slow

Daschle retorts (sheepishly) that surveillance can begin immediately if a retroactive application is made within 72 hours.

- It's only for intercepting communications between foreign terrorists and people in the US

What about US to US communications? The Senators got close to it in last week's Abu Gonzales hearings, but I don't think they ever asked him, specifically if ALL surveillance in the US is done through FISA warrants. This would be a great question for Scotty "Sucka MC" McClellan.

- It's authorized by the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) signed by Congress after 9/11

Pumpkinhead reads from Daschle's December 23, 2005 WaPo op-ed where he describes how he and Congress refused to add the words "in the United States" to the AUMF so that the authorization would only apply to operations OUTSIDE of the US.

The online video seems to die about half way through the show and the transcript still isn't up. So, from memory:

- Pumpkinhead plays the clip of Bush's Buffalo, NY speech where he says "every time you hear wire... tap, we're talkin' about gettin' a court order" and asks if Bush was misleading the American public. Harman and Daschle hem and haw their way out of responding to the question. A blown opportunity. How can there be any other answer than a resounding "yes"?

- Dick Cheney has asserted that Congress "leaks like a sieve". Harman got right into the Plame case and Pumpkinhead referenced the Murray Waas article revealing that Dick Cheney authorized Scooter to leak classified information about Wilson's wife's identity. Dick has no place saying anything about no leaks.

- Also the issue of the White House and the Pentagon's selective misuse of pre-Iraq war intelligence came up in reference Paul Pillar's article. He is the the intelligence community's former senior analyst for the Middle East.

Russert grilled (lightly, more of a sautee) Roberts about phase two of the Intelligence Committee's report on how WMD intelligence was used. He reminded Roberts that he had promised on a previous appearance to deliver this report. Roberts reiterated his promise to complete this important report sometime before the sun burns out.

This Week (Stephanopolous) / Rice, Biden, Swann Round Table

Meta-gas du jour: Democrats are absolutely right about the Imperial Presidency, unlawfullness of domestic surveillance, Republican inability to govern--but it doesn't matter because the Nation Is Not With Them (i.e. doesn't care, or in the case of surveillance actively supports Der Leader) about these issues, and besides, although Republicans can't govern for shit, the Republicans Always Win on Message.

Now on to the gory details....

Smilin' Georgie S. opens with Condaleeza Rice. Either they've adjusted her meds or she has "grown into the job" as they say, although of course in the Republican view the job is Giving Good Television, not necessarily being an effective diplomat.

On Iran: We have a real coalition this time! Really! And everybody, not just us, sez Iran must back off the nuke weapons program. If they want peaceful nuclear power they should buy it from Russia or the Europeans, because we can't trust them with the toys--er, I think she meant "tools"--of basic nuclear research because they might play badly with them and wind up with bombs just by oopsie.

On the Sunday (UK) Telegraph story (which interestingly enough is being reported heavily all over the fucking world except the US) on Pentagon plans for a "devastating strike" in Iran's nuclear site, she in essence confirmed every word, falling back on the "President must keep all options on the table" line. Message to Security Council: Do what we want so we don't have to do this. Stop us before we bomb again.

On the Cartoon Riots--Heavy push on Iran, Syria. Riots government-instigated, because nobody does anything in those countries without government control. Unworthy of comment were the peaceful demonstrations--which I note came to Philadelphia yesterday, so Mayor Street had best watch his ass--all over the world. Syria Syria Syria, Iran Iran Iran. Oops, wait a sec while I whap the side of my head, obviously a needle is stuck somewhere.

On Hillary's quote noting that the US "Can't seem to catch the tallest man in Afghanistan"--Slight fluster here, Condi annoyed at Uppity Woman. We may not have caught him exactly but he's On The Run which is just about as good. Weak attempt to play "Clinton should have caught him in the '90s" card and complete failure to mention any even earlier time when Osama was our buddy and we sent him weapons and stuff. We are shocked, shocked at this lapse.

Closed with a "We look to a hopeful future" bit of blather about spreading democracy and women's rights. Excuse me while I go swallow then hack up a hairball, which is the only response I can think of to that line.

On to Guest No. 2: Sen. Joseph Biden (D-MBNA). Mr. Talks Great, Votes..Eh, Not So Much. He was on his game today though, so give him a B+:

George S: The public favors Democratic positions on every single issue except National Security. Can you fight this perception?

Joe B: Yeppers. Look at Bush's own speech ("Axis of Evil") then look at where we are with North Korea and Iran. Iraq is in chaos. Our ports and shipping aren't protected. Their focus is out of focus. Bush's own Inspector Generals' report on the $9 billion missing in Iraq, his own IG calling the situation "chaos". Failing grades across the board from the 9-11 Commission. Cutting $1 billion from local law enforcement in the just-released budget. Under Bush's priorities we are not as secure.

Biden Bullet Point: George S. asks about Iran, is there anything that could have been done.

Biden: There's something we can do NOW: Prepare the nation for oil sanctions against Iran. Our allies [unspoken dig at Condi's assertion that they really are "allies"][the word "China" comes to mind] must join in to support the oil boycott to keep Iran from just selling it elsewhere. George S appeared severely startled by this proposal but couldn't follow up as they were out of time.

[Skipping the Lynn Swann interview as it is of primarily local PA interest. Only item of national note was a query about wtf blacks should vote Republican. Swann first tried to pitch the notion that most blacks are now middle class and should therefore vote their money not their principles, but didn't seem to even believe that himself. Then he pointed out that you could get WAY more attention as a suck-up token Republican, citing Colin and Condi and that loon Steel of Maryland and a number of Cabinet appointees, some of whom are not even under indictment yet, as examples of the shining future Black Republican Tokens could expect. Of course he did not phrase it quite that way.]

On the Round table, things were not quite as grim as one would anticipate with a lineup of David Gergen, Donna Brazille, and the never-goes-the-fuck-away George Will.

Gergen was his usual milquetoasty self--his major message was that while of course Republicans were wrong on everything it didn't matter because Republicans always "win on message." George Will chimed in to agree that Democrats had a good case on the surveillance issue but should drop it because "the country isn't with them and won't be," nobody cares if the Gummit listens in on their phone calls.

Brazille made a much better than usual comeback on this, reiterating that Dems "would bring the battle" and "would fight on national security subjects".

Um, hint, Donna? This is more of the "yeah, this is what we're gonna do" crap. You are supposed to use these occasions to, like, fucking DO the crap. In fairness she then tried, using what I hope will be a Democratic Talking Point next week and thereafter, that Bush Could Have Done This Shit Legally But Didn't.

Gergen blathered something about the Gang of 14 should solve the wiretap business and that Democrats have nothing to offer going forward. This writer took opportunity to massage hand cramp.

George Will, who God help us may be what passes for a Principled Conservative these days, creaked up onto his hind legs to say some Rude Things at this point. The words "Monarchial Assertions" passed his withered lips in reference to his president. The FISA proposals and indeed the Patriot Act essentially allow the executive to shut down the other 2 branches of government.

George Steph jumps in to agree that the country doesn't care about the government listening in on their communications. (Hmm, does it seem to anybody else that there was quite a project to say this over and over and over again today? Hmmm.)

George Will got in a couple of other PC cracks on other subjects. Noted that the Brownie hearings and other reports confirm that Bush was just lying his ass off with "there was no way anybody could anticipate" a disaster with New Orleans. National Weather Service gave warning 56 hours before landfall of precisely that. And that the "we didn't know" line after it happened "lacked truthfullness" as there were 28 recorded reports of disaster the first day.

Gergen now notes that a House committee is due to hand in a 600 page report Monday eviscerating the Federal response to Katrina. Hastens to add that while this "calls into question Republican competence"...they're still Better On Message so Democrats won't be able to use this against them.

The Funnies were relatively weak this week, although he did run Colbert's take on Gonzales line that "Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt all used electronic surveilance against their enemies." A good laugh was had by all.