Flush twice... it's a long way to Sally Quinn's place!

Pundit Pap
for June 20, 2004
Clinton-bashing Returns
by the Pundit Pap Team
JJ Balzer | Sherrie Gogerty Geeting

June 20, 2004 (apj.us) -- Every one of the Sunday shows decided to split their time between two topics: the infuriating findings of the independent 9/11 Commission and Bill Clinton's autobiography, due out on Tuesday. Naturally, the sloppy, lazy celebrity press corps fell back on the bad habits they showed during the Clinton Administration and especially the Lewinsky flap, namely character assassination and adherence to a narrative that sounded as if it were written by Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. How dare Clinton criticize Starr! How dare he say that he apologized and sought forgiveness for a personal lapse that should have had him ejected from the White House!

It was an entirely expected reminder of why most people no longer trust the "liberal" press. No balance, no genuine analysis, and especially Novak.

The one Republican who showed up this weekend to not talk 9/11, Sen. Bill Frist (R-serial kitty killer), was on FOX News Sunday to push opposition to stem cell research and try to bolster opposition to gay marriage, which -- let's face it -- just isn't setting anyone on fire, including Evangelicals, as a wedge issue. And opposing stem cell research by claiming that scientists are "wrong"? How can they be wrong when we just begun to understand the full potential of stem cells yet? Scientists are supposed to test ideas, not judge their validity before actual scientific research, Dr. Frist. You're playing politics with science -- maybe someone should look into whether or not doing that might put your license to practice medicine into jeopardy. And let's not forget that Nancy Reagan's none too happy with you and your party, Billy-Bob. She snubbed an invitation to the GOP Hatefest in New York. Wonder why...

Meet the Press
Fair'n'balanced 9/11, or Clinton Was Right to Bomb in Sudan

Watching Meet the Press this weekend was more of a challenge than usual. No, it wasn't because of Tim Russert's return to the Clinton-bashing ways so familiar during the 1990s. We fully expected that. It was because our local digital cable service was on the fritz most of the morning -- serious signal breakup and a few occasions of total signal loss during the first half of the show had this viewer tearing his hair out.

That first segment featured 9/11 Commission members Richard Ben-Veniste and John Lehman, and at least that segment, teased with Russert's question, "Why were we not prepared?" was certainly worthwhile.

Russert set the tone for the segment by citing a WaPo editorial describing a 9/11 Commission rife with "a litany of errors and miscommunications by aviation and air defense authorities during the attacks," then played the sound clip from a teleconference that summed up a morning of bungled response:

FAA Command Center: Do we want to think about scrambling aircraft?
FAA HQ: God -- I don't know!
FAA CC: That's a decision SOMEBODY's gonna have to make, probably in the next ten minutes.
FAA HQ: Y'know, everybody just left the room.

Lehman and Ben-Veniste gave the obvious reaction -- the failure to be prepared for this catastrophe was breathtaking, with Ben-Veniste adding that the FAA was out of the loop and intel that might prompt them to act"... never got to the FAA in a way that they could use it to harden the cockpits, to alert the pilots, to have the screeners look for weapons, ratchet down what people could bring on airplanes. It never happened!" Why? "The intelligence community was just too stovepiped. People owned their own information." Ben-Veniste didn't come out and say turf battles (FBI vs. CIA, but that was the implication.

After a brief back-and-forth about who really ordered the shoot-down of hijacked planes (Bush or Cheney), with both guests saying there's no paper trail but no reason not to believe their testimony, Tim said that the White House had reviewed the preliminary staff report and would approve the final report; is that appropriate? (That was about as close to "hard-hitting" as Russert got.) Ben-Veniste explained that the White House has to reviews reports to determine if any classified information should be redacted, and while they objected to some comments the conclusions of the panel were unaffected.

Then, Russert improbably asked about the heroism of the passengers and crew on the flight that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We were beside ourselves -- one would expect a real, probing interviewer to ask about the intelligence failures that led up to the 9/11 attacks, or further probe the utter chaos of that morning, asking about which agencies should have done what when. Russert wimped out. Lehman did say that the "air-fones" provided a practically minute-by-minute account of what happened on that flight along with observations from a military plane; Ben-Veniste cited the passengers' heroism, noting that they had heard what had happened to the World Trade Center. Ben-Veniste also pointed out that there were only four hijackers, not five as on the other planes, and this may have been a factor. There was a back-and-forth between Russert and Ben-Veniste on whether or not all four flights could have been shot down had the FAA and NORAD been completely prepared.

Are the commissioners convinced that a plane could be prevented from flying into the Capitol or White House today?? Lehman said we are better off now, but he's not convinced that we are where we should be, and protocols involving the TSA and DHS are not clear; "It's difficult to [create protocols] when you're establishing a new agency like Homeland Security, creating a brand-new organization like TSA, and then to link it in with the domestic security system in this country." Russert had pointed out that it's been nearly three years since the attacks, and Ben-Veniste said, "Tim, you're right -- three years would warrant the expectation from the American people that we would have come along further by this time." (I don't think I need to point out that this was a major swipe at the Administration from Russert and both guests.)

Tim then turned to the contradictions between the 9/11 Commission, which has found no ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with respect to the 9/11 attacks, and the repeated assertion by members of the Misadministration, especially Dick "Dick" Cheney, that Osama and Saddam are joined at the hip. BEN-VENISTE: "Take it to the bank, there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Let's put that to bed. That's what our commission found.... Were there contacts over time between Iraq and al-Qaeda? Yes, there were EFFORTS made to communicate. We found no evidence of collaboration in ANY effort to mount ANY kind of operation against the United States' interests."

Lehman surprised us with what at first sounded like a defense of the Bushies:

"There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today, and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton Administration portrayed the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that. In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein [he did not discuss it later on MTP], President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan pharmaceutical site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service. Since then, that's been VALIDATED. There have been traces of EMPTA that comes straight from Iraq -- and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of [bombing the Sudanese facility] for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence."

Let's not forget that Lehman was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. Next time some wingnut tries to tear down Clinton by lying about his bombing an "aspirin factory" (which is the very same rhetoric extremist Islamist nuts use), the above quote from Lehman should prove sufficient to put them in their place. And remember -- it's Al Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence service, not Saddam himself.

Lehman did try to tie Saddam a little closer to Osama by claiming that new evidence has emerged showing one of his intel people was a full-fledged Al Qaeda member -- but he did not bother to cite Osama's own vehement condemnation of Saddam as a "socialist" and "bad Muslim." To his credit, though, he admitted that "it demonstrates the difficulty that we've had in this commission, because we're under tremendous political pressures."

Russert then played lengthy clips of Cheney claiming that there were significant ties between Saddam and Osama in an interview Russert held with Cheney last year and one that Gloria Borger held last week. This gave Ben-Veniste a chance to debunk the claim that Muhammad Atta met with one of Saddam's intelligence people in Prague in the late spring of 2001. Russert then asked about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries that were arguably allies of Osama's, and Lehman said with nations "certainly turned a blind eye for a long period of time to Al Qaeda operations and Al Qaeda operatives in their countries, and this is something that is a very serious long-term problem for us because they're both vulnerable regimes."

So what will the bottom line be? Both panelists went on at length, but the "money quotes" pretty much sum up their individual emphases. Ben-Veniste: "We'll, I think, draw attention to the fact that while the intelligence community had collected a significant amount of information prior to 9/11 about the potential for an attack against the United States that that information was not utilized in an effective manner to protect our homeland, Tim." Lehman: "I think that you're going to see unanimous recommendations on the intelligence community from our commission, and they're going to be based on shocking findings of gross dysfunction in the intelligence community. The intelligence community doesn't work. It is dysfunctional. It needs fundamental change, not just tweaking and moving the deck chairs or the organization boxes around."

For the most part, the segment was very informative and well-managed by Russert, though he could have gone in a far more substantial direction that praising the very praiseworthy heroes on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. You can be sure we'll never forget them -- but a few more questions about the intelligence apparatus and its failures would've been nice.

Then -- Clinton-bashing from Russert, Joe Klein and Bob Novak. The BBC's Katty Kay was also on hand. It was the most blatantly biased segment we've seen in MTP since Bush stole the White House as Tim and Novak badmouthed Clinton and condemned a book they have not read. The segment began with an excerpt from Michiko Kakutani's cheap-shot slam at the book that ran on the front page of today's NY Times.

It should be noted that some readers have caught Kakatuni making major factual gaffes about other books defending Clinton (http://atrios.blogspot.com) -- but you didn't hear Russert point that telling fact out.

Nor did Russert point out that Kakatuni seems to have, well, to put it politely, "recycled" the manure that passed for a review of Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History," as David Brock's Media Matters points out (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406200001):

>> Living History -- "'Living History' is a _mishmash_..."
>> My Life -- "In fact, 'My Life' reads like a _messy pastiche_..."

>> Living History -- "The other has to do with Mrs. Clinton's _penchant for blaming enemies_, from political opponents to a 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' for her and her husband's failures and travails."
>> My Life -- "... he spends far more space _excoriating his nemesis_, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, and the press."

>> Living History -- "The first underscores the chameleonlike quality she's always shared with her husband, the belief, as he once put it, that character _'is a journey, not a destination.'_"
>> My Life -- "Mr. Clinton once remarked that he saw character as _'a journey, not a destination,'_ and at the end of this book, he cites 'becoming a good person' as one of his life's goals."

And there's more -- much more -- at Media Matters. Maybe that Pulitzer committee should look into revoking Michiko "Full of" Kakutani's prize.

Joe Klein dissed the book, trashing it as hastily written "diary dump" and a "careless" slam of Ken Starr.

(One gets the feeling that any attempt by Clinton to criticize that nerdy-looking Torquemada would be characterized as "careless," especially when it undercuts the official "liberal press" narrative that Starr is supposed to have been an "honorable" man "doing his duty" as "independent" counsel. Some of us, however, can read through the spin and know better.)

Tim tried to portray Clinton as trying to "portray" himself as the target of a right-wing conspiracy; Klein went so far as to claim that Clinton is seeking to co-opt the Starr Investigation as part of his legacy.

(Evidently, Klein does not get the difference between withstanding and in fact fighting an abusive investigation and "co-opting".)

Katty Kay, sounding uncharacteristically catty, said she wants to know what Clinton learned in therapy.

(Here's a hint, Katty: buy the goddamn book and read it. Judging from the expression on her face, I'd bet Katty wishes she were that therapist -- and I'd up the wager by saying she'd find herself in an ethical dilemma as she pondered ways to put the moves on the Big Dog.)

Bob Novak has not read the book, and immediately proclaimed it, and Clinton, "dishonest."

(You just have to love the arrogance of Bob Novak, a man who takes his dictation and distorted facts straight from the White House and then helps to compromise the identity of one of the CIA's most important agents, Valerie Plame. You want dishonesty, Bobbula? Your very presence on MTP merely serves to underscore the dishonesty of NBC News. You're a traitor and should be in Supermax, not NBC's cushy Wisconsin Avenue studios -- and if you were a liberal columnist and exposed Plame, you can be you'd be at Gitmo right now.)

Klein put out advance word to Clinton-haters on what to attack: what he characterized as Clinton's fury at Starr and the pressure of his witch hunt putting him into a vulnerable position in which he gave into a (predatory) intern.

(Right, Joe -- let's not forget she admitted she was out to get her "presidential kneepads." Clinton has admitted he's done wrong -- but any rational human being will see his sins dwarfed by those of others, including you.)

Tim tried to prop up Judge Susan Webber Wright's claim that Clinton was, in effect, lying to the court. Klein finally admitted that he now believed that Clinton was more sinned against than sinning, and the media failed to report, for example, that the Clintons were completely exonerated about Whitewater.

(Got that, Tim? Klein didn't say it, but he sure as hell meant that you're guilty of flogging that phony story too.)

Novak whined about the "Clintonistas" -- and said that the Whitewater case was never fully investigated and Clinton "beat the rap." Novak also mentioned that people had "died" -- giving credence to the phony "Clinton Body Count" and the crowd of rabid neo-fascist Clinton-haters that acually believe that crap.

(Remember, this is an expert on beating the rap, a phony journalist -- nothing more than a peddler of reactionary and hard right palaver disguised as "opinion" -- to refuse to tell the Justice Department who leaked Valerie Plame's name to him.)

Tim then played a clip of no less a political figure than former Texas governor George W. Bush praising Clinton as his official portrait was unveiled -- in particular, his "positive vision" for America. (It occurred to us that the Bush Boy realized that he was not riding the coattails of Reagan upon the Great Napper's death, and has instead decided to ride the Big Dog's, hoping some of his charisma will rub off on him.) Novak said it "sickened" people to hear Bush say that. (Bwahahahahaha! It only sickens teardown artists like you, Bobby.) Klein said that Clinton would not fire Freeh because of the political firestorm it would have triggered (at the height of Lewinsky mania -- and Klein is correct on that point), and had Clinton dared to fire Freeh the US might have been able to roll up Al Qaeda and stop the 9/11 attacks. (Which means that the right-wing House of Representatives and Kenny Starr's OIC have the blood of some 3000 Americans on their hands. A shame that Klein didn't come out and say that - it would have given Russert a coronary.) Katty Kay had the last word, saying that the economy was great under Clinton and "he had incredible charisma."

(What'd we tell you? She's probably fantasizing about an "intimate" interview with Bill in front of a roaring fireplace with a bottle of champagne stranded in a blizzard... you get the idea. It's love, despite the cattiness.)

-- JJ Balzer

This Weak
Moore Than George Could Take

Little George Stephanopoulos was absolutely breathless with anticipation as he laid out the plan for the day: Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham, fresh from Iraq, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, fresh from the 9/11 Commission and then, last but not least, Michael Duffy, John Harris and Claire Shipman to give us their opinions on Bill Clinton's memoirs. I thought it might be kinda interesting to hear 'ol "Let'sImpeachHim" Graham's opinion on the Clinton book, but I'm sure someone will get around to gathering the impeachment managers for a slamfest on the bio.

The festivities began with Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham, who made a "surprise visit" to Baghdad. Joe Biden said he was a little more optimistic about the situation there than he had been before the visit -- He thinks the new PM is a good man and that the military commanders are aware of the problems. He said that he was surprised to find that the Iraqis are not as anxious for us to leave as he believed them to be.

Lindsey, on the other hand, is not being the good Republican the Bushites thought he would. He tempered Biden's remarks by saying you can only be optimistic if you have defined your goals. He said there were a great many structural deficiencies in the Iraqi system at present, and added that there is a lack of skills mix in the military. "You have tank drivers acting as medics, you have tank drivers being MP's..." He said there is a real need to train more Iraqi policemen and military personnel. He was, however, optimistic that the Iraqis want freedom and appear at the moment to be willing to pay the price..

Both Biden and Graham were firm that the Bushies need to get honest with the American people and both say that we are going to be a major presence in Iraq at least through December, 2005. They both scoffed at the notion that the Iraqis will be able to handle security, police work, etc. by December of this year, and the administration ought to level with the people on that. Graham said there would be a surge in forces for the elections pending in December and that with or without NATO and other assistance, there is no way we can have fewer troops there than we have now.

Georgie batted his eyes and asked them what they thought about the new prime minister's statement that he very well might declare martial law as soon as the turnover occurs. Graham didn't seem to have a problem with it, saying only that we needed to put an Iraqi face on the security forces as quickly as possible. He thought Gutless Wonder Boy should leave the decisions on policy to the new PM and the military commanders, and again noted that we are going to be in Iraq for a long time.

Biden, to his credit, saw the irony in declaring martial law five minutes after declaring democracy. He also pointed out that it was dangerous to declare a policy that cannot be enforced, and that this is definitely a policy that the Iraqis will not be able to enforce. He was adamant, as was Graham, that NATO has the obligation to step up to the plate and participate in the restructuring. They agreed that it would be irresponsible of NATO, and they specified France and Germany, to continue to refuse to assist. Biden said that to trade Saddam for an ayatollah, for a civil war or for chaos was not a good trade.

Graham said that it was not a mistake to remove Saddam, but that there had been mistakes made (wonder if he can whisper what they were to Gutless so he'll have an answer next time someone asks him if he ever made one). He again said that international assistance was imperative and reminded Little George that there is no way we can turn over control of the police and the military to Iraq by this December.

On that cheery note we ended the segment and hurtled headlong into Tom Kean, desperately trying to make the viewing public believe that there was no conflict between what the interim staff report said and what the President said, and Lee Hamilton, who seems to have had about enough of trying to say that 2 + 2 might not equal 4. Kean wanted to harp on the idea that to say the Iraqis had no involvement in the events of 9/11 did not mean that they had had no involvement with Al Qaeda, and besides, the committee was only interested in 9/11 and not in the shadowy or tenuous connections (meaning non-existent) between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

George argued that Cheney and Bush were both loudly insistent that there by God WAS a connection, and here comes the committee staff report refuting it. Kean whined that this was only a staff report, not the report of the whole committee, and that when the report came out, it MIGHT say there was a connection, even though they haven't found one yet.

George played a video clip of Cheney claiming that in '95 and '96 Saddam and Osama were collaborating in a big way. He asked if the fact that there had been contacts demonstrated that this was a collaborative relationship? Kean once again said it was not his committee's responsibility to examine the Iraqi war, only the events of 9/11, but he did, reluctantly, have to admit that there was no evidence of anything beyond a couple of contacts.

Lee Hamilton, who appeared just a skosh irritated with Kean's remarks, watched a clip of Bush insisting that the Iraqis had assisted Al Qaeda with poison gas, training, and WMD. Hamilton said no. There was evidence that Al Qaeda asked, but their query was never answered. Hamilton pointed out that Osama had been instrumental in funding the anti-Saddam forces, and said that the committee has asked Cheney to show them whatever evidence he has that there was collaboration.

Don't hold your breath, Lee. When Georgie asked what the possibility of reinterviewing Cheney was, Kean fell out of his chair insisting that they didn't need to do that. Although they may want to have another little chat with George Tenet and Condolizzard.

George brought up the fact that Cheney repeatedly and regularly asserts that Mohammad Atta met in Prague with a high-ranking member of Saddam's intelligence sources. Cheney says this has never been disproved, which apparently makes it true. Hamilton said there is absolutely no evidence that this ever happened. He said that they have proof Atta was in Virginia a few days before the alleged meeting, they have his cellphone records and the cell was being used in Virginia during that period, and that furthermore there appears to be documentation that the alleged "Iraqi Security Guy" was not even in Prague at the time. Hamilton again said he hoped that Cheney will show them the facts he is basing his statements on.

The topic wandered over to the new assertions that the Saudi royals and the Pakistanis had paid money to and given other support to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Kean said that the Saudis now claim that their relationship with both entities had changed years before. He agreed that the Pakistani intelligence forces had been very supportive of the Taliban, based on their shared Muslim background and apparently a belief that the Taliban would help Pakistan in its fight with India. Both said that for a substantial period of time Al Qaeda and the Taliban had become almost indistinguishable as separate entities, the Taliban being the religious arm and Al Qaeda being the enforcers of the Taliban edicts. Hamilton said they don't believe the Saudi government assisted bin Ladin, but there was no question that many influential Saudi citizens did.

After a station break, it was a complete change of mood as George and the Gang (Duffy, Harris and Shipmen) presented their takes on the Clinton book, and what it means to the nation as a whole. George, the former Boy Wonder of the Clinton Administration, tried to act as though he had just passed through the administration for awhile and now couldn't really remember how it was.

It began with a clip of GWB discussing Clinton at the portrait unveiling earlier this week, announcing that the book would be available at fine book stores all over the country. Heh.

Duffy said it was almost two books in one, the first half being his life before the White House, which was funny and smart, and then the second half, which he said should be called "How Ken Starr Ruined My Presidency".

Georgie wondered if there was anything new revealed in the book (as if he hasn't seen the damn thing yet -- bet he can tell you each and every page on which his name appears!). Duffy said no, basically he discusses the good things he had done, with Monica mentioned briefly.

John Harris said that it was ridiculous to consider Bill Clinton a man of mystery. "What was on Bill Clinton's mind was on his lips." He said that if you wanted to know what Clinton was thinking, all you had to do was listen to him.

Claire Shipman announced that it isn't exactly summer beach reading, but she agreed with Clinton that the Starr/Monica situation was a paramount challenge to him. She also pointed out that Bill thinks his impeachment is a badge of honor, and he gloats over the fact that he survived the prosecution.

Um, so I, hon. So do a whole bunch of us.

George asked if Ken Starr was the person Clinton most wants to get even with. Duffy said that Bill could probably do four books on Ken Starr, and laughingly pointed out that Bill felt that Starr's prosecution had a lot to do with what later happened with Monica.

The book shows the president living two parallel lives, and Harris said Clinton was under a lot of stress. Shipman called it "Classic Clinton" and said it is sure to enrage his enemies because it gives no excuses.

George asked about Bill's support of Bush on Iraq. Duffy said that Clinton had told him that on the day of the inauguration he had told GWB that Al Qaeda and the Taliban would be the biggest foreign policy problems he would have. Clinton also said that Bush hadn't paid much mind to the remarks. Apparently Clinton feels that we have suffered so many losses in Iraq that we now have to continue there.

George asked if the book and the hoopla surrounding it were going to be a plus or a minus for John Kerry. The general consensus was that everyone had seen what happened to Al Gore when he made distancing himself from Bill Clinton the centerpiece of his campaign, and that nobody wanted to repeat Gore's mistake. Claire pointed out that this election is about George Bush, and that if people can put whatever anger they feel about Clinton aside, it will be very good for Kerry.

Duffy agreed that it is good for Clinton to be controversial now because he will be the lightning rod for whatever anger people might be feeling, not John Kerry.

The segment ended with questions about the convention in Boston and the Clintons' role. Claire said that there had been a suggestion to have a joint book signing in Boston with Bill and Hillary, but plans appear to have fallen through. She mentioned Bill's "Rock Star swagger" at the last convention and thought we might see it again. They agreed that Bill would probably get some prime time coverage at the convention, particularly if he wanted to make a speech.

Station break, and then, ready or not, it was time for Michael Moore and his new movie -- according to George, it is "guaranteed to enrage Bush lovers and encourage Bush haters".

George began by reading the definition of propaganda as it appears in Webster's and asked Michael if his movie wasn't in fact propaganda. Moore responded that it is an op-ed piece, reflecting his opinion. He wanted to make clear that it is his opinion, not "fair and balanced" journalism, and of course that led to the zinger that the news organization that claims to be fair and balanced is neither. He was candid in admitting that he wants to see Bush removed from office and is working as hard as he can to make that happen.

George was extremely argumentative with Moore, who remained good tempered and explanatory throughout. A major bone of contention for George was Moore's presentation of the information that as soon as air space was opened in the United States again, 142 Saudi royals were permitted to leave the country via six chartered flights, with little to no security checks for their departure. George wanted to nitpick by reading a statement from the Saudi government, but Michael wouldn't bite. He said the FBI had admitted that they only asked superficial questions of 36 out of the 142 who left, and the rest were not interviewed or screened. He said it is not outrageous to point out that as soon as 9/11 happened, with a band of Saudi thugs committing it, there were 142 members of the Saudi family who wanted a one-way ticket home immediately, and that it is not outrageous to wonder why the Bush government was so permissive and helpful in making it happen.

Moore called Mark Kennedy a liar for an incident that arose when Moore approached Kennedy about signing a petition to condone the drafting of the children of those congressional members who supported the war and sending such children to fight in Iraq. I couldn't make heads or tail out of the story, the explanation on both sides and the final outcome, other than Moore and Kennedy apparently are not going to live happily ever after.

George concluded the interview by informing Moore that he had been called 'unpatriotic' and a 'hater of America' and asked him what responsibility he felt he had after 9/11. That touched a nerve. Moore said he felt it was absolutely essential to show sides of issues that the media had not shown, and that in fact the media had drunk the kool-aid and done a disservice to the American people by signing on so quickly and completely to the war.

Moore was passionate as he told George, "This is America. You can ask any question you want of anybody you want, you can ask ANY question, and nobody can put you in jail. Why isn't anybody asking the questions?" He also said that he loves America, and is trying to support America by saving it from Bush (from your lips to God's ear, Mike). He says what he hopes to accomplish is to give a voice to those Americans who don't seem to have one.

George came out a poor second to Moore, I think, and Moore did it without raising a finger or his voice. George came across as being just a little out of his league, frankly.

We'll see how he plays with others next show. He certainly wasn't up to the game, um, "This Week."

--Sherrie Gogerty Geeting