• Reliable Source: The last episode of the West Wing was filled with mistakes… Ted Olson will defend Michael Skakel… Michael Hayden spotted at the Bombay Club… Andy Card and his family seen at Maggiano’s Little Italy in Tysons Corner. [WP]
• Heard on the Hill: McCain jokes that Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) was a bastard child… Congress will consider naming Clinton’s birthplace as a National Historic Site. [Roll Call]
• Cindy Adams: Pataki will fundraise for Jeanine Pirro. [NYP]
• Page Six: Chelsea took Hillary to “The Pajama Game” for Mother’s Day. [NYP]

This Sunday’s shows undertook a major military operation. Between the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and “Operation Swarmer,” talking heads all but saluted. Russ Feingold managed to grab some of the spotlight, and his motion to censure President Bush gave Bill Kristol another chance to rock Chris Wallace’s world: Feingold “is smarter than the Democratic congressional leadership” and “deserves credit for taking a principled stand, and I honestly think he’s winning this debate.” That sound you heard is Nancy Pelosi’s head exploding. Dick Cheney did “Face the Nation” but did not make much news beyond the world’s most awesome Freudian slip: “Most of my predecessors spent a good part of their time as President—Vice President running for President.

Also, debuting this week on ABCNews.com was “The Green Room,” a brave attempt to wring every possible bit of hot air from the “This Week” panel while they stand around uncomfortably after the show wraps in the nondescript, motel-ish decor of ABC’s DeSale St. digs. Personally, I have always found pre-show green room chatter more interesting (everyone’s trying out their lines) and the whole thing strikes me as an empty attempt to show us another side of people who are basically one-dimensional, but I applaud this Taylorite approach to news content and hope that less practiced pundits do something stupid and/or inspired backstage in the future.

Top topics: Iraq, Feingold’s censure motion and by extension the NSA wiretap program.

One-hit wonders: Boston College’s Sweet Sixteen chances (“Meet the Press”); Joey Cheek, humanitarian (“This Week”); Mark McClellan, TREKKIE (“Fox News Sunday”)

Quotes to live by:
• Dick Cheney admits that shooting someone in the face is “one of those situations that’s difficult, that generates controversy.”
• Chris Wallace, SUPER GENIUS: “It seems to me that the Senators who are most critical of [the NSA wiretapping] program are the ones who know the least about it.”
• George Will lays it out: “We need to define victory down.”
• Sam Donaldson is totally high: “Russ Feingold threw the long ball… but it might connect, as the Washington Redskins learned in the mid-70s.”

Also, Shorter Chris Matthews Show: David Gregory observed that “George Bush is the George Clooney of Washington… but that’s a little bit of a patina.” Wha?

Full rundown appears after the jump.

Face the Nation
Transcript

DICK CHENEY! On Face the Nation! Shoots-in-the-Face-Nation!

First of all: Nice tie. Red but with a subtle tone-on-tone check. But that’s not what Bob Schieffer is asking about. He’s asking about civil war in Iraq. BREAKING: DICK CHENEY DOES NOT THINK THERE IS CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ. In fact, though the terrorists would LIKE us to believe there’s a civil war, the very desperation of their acts of violence MEANS THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR. Hottt.

Perhaps optimistic statements have made people become more skeptical? “There’s a constant perception because what’s newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad, not all the progress.” Because there is not much progress.

“It took us A LOT longer to put together an effective government together 200 years ago.” Some would say that’s not a fair comparison, given that the colonists were working in a much more primitive time. But the Iraqis are also ERECTING THEIR NEW NATION without electricity and running water. Cheney points out that “Saddam used chemical weapons against his own folks.” Wow, HIS OWN PARENTS? That is bad.

People who question the need to be at war in Iraq have a “pre-9/11 mentality.” An INGENIOUS talking point. They should consider using that one more. Also, Ted Kennedy is the “last man I would go to for guidance on national security.” What, not Tenet?

Schieffer offers up the Ambien theory of presidential incompetence: “Is it possible they’re suffering a little fatigue here?” Cheney: “These are tough jobs, but we’ve got some very talented people and the country is being well-served.” When Schieffer asks if Cheney has ever thought of resigning, Cheney’s permasmirk almost blossoms into a full blown maniacal evil laugh. No, he has not considered it.

Their good cop-bad cop routine is not intentional, but then quite the Freudian slip: “Most of my predecessors spent a good part of their time as President—Vice President running for President.” Schieffer offers the hypothesis that maybe Cheney would step down a year before 2008 in order to let someone interested in running for President be Veep: “No, no one’s ever mentioned that to me.”

FACE SHOOTING TIME: Could it have been handled better? Says Dick, “It’s one of those situations that’s difficult, that generates controversy.” As opposed those other not-difficult, non-controversy-generating shots to someone’s face. Quotes Gridiron show. Notes, “We can laugh about it now.” Oh, it was pretty funny then, too. Of the notification controversy: “Strikes me as something of a tempest in a teapot.” It strikes me as shooting someone in the face.

Schieffer’s final word has to do with the stumbling progress of lobbying reform. “Congress is drowning in a sea of corruption,” he says. And, unfortunately, they’re waving, not drowning.

Fox News Sunday
George Casey interview; Dick Durbin interview

First up, live from Baghdad, is Commanding General of Iraq’s multinational forces, George Casey, whose cube-like head and linebacker shoulders make him an easy favorite for Sunday Chat Show Guest Who Could Whip All Other Guests’ Asses. However, that he is wearing a visible gun holster does not make me feel confident about stability in Iraq.

Chris Wallace: “Is the war going well or badly?” Casey: “I think we — the Iraqi people are making great progress.”

In some provinces, there are “six or less incidents of violence a day”… so it’s not “awash” in sectarian violence.

Last year, Casey said that they’d start troop draw-down if everything continued to go well. So? Apparently, the reductions have already started. Because things have continued to go so well. He does not want to get hung on a number. Chris has a number for him: With over a hundred thousand American troops fighting and dying in Iraq, the fact that the government is still haggling and dickering, why shouldn’t Americans be outraged?

Casey says forming a new government is “very, very hard.”

Dem Sen. Dick Durbin will now agree with that. You will be surprised to learn that Durbin supports the troops, but that “I think the political leaders in Washington have failed.” Okay, sure, says Chris: “Be very specific, what is the Democratic plan?” This is very disappointing because Durbin actually starts to sound like there is one; he mentions numbers! But then we hear something about “they must form a unified government.” On Feingold’s censure resolution: it was caused by “the utter frustration that Republican senators refuse to ask hard questions of the administration.”

Chris: “It seems to me that the Senators who are most critical of this program are the ones who know the least about it.” Well, that is the **** ing problem, isn’t it? They are criticizing the administration’s refusal to tell them about it. Hey, the people who are most critical of being lied to are the ones who were lied to! Please just save your criticism until we decide to tell you enough about what we’re doing so that you can criticize it… and even then, don’t! BECAUSE THAT WILL MEAN YOU WILL HATE FREEDOM.

Unfortunately, Durbin does not respond with incredulous outrage. It is not on his talking points. Oh, wait, a little flash of anger: Republican behavior on this issue “has become a partisan cover-up operation.”

Is the censure motion the leading edge of impeachment proceedings? No. But “I can’t rule it out until the investigation is complete… We need more information about this program.”

Chris: “You’re not ruling out the idea that he has broken the law?” Durbin: “We have a responsibility to see if the President broke the law… I’m waiting for more information, and you’d think this information would be forthcoming.” Gotta say, I admire Durbin for not backing down on this one.

Chris then announces that the panel will discuss whether the censure investigation is “good for Democrats or Republicans,” which does not exactly seem the most pressing issue. That would be: DID THE PRESIDENT BREAK THE LAW? Jesus.

Panel is: Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, Juan Williams. Chris says he was “genuinely surprised” about Durbin admitting that they could possibly impeach the President. Hume: “By not ruling it out, he has come as close as anyone has to admitting that [the plan to do so] is there.” That is a literally true statement, but it also doesn’t take into account the fact that Bush MAY HAVE BROKEN THE LAW? What if he did? What should Durbin have said? “No, of course we won’t impeach the President! No matter what he did! George W. Bush is the kindest, bravest, warmest human being I’ve ever met.”

OMG WHAT IS MARA LIASSON WEARING?!?!?!? SHE IS A GIANT PLUM. A PURPLE PEOPLE EATER. HELP! RUNNNN AWAAAYYYY!!!!

Ahem.

Chris asks her why Durbin left the door open to impeachment, Mara says that she can’t explain it. Here, I can: BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.

Kristol says Feingold “is smarter than the Democratic congressional leadership” and “deserves credit for taking a principled stand, and I honestly think he’s winning this debate.” Points out that their sitting around discussing the censure resolution is a victory for Feingold, because “who’s defending the President’s NSA action? Suddenly everyone’s talking about it… saying it’s fair to question what he’s done.” Wallace’s world has, yet again, been rocked: “You’re saying this is helping the Democrats and hurting Republicans?” Kristol is unphased by the world-rocking, and you know I think he happens to be right: “As long as the charge is out there, and is not rebutted, it helps … Feingold is making his case coherently, he is an impressive politician.” Brit Hume is about to leap over the table and suck out Kristol’s eyes.

Then Juan brings the energy down by bringing up Clinton and Hume catches his breath, says “this is good politics.” Points out that the program itself is very popular. Juan, God bless him, says, “You’re confusing the popularity of this program with its legality.” Back to Bill Kristol for a final word: “Republicans cannot go to 2006 mid-terms saying, ‘re-elect a Republican Congress to protect the President from impeachment.’ They need to make a substantive case for the President’s policy.” The program’s popularity isn’t the point, “You don’t get into politics only to play at issues where you have public opinion on your side.”

Brit goes out on a limb: “ALL of the President’s problems have to do with Iraq.” Kristol drops another bomb: “Reading Donald Rumsfeld’s op-ed in the Washington Post makes me even more amazed that President Bush has not replaced him… He has for three years tried to move to post-war Iraq, without winning the war in Iraq…We can win the war, I just wish we had a Secretary of Defense interested in winning it.” Ow. Brit Hume cites Ralph Peters saying he didn’t see civil war. Well, if one journalist in a country the size of California can’t find civil war, it must not exist.

Power Player of the Week: Mark McClellan, the less whipped-puppy-like McClellan brother. He does not take the press corps’ “savaging” of his brother personally. Admits that he “went to the occasional” Star Trek convention. Wow.

This Week
Sens. Hagel and Reed (video); Joey Cheek (video)

George Stephanopoulos leads with sobering Iraq stats. Was it worth fighting? Chuck Hagel zen: “We are where we are.” A “political settlement” is the key to the future. Sen. Jack Reed says we need to not just “encourage” but to “insist” that the Iraqis get it together. I know those two words mean different things but am confused about how well the distinction will translate.

Hagel: “We need to stop this talk about ‘we’re not going to leave until we’ve achieved victory.’ What does victory mean? Saddam’s gone, they have an elected government. We’ll never be out of there.”

Rumsfeld, on the other hand, is in something of a quagmire: “the Secretary has a difficult assignment to assign some credibility to the current policy… we have a responsibility to think about consequences… not just the high cost of lives, but in our national credibility… i think we need to talk to the Iranians… this is a time for some wide view and intense thinking.”

On civil war in Iraq: “Our own generals have told me that. So that’s a fact.”

Jack Reed: “If we’re in a civil war, we need to protect our forces… it might become just like Lebanon, we won’t be the ones to decide if we stay or go…. [Rumsfeld] should have thought about [postwar Germany] before we sent too few troops.”

And now, the most random panel of authors with books about Iraq ever assembled. You thought not possible, but really, what do Michael Gordon, Christopher Hitchens, Jackie Spinner have in common? Begins with Hitch (whom he calls “Chris”), asks about second thoughts. And I, for one, think that this will be the moment that Hitch chooses to say, “You know what? Total **** up. Nevermind.”

Turns out he does not say that.

Michael Gordon says that the military does have second thoughts. I would like to see Gordon interview Hitch directly. “People can debate if it was a just war or not, but the costs were disproportionately high for the United States and Iraqis.”

Hitch then says, “Do you mind if I make a point for Mr. Gordon?” Uh, sure… Then he spins out a theory that the the insurrection after the fall of Baghdad is actually the same thing that would have happened under Saddam. So the reason we invaded was…?

Spinner says Iraqis used to want running water and electricity. Now, “they just want the violence to stop.”

George to Hitch: “You seem not to agree.”

Pause to note how awesome Hitch looks: the light khaki jacket and week’s worth of beard could not make him look more like a debauched colonialist unless he was. Oh, wait…

Hitch just justified the war as a training exercise. “Don’t tell me we’re not going to need those kinds of fighting skills in the future.”

And the panel is AN alumni reunion: George Will, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. Lead in with opinion poll breakdown (bad for President). Will just says it: “We need to define victory down.” On to Republicans and budget doubletalk and uselessness of line-item veto. Will says that a line-item veto would just make Congress think that all budgetary restraint lies with the President.

Censure discussion leads with Pelosi saying she doesn’t understand why anyone would censure at this point. “Couldn’t even get Nancy Pelosi,” says George S. Donaldson stumbles through Feingold’s name to get to weirdest metaphor of the say: “Russ Feingold threw the long ball… but it might connect, as the Washington Redskins learned in the mid-70s.” Will says that “Feingold’s point was to please the blogosphere.”

Speaking of pleasing the blogosphere, there is apparently a new feature at ABCNews.com: “The Green Room.” Please supply your own bad coffee.

Showbiz segment: Joey Cheek and Darfur awareness, the only good thing to come out of the Olympics besides Bode Miller’s humiliation.

Meet the Press
Netcast; podcast

Ah, it’s Gen. Casey again, making his square-jawed pitch for progress in Iraq. Now taking bets on how long it is before Tim Russert asks about Time.com’s “Operation Swarmer failed to live up to hype” piece…. Too late, he asked! Casey simply denies accuracy of Time article and then Tim does the thing that makes me grind my teeth when people talk about his “tough” interviewing style: HE DOES NOT FOLLOW UP! Time runs a piece that devastates both the rationale and supposed outcome of the “largest air assault in Iraq since 2003,” the general denies it and then: NEXT QUESTION, which is simply, “Will there be any more major combat operations in Iraq?” Guess he didn’t have any more long quotes on title cards to offer. Sheesh.

Wait, wait, perhaps that was a clever set up. Casey’s response about major operations is that “it depends on the enemy and where they’ve massed to meet us.” Which is not a “no.” AND YET — roll tape — doesn’t that phrase “major combat operation” sound familiar? Then Casey just denies that Swarmer was a major combat operation.

I see where Tim is going with all this but Jesus is this really the point?

On to government building and the sense that it’s not going so well: “People need to not think so much about what they’ve seen on television,” says Casey. Basically they should think about what Casey says. There is no civil war, troops are fine, the problem is getting a government set up, but, really, it’s all going better than you’d think! Unless you thought only about what I tell you to think about, in which case, you’d know how well things are going. Also, timetables aid the terrorists, but “benchmarks” don’t!

Okay, I take it all back about Tim for this priceless, when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question: “Did you imagine the insurgency would be as bloody and robust as it is?” Casey sputters. BRAIN FREEZE. ADMIT PROBLEMS? NOT IN TALKING POINTS! **** ! Then, finally, “I did not think it would be as robust as it has been.” I thought it would be soft annd warm and fuschia-colored.

“Last week, I went out and drove around Baghdad for three hours just to get my own sense of what the people are feeling.” It is a good sign that the head of the allied forces in Iraq has three hours to kill? And then there’s what he saw: “There’s a lot of bustle, Tim…. and the traffic cops are wearing white shirts and ties, not armored vests.” **** , OUR TROOPS don’t have body armor.

Tim: “Can you continue to conduct a war without the consent of the American people?” Uhm, apparently.

Now we turn to John Murtha, who declares, “This is George Bush’s war.” They have “mishandled and mischaracterized it,” and jokes “they said they were going to hand over a majority of the country to Iraqi control. Well, I flew over desert for hours and hours and that must be the part that Iraqis control because they don’t control the Sunni triangle.”

Murtha says his vote for the war “was a mistake, a bad mistake.” Says we can go back but we have no business being there now. “We’ve lost the hearts and minds of the people… we have to give them the incentive to take over their own country.” Just noting: If 80 percent of the people don’t want us there anyway, isn’t that a huge incentive? He believes Rummy should resign and if you could fire a vice president, well… He’s actually pretty good, asking for specific metrics of progress: employment, battalions, electricity. And boy, is he mad: “They’re using American helicopters! You think they fool the Americans when they say that? They say 75 percent of the control will be under control of Iraqis, well, 75 percent of the country is desert!” Also my favorite: “Is it going to be a civil war? IT IS A CIVIL WAR!”

Oh and I kinda zoned out and then: A disembodied voice interrupted Tim and Murtha to say, “Last week, on the West Wing,” followed by garbled fake Mamet prose under the jabbering of Tim/Murtha. Wait, it’s still happening! Technical snafu or AWESOME SUBLIMINAL MARKETING? I so want to watch the “The West Wing” now. Also: I cannot wait for the moment when all the nets start broadcasting their entertainment programing across their Sunday-show broadcasts. “FNS” would be so much more endurable with “King of the Hill” and “Simpsons” dialogue in the background. And “This Week” would be so much less soporific with “Desperate Housewives” humping within hearing range.

In his final words, Tim continues to pretend that being a sports fan somehow makes you more likable: “How about those Boston College Eagles? On to the Sweet Sixteen” — holds up fist in mild pumping gesture — “Go Eagles.” Ah, we may be **** ing up the Middle East, but we’ll always have the Final Four.

By ANA MARIE COX

This Week’s Sunday spew lacks a taste of Greece: The Brylcreemed smoothness of Washington’s Hellenic homeboy, George Stephanopoulus, was pre-empted locally for emergency snow coverage. Because people in Washington are pussies.

We are thus unable to verify Condoleezza Rice’s landing of a Half-Ginsburg, but she was scheduled to go on both “This Week” and “Face the Nation.” She told “This Week” that the Danish cartoon protests “could spin out of control,” which we would never have guessed. Also, apparently Joe Biden was on, which is like missing Haley’s comet. If Haley’s comet came every weekend. We regret the loss.

Full rundown and highlights after the jump.

Hot topics:
↑ “Cartoon controversy” hits all cylinders this weekend, putting pundit asses in chairs from Fox to CBS, where Condi improved on the State Department’s previous spin and — shockingly — stuck to her talking points.
↑ Fitzgerald investigation prodded into the spotlight by the assertion that Scooter Libby was given the “authority” to talk to reporters about the National Intelligence Estimate by his unnamed “superiors.” This is invariably linked to…
↑ NSA wiretapping , the sole topic of discussion on “Meet the Press,” but relegated to a supporting role by other shows. Talking points on both sides unchanged but MTP did bring back the ghost of Tom Daschle to speak on matter from the perspective of the spirit world. Should NYT reporters be forced to testify on those leaks? Ask some reporters! Also, Dems seem to have finally come to a steady talking point on the issue: It’s fine to have a warrantless wiretapping program, just ask us first.
↑ Terror as a legitimate campaign issue, per Cheney. As long as we don’t talk about gun control, right, Dick?
↓ Abramoff barely sniffed at, despite that awesome blurry picture snagged by Time.com, which looks a little like someone tried to get a snap of that creepy “booster” who comes to the Little League potlucks even though he doesn’t have a kid.

One hit wonders:
Fox wonders if there’s every a “proper time to go after the President”; Sen. Pat Roberts — I **** you not — urges magic “memory pills” on U.S. Congress on “MTP”; Chris Matthews admires Norah O’Donnell’s technique (better than her ass, we suppose); Elisabeth Bumiller wonders if Bush can still see Putin’s soul. We wonder if the mechanic she stole her mullet from is mad.

Quotes to live by:
• Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) goes out on a limb: “Well, we’re defined by what we stand for and what we stand against.”
• Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) speaks for us all: “I wish I had been smarter.”
• Chris Matthews blinks into self awareness: “It’s shows like this, where there are two guys talking, how [does a woman] get heard? Oh, hey, Norah…”
• Howard Dean tells us these are not the droids we’re looking for: “I’ve often said that we went to war with Iraq without justification because the real problem is Iran.”

Full rundown continues below.

Fox News Sunday
Feb. 12, 2006
Sens. George Allen (R-VA) and Jack Reed (D-RI) interview; Joseph Lowery and Ron Christie, back-to-back.

George Allen cites Farmers’ Almanac as being correct about massive snowfall. Is ruddy-faced and homily-addled enough to be farmer.

Clip of Hillary accusing of Republicans ginning up fear as political strategy, Allen says he hopes Americans realize we’re in a war on terror. BREAKING. Is it in the Farmers’ Almanac?

Clip of Cheney putting stamp of approval on terror as political issue. Reed agrees that they’re vital issues, and that Democrats have been the ones to make progress on the issue. Nice play! If only the nation were as secure as his hair.

Allen “the constitution doesn’t get thrown out just because you’re at war.” Well, that IS breaking. Oh, but then he cites the “authorization of use of military force” (aka “the clown car act,” or, the extra-constitutional gift that keeps on giving) as a blanket okay for wiretaps and whatnot. Reed disagrees, and he may be scowling, but it’s hard to tell. Reed is a squat, angry man whose face looks like it’s been squished the wrong way on a widescreen TV. Allen is one of those senators who thinks if he smiles while he talks he’ll seem like he’s making sense. I’m gonna go with the angry little man.

Was Libby authorized to leak the NIE? Reed says Fitzgerald should investigate. Wallace: Even if it’s the vice president? Sure. Allen says that let the investigation proceed where it will. “I don’t think anyone should be releasing confidential information, period.”

Wallace: What positive reasons have you given people to vote for the Democrats? Reed: we have to concentrate on open, honest government, but then we have to deal with real issues, national security, “and we have to do something about this addiction to oil.” Is ethanol the new methadone? Wallace: Haven’t you been defined by what you’re against? Reed: “Well, we’re defined by what we stand for and what we stand against.” Ah, a two-prong strategy.

Wallace asks Allen about why polls show Americans preferring Democratic leadership. Allen: We must support our troops in the war on terror. The man has exactly one talking point. Oh, wait: Drill in Alaska, line item veto, “judges is a big values issues.” He has three talking points, though not all of them grammatical. Maybe he has a shot at the presidential nomination after all.

To Reed: “I understand that Republicans have plenty of Abramoff contacts, but what about Harry Reid?” Reed: Harry Reid is a honest man whose voting record is more shaped by his “zealous protection of the gaming industry” than Jack Abramoff. So it’s not that Reid isn’t for sale, it’s that the gaming industry bought him before Abramoff did. Whew.

Next up: Coretta Scott King funeral “controversy” with Rev. Joseph Lowery. “Was that the proper time to go after the President?” asks Wallace. I’m eager to get a schedule on when it is okay, but I am sort of doubting Fox will supply it.

Lowery: “I’m sure Bush is smart enough to know that when he comes to a funeral for a civil rights leader, he’s going to hear about the issues she gave her life to… Rosa Parks’s funeral had more discussion of public policy than Mrs. King’s.” These are remarkably
sane arguments.

Wallace tries to point out that Democrats didn’t win the war on poverty. Lowery says that’s the not issue: “I’m neither Democrat or Republican, I’m Methodist. One party takes us for granted, the other just takes us.” Wallace is not succeeding in rattling him. Asked about what policies he advocates, Lowery says eliminate tax cuts for the rich, institute more programs to aid the poor, and admits “there are weapons of mass self-destruction which fall upon the black community… but we’re talking about public policy.” Wallace is trying his best to rattle Lowery, but I suspect that once you’ve faced down the segregationist Governor Wallace, no helmet haired cablebot is going to take you by surprise. Best part of interview? Lowery’s small, dignified smile of satisfaction.

Now Ron Christie, a former White House something, author of the just-published “Black in the White House.” [Note: Some former colleagues of Christie’s joked that given his limited role and duration in the
administration, a better title might have been, “Black in the White House on a Tour.” But really he was a “commissioned official,” and apparently quotes the text of the commission in his book, which is kind of like reprinting your diploma to show you graduated from college.] He has a purple tie and lilac shirt on and his incredibly well-rehearsed. Christie criticizes those black leaders who are “looking at their own air time on the airwaves rather than at what might help black people.” Uhm, yeah…. so your book’s on sale where again?

He also says that Lowery’s comments were offensive because — not sure I’ve got this right — “unfortunately you and I are sitting here talking about whether not they were political comments.” But he supports Lowery’s right to say them. No wonder his eyes appear to be crossed.

I think the reason why the Bush administration loved him is that he looks like an extremely tan Richard Nixon.

Discussion of how Bush policies favor the rich… or do they? Christie says they favor “Americans.” Katrina catastrophe, Wallace says: The President has promised “bold action.” What bold action? Well, says Christie, “He’s led by example. He’s gone down to Louisiana, he’s gone down to the Gulf Coast.” Huh. They do say that 99 percent of life is showing up. Shifts blame to local responders. But wait, the local responders have been there THE ENTIRE TIME, so shouldn’t that be EXTRA bold? Repeats that Bush’s main responsibility is to make sure the money gets to the right people. And also to show up.

Panel time! Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, Juan Williams and today, playing the role of Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, whose gasping sycophancy makes Ron Christie look a **** ing gadfly.

Did Libby get “authorization” for leaking national security information? Kristol: Well, that’s not what he charged with. Snap! “Criminalization of politics” yadda yadda yadda. Kristol also says that the NIE was released by the administration ten days later [in
quasi Jackie Mason voice]: “So, what, this is a great offense?” Barnes has on a red, white and blue tie. And says that we don’t know what was and wasn’t classified in the NIE, but “we do know” that the wiretapping leak to the NYT was a “violation of the espionage act.” We “know” that, do we? I’m so glad that the judicial process hasn’t been circumvented just for terrorists but for journalists too.

Kristol says that the NSA wiretapping and the “leaking” of the NIE are “apples and oranges,” what’s more, “the President is winning the wiretapping debate.” Howya like them apples, indeed.

Juan messes up his laugh line: “It’s not ‘King George,’ it’s ‘President…Bush.’” Astute.

OMG WHAT IS MARA LIASSON WEARING!?!?!!? She has stolen a linebacker’s shoulder pads and mobster’s pinstriped suit… but there’s a red flower on the lapel, so it’s a feminine look. Also, her lipstick appears to be from Revlon’s new “Virgin Blood” line. I have no idea what she said.

Kristol has some free advice for Democrats: Support the President in the war on terror, but fight off-year election on domestic issues. Where I assume he’d also have them support the President. In other words, Democrats would win elections if they were Republicans.

“Cartoon controversy” — Wallace expresses surprise that the protests are still happening. Barnes: “They’re not exactly spontaneous.” Mara’s lips move and she’s issuing speech like sounds. Violence bad. Something something.

Chris holds up copy of the Weekly Standard. Perhaps brought by one of the two employees of the Standard who are on the panel. Or by Rupert Murdoch, who pays everyone’s check at the table who is not on the NPR payroll. The magazine has reprinted cartoons, “partly to show what the debate was about but also,” he says, “we have to reprint them in order to show that we can’t be intimidated.” Juan: “I have to take my
hat off to Bill on this,” knocks the State Dept.’s initial statement on this [which was totally pussy, IMHO]. Fred points out that if you’re writing about cartoons that people haven’t seen, you should show them. Mara says that she wouldn’t be surprised that some editors might be frightened for the safety of their reporters if they run the cartoons. That would be the definition of intimidated, yes.

Power player of the week: National Air and Space museum geologist. Because we’re going to Mars, did you hear that?

—————

Meet the Press
Feb. 12, 2006
Video netcast; podcast; transcript.

It’s all about the wiretapping. Tom Daschle (back from from South Dakota if not the dead, and he brought the hair of the young George Harrison with him) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI).

Daschle: “We were briefed,” but “there were many omissions.” He seems to have grown a toupee. Roberts “hates to quarrel with my good friend Tom,” but “we were briefed,” and “in my situation, I knew exactly what was going on… so consequently, I believe I was fully briefed.” Or he’s an idiot. It’s a briefing throw down!

Tim cites Rockefeller letter to Cheney about lack of briefing. But Roberts says that his friend Rockefeller “never mentioned the letter to me.” I don’t think Pat has as many friends as he thinks he does. He insists that everyone who was briefed was comfortable with it and thought it was necessary. Tom Daschle shakes his head resignedly throughout this.

Jane Harman is wearing a pink Star Trek uniform jacket. She says she supports the wiretapping program but it needs to be on “sounder legal footing.”

Tim shows text of Cheney letter accusing Democrats of “forgetting” their briefings and that the program was going fine “until there was publicity New York Times.” Everything would be fine if it weren’t for
those meddling kids!

Hoekstra on briefings: “We walked out of there believing it was legal, we walked out of there believing it was making a difference.” Translation: “We were snowed.” Says that if he thought that the President was breaking the law, he would have said something.

Why is Daschle here again? Only Democrat who would come through the snow? Anyway… says that President is making a false choice between war on terrorism and rule of law.

Tim to Harman: Do you regret not raising more reservations? “I wish I had been smarter.” So do we all, Jane, so do we all. Apparently was crippled by inability to consult staff on the issue.

Tim to Roberts: What is the authorization for this action? Roberts: Every other president has done it. Also, he “disagrees with my good friend Jane.” I don’t believe a word this man says. Says FISA is unwieldy: “You gotta figure out what committee you go to and what details you reveal and what are you gonna say.” Solution: Eavesdrop first, let God sort ‘em out.

Hoekstra cites clown car legislation, does the little pinkie-thumb phone call hand sign to mime bin Laden making cell call.

Tim goes to Daschle. Poor guy’s been kinda quiet. Reads from Daschle’s WaPo op-ed history of the clown car legislation, which includes detail of WH trying to jimmy “in the United States” into the language of the motion, which would suggest they were thinking about some kind of domestic surveillance. Daschle says they did widen FISA for him. His whispery, lulling voice makes me nostalgic.

Roberts: “If you have ten dots here and you need a hundred dots to get a full picture,” you can’t wait for authorization. Dots? We’re fighting a war on dots? What about the ju-jubee threat?

Tim asks “why not ask for a change in legislation?” Roberts sputters, says, “I…I don’t know… I…” then: “I have some memory pills here.”

And jesus **** ing christ: he has some memory pills there. Is looking at them over his glasses like he’s trying to figure out whether to take them with milk or not. O.m.g. “I think everyone here oughta take a memory pill every morning… because that’s not my
recollection.” (Guess he forgot to take them. Also missed a dose before the Senate Intel Committee Hearings on the invasion of Iraq.)

To his credit, Daschle is barely able to contain audible laughter. What brilliant staffer thought up this stunt and when will their resume be posted on Monster.com?

No one really fell for memory pill gambit…though what I would have given for Harman to ask if he had any “smartening pills.” A regular Dr. Feelgood, that Roberts.

Daschle and Harman want the program to continue. I’m not sure why we’re still discussing this. Roberts doesn’t “meant to pick a fight with my good friend Jane whom I agree with 90 percent of the time.” Harman shakes her head like the reaction shot of a contestant on a reality show.

Discussion of Risen exposure of the NSA program and whether reporters should be subpoenaed about such leaks. Harman somehow gets onto how Congress should be better briefed. Hoekstra says the NYT shouldn’t get to decide whether something is of vital national interest. But, you know, if Congress isn’t doing such a hot job… Daschle says he doesn’t like leaks, but notes that the administration “seems to have a double standard when it comes to leaks.”

Roberts has put away pill bottle but is now tapping pointer finger on table. “Some Justice Dept. employee by the water cooler who’s upset by this…. or, perish the thought, some FISA judge whose ego is second only to that of a senator.” Now we’re getting to the bottom of things: The three FIA judges watching at home just yelled at their screens, “Oh, no you diiinnnnt!”

Tim asks about subpoenaing reporters, Roberts says, “you’re talking to a reporter! If you look at the bio, it says ‘Roberts, journalist.’ An unemployed newspaper man.” Well, that is confidence building — and something else besides being an administration shill that Roberts has in common with Judy Miller.

Former intel honcho Paul Pillar article on intel and Iraq invasion. Daschle regrets how this all was handled. Roberts rambles about moving goal posts. Hoekstra says “these are interesting allegations” but “where was he before we went to war.” Apparently, he was a National Intelligence Officer. Harman regrets “that our intelligence wasn’t considered in full.” If only you had been smarter, Jane.

———————

Chris Matthews Show

Panel: Joe Klein, Norah O’Donnell, David Brooks (required by law to be on at least one Sunday show a week), Cynthia Tucker

Apparently Muslims are upset about some cartoons. Klein talks about Europe becoming more xenophobic. Norah is wearing red Star Trek uniform. She is fascinated by the use of cell phones and the web to spread hate.

Chris observes of protests: “they’re all 35 years old and wearing the same brown suit… they’re gung-ho and available to riot.” Chris asks Brooks about the faces of these young men on the television, “what is that emotion?” Brooks: “It’s not an emotion, it’s a world view,” which sounds pretty clever except that I think it really is an emotion: hate. Claims that Muslims think to themselves, “I don’t have to strive and learn… they see history as an epic struggle… it’s
apocalyptic.” That sounds familiar somehow… they’re not anti-evildoer, by any chance, are they?

Tucker says that it’s “important to moderate in response” and doesn’t see an immediate terrorist threat coming from it. Norah says “what was missing from this discussion was a world leader talking about
tolerance,” says that Laura Bush is only one that’s come close. Thank God we voted Laura Bush into office.

Chris: “we all come from the Abrahamic tradition… or you can debate that.” Brooks: Bush is going to have to make some kind of pluralist statement. Everyone agrees that cartoon riots are a “symptom of something bigger.” Chris compares it to “the war of Jenkin’s ear.” Huh?

Moving onto Barack-McCain break-up make-up. Cute use of sappy soft rock.

Now: Is Hillary too angry? Tucker: Women who are tough or angry get caricatured as being something that “rhymes with itchy.” Laughs. Klein says it absolutely is a gendered attack. I agree, this is a horribly sexist strategy. There are many reasons to hate Hillary besides her emotional profile. Chris says he blames the news shows! Says Chris “it’s shows like this, where there are two
guys talking, how do you get heard? Oh, hey, Norah…”

Norah says it’s part of the strategy, but that Republicans will have harder time than with Kerry (because he’s not a woman?). Ah: Not so much about gender but ANGER. Bushes have made a strategy about making it a lot about personality. Klein says that there’s a “simple defense to this that Democrats have a hard time summoning: humor.”

Brooks on Democrats: “they’ve got the blogs and the netroots and they’re semi-nuts.” Chris: Who has more nuts? Brooks: “Objectively, the Democrats.” Ha ha everyone laughs. Agrees that “objectively,” Hillary’s comments weren’t angry. Chatter about Bill at King funeral, Chris admires how Norah grabs Klein’s arm to get into the conversation. “Would that work for Hillary?” Aw, she’d just rip it off, and devour it in a maniacal frenzy, no?

Now let’s all tell Chris something he doesn’t know. Tucker: There will be a move by states to bring FEMA back as independent agency. Klein: Rumsfeld not really transforming the military. Norah: 2006 is the “year of the veteran.” Brooks: Cartoon riots have changed the dimensions of the NSA program? I think I missed something.

Now for Chris’s deep thoughts on… Cheney. He’s a very powerful veep, says Chris. SERIOUS QUESTIONS have been raised about him.

—————
Face the Nation
Feb 12, 2006
PDF transcript; podcast.

Schieffer has the most awesome “Network”-era-ish tie. Wide maroon, blue, and green stripes. So jealous. Elisabeth Bumiller has a mullet that would not be out of place some 10 years after “Network,” most likely on a 30-year-old mechanic in New Jersey. With hair like that she should be drunk by now.

Guest is Condoleezza Rice, and we’re straight into cartoon riots. “Violence in the streets and killing people” is totally unacceptable. Need to draw a distinction between peaceable demonstrations by people who are offended and not that. “We need to have tolerance and understanding of each other and it’s in short supply.” The talking points on this have gotten easier as the protests have gotten more violent.

Bumiller is wearing somethign from the Jaclyn Smith collection, I think. Asks about nukes in Iran. “Our view is that if there is a robust international response” we can prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. Define robust: maybe if we click our heels three times and rub our stomaches and pat our heads?

Schieffer asks about Russia. These are serious, substantive questions. No wonder no one watches. “Are you satisfied with Putin?” Rice: They have differences, but “on the Iranian situation” we’re getting along. So much cooperation and working through the UN it’s almost like the Bush administration believed in diplomacy.

Bumiller: “Did President Bush misjudge Putin when he said he had looked into his eyes and seen his soul?” Never trust love at first sight. Rice says something that’s not really an answer and unfortunately doesn’t say if Bushtin (Putsh?) is still a couple or not.

Howard Dean arrives. Schieffer asks about the Democratic response to Bush saying he needed to make a military response to Iran. Dean says he’d be shocked. “This President isn’t strong on defense, he’s weak on defense…I’ve often said that we went to war with Iraq without justification because the real problem is Iran.” Bumiller asks about domestic agenda, do the Democrats have one? Dean lists it. This is sort of not exciting. I want angry Dean. “A real agenda for change”? Is he on meds or something? Someone poke him with a stick, please.

Schieffer cites Cheney’s assertion about security as a political issue. Dean says Cheney has not credibility on security, cites Libby testimony that Cheney authorized leak. Would Dean prefer indictment or impeachment if Cheney did order leaking of national secrets? “He cannot remain in office.” Bumiller asks what he means. Disappointingly reasonable, Dean insists, “First, we have to find out if it’s true or not.”

Bumiller with the Mehlman Hillary-is-angry quote. Dean says he can’t comment on 2008, but defends Hill’s comments about “worst. administration. ever.” She’s said things that are “true but that Mr. Mehlman finds inconvenient.”

Schieffer on Mike Brown. Is in dire need of getting a break on the matter. Calls him “old Brownie” and says “we know it was failure of government on every level.” “And God help us if there is a terrorist
attack.” Because, presumably, the government won’t.

*Whoever. He looks confused, too.

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times