Few people would describe CBS anchor Bob Schieffer as a journalistic bomb thrower. Instead, words like courtly, gentile, and av uncular are more suited to Schieffer’s journalistic style. However, even Bob Schieffer was fed up on Sunday, in his commentary on the White House reaction to the Cessna airplane scare. White House spokespeople such as Scott McClellan and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley had repeatedly made the straight-faced claim that failing to tell the president that a civilian airplane was about to be shot down over the White House was perfectly in keeping with crisis “protocols.” They insisted that there was no need to interrupt the president's idyllic bike ride. This notion was so silly and unbelievable that Schieffer had to call them on it: 

“Now wait a minute. No need to know his wife had been taken to a bomb shelter, the vice president and congressional leaders were being whisked to secret locations, the Capitol and the White House were being evacuated?” 

Schieffer continued: 

“Please. Common sense -- to be sure, a resource that is seldom used in Washington -- tells us that communications equipment failed, or someone just made a bonehead mistake. Not exactly indictable offenses. But this White House is genetically incapable of admitting even a minor mistake, so spinners found themselves arguing the president is so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that he didn't need to be told until all the smart people around him had fixed the problem.” 

And finally, using a velvet glove over an iron fist, Schieffer delivered a blow to the solar plexus: 

“I've known a president or two in my time and I've yet to meet one who thought he was inconsequential, or who appreciated having himself pictured as such, especially by his own people. I sure wouldn't.” 

Schieffer, in his gentile fashion, has managed to pinpoint something spectacularly wrong about this administration: It has no shame, it lives in denial, it is constantly in “spin” mode. The Bush administration is so insecure about its lack of competence, it feels that to acknowledge even the slightest mistake, is to risk having the whole house of cards fall down. A president with a real sense of self-confidence would have stridden to the microphone after the event and said something like: 

“Some of the management people screwed up by not notifying me immediately. I’ve made the necessary corrections to the system, and I can assure you that it will never happen again!” 

The problem is, it is impossible to imagine the president saying anything so straightforward and obvious. Instead the White House deals with every problem through denial, bravado, stonewalling, and make-believe. No president with half a brain would be anything but irate at being kept out of the loop while Capitol Hill was in a state of panic. Even from a public relations standpoint the incident makes the president look like a mental dwarf whose input is unneeded or unwanted during a crisis. But the administration refuses to say what everyone already knows: They screwed up. If this were simply an isolated case, it was be tolerable. But this is thematic in this administration. 

Take, for example, the practice of “rendition,” that of sending detainees to countries with questionable human rights records for interrogation. It is quite obvious that this amounts to a torture-by-proxy scheme, yet the administration persists in claiming that there is an ethical basis for rendition. Listen to this curious exchange from the president’s March 16 press conference.

Q Mr. President, can you explain why you've approved of and expanded the practice of what's called rendition, of transferring individuals out of U.S. custody to countries where human rights groups and your own State Department say torture is common for people under custody?

THE PRESIDENT: The post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge we have been given. And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves. We don't believe in torture.

Q As Commander-in-Chief, what is it that Uzbekistan can do in interrogating an individual that the United States can't?

THE PRESIDENT: We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country.

It is disturbing enough that this practice has become a mainstay of the war on terrorism; it is more disturbing that the president offers such a cavalier, half-baked justification of it. What on earth does it mean that we get a promise from Uzbekistan—which just gunned down 700 of its citizens during civil unrest—that they will not torture prisoners? We haven’t adhered to our own pledges not to torture. How on earth can we trust the Uzbekistans and Libyas of the world not to do so?

That the president can be so dismissive of questions about “rendition,” and with a straight face is shameful.But the most glaring case of the administration’s shamelessness is that of the nomination of John Bolton. There may exist on record a worse nomination, but this may be the most cynical nomination ever tendered. In an earlier blog, I suggested that sending Bolton to the UN was a way of kicking him upstairs, getting him out of the policy-making wing of the State Department. Everything I’ve heard since has convinced me more of this idea. Listen to Senator Paul Sarbanes discussing the testimony elicited from Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff:

“Larry Wilkerson, who was Secretary Powell's chief of staff, described to the committee staff the kinds of problems he had on a daily basis in dealing with Bolton: "Assistant secretaries, principal deputy assistant secretaries, acting assistant secretaries coming into my office and telling me, 'Can I sit down?' And I would say to them, 'Sure, sit down. What's the problem?' 'I've got to leave.' 'What's the problem?' 'Bolton.'" When asked if he got similar complaints about other undersecretaries, he replied, ‘On one occasion, on one particular individual. The rest were all about Undersecretary Bolton.’ In summarizing his experience with Bolton, Wilkerson stated, ‘I think he's a lousy leader. And there are 100 to 150 people up there that have to be led. They have to be led well, and they have to be led properly.’”

The significance of this isn’t simply that Bolton was a bad manager; it was that his bad reputation preceded him. Everyone knew that he was a nuisance, a pill, in short, more trouble than he was worth. This is why speculation is rampant that Bolton’s UN nomination was not a first prize, but rather a consolation prize, for a man who really wanted to be Condi Rice’s deputy.

It was painful to listen to the Republicans during the May 12 Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing. There are a lot of decent Republicans on the committee, Lugar, Hagel, Murkowski, among them, who are deeply troubled, and who can’t turn a blind eye to the flaws of this nomination. So each Republican senator awkwardly listed his or her misgivings about John Bolton, only to then suddenly do a sharp pivot and say, “I’m voting for this nominee, because I believe a president deserves to have his choices confirmed.”

This line became a mantra during the hearing.

As I watched the hearing, each Republican seemed to be holding his or her nose, while voicing support for Bolton. Listen to the words of Chairman Lugar:

“Secretary Bolton's actions were not always exemplary. On several occasions, he made incorrect assumptions about the behavior and motivation of subordinates. At other times, he failed to use proper managerial channels or unnecessarily personalized internalist views. The picture is one of an aggressive policy-maker who pressed his missions at every opportunity and argued vociferously for his point of view. In the process, his blunt style alienated some colleagues, but there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct.”

Talk about a strained endorsement! Lugar feels compelled to assure us that Bolton has committed no crimes!

Listen to a sample of comments during the hearing from Lisa Murkowski, Republican senator from Alaska:

“He can be focused, but he can be over-aggressive. It's also become clear to me that when Mr. Bolton has made up his mind about an issue, it can be difficult to change that mindset…”

“I found Mr. Bolton's comments [about North Korea] to be inflammatory at a time when we were trying to promote diplomacy in the region. And it seemed to me that if he was willing to fan the flames with disparaging rhetoric at that point in time, it was a question to me as to how he would conduct himself in New York. And it was an issue that we brought up at that initial meeting. I also understand that Mr. Bolton remarked during his confirmation hearing that he'd received a thank you from then- Ambassador Hubbard for his speech, saying that the speech had been helpful and it would do them some good in South Korea. And yet, when I reviewed the transcript from the interview with Ambassador Hubbard, it was very clear that Hubbard's intent had not been to thank Mr. Bolton for the speech itself, but for making some factual changes to the speech so as not to spread the flames any further. And I have to agree with Ambassador Hubbard's assessment that the speech did not advance the president's objective of verifiably dismantling North Korea's nuclear program through negotiation…”

“I believe that there is a pattern of Mr. Bolton pushing that envelope on whether he could or could not say, in trying to push policy that was perhaps more ambitious than the administration might be willing to go...”

 “I do believe that how one treats not only those on a similar level of authority, but also those with not as much power, it says a lot. It says lot about them as a person and how they will work with others. And then in this position in the U.N. our representative needs to be able to work with others to build those relationships…”

But just when you think that Murkowski has seen enough, and is prepared to vote against Bolton, she lets all the air out of the balloon:

But at the same time, I recognize that this is the president's nominees. The president deserves to be surrounded by individuals that he trusts…”

There's that mantra again...

So there it is. Democrats are horrified by the nomination. Republicans are having trouble finding positive things to say about John Bolton. The White House was sloppy in its preparation, and apparently thought that it could shuffle Bolton off to the UN (technically, a lower level position than Bolton currently has) with little resistance or objection.

The Bolton nomination was a major mistake, both domestically and internationally. Further, it was one that Chairman Lugar warned the White House about in advance. Most presidents would withdraw a nomination this divisive and embarrassing. But this president has little capacity for embarrassment. This is not about John Bolton any more; it’s about winning at any cost, about looking strong. It is about the pathology of an administration that would rather appear strong than right. To that end, they’ll keep pushing for this flawed nominee, regardless of how much pottery he breaks. While other administrations would be feeling shame, this one, true to form, pushes blindly forward.

This year, I made a solemn promise to myself, that after writing three blog entries about American Idol last year, I would now walk the straight and narrow and steer clear of Idolmania. My best-laid plans went awry, however, when the Paula Abdul-Corey Clark brouhaha erupted, setting off my b.s. detector. To my dismay, I began to feel an invisible force beyond my power, dragging me, kicking and screaming to my computer. At that point, I was helpless.

The allegations of an improper relationship—a sexual affair--between contestant Corey Clark and judge Paula Abdul raise many interesting issues—not terribly complicated issues, mind you—but interesting ones. Please allow me to wade into the thicket of charges and countercharges, and sort out the sense from the nonsense:

1) Did Clark and Abdul have an inappropriate, sexual relationship? Of course they did. At this point, anyone who thinks otherwise would have to assume that Corey Clark—a kid who arrived at American Idol without a cell phone, a car, or a fixed address--somehow had the wherewithal to manufacture telephone records that show countless phone calls between the two over a period of months. Doubters would have to explain how Corey gained detailed intimate knowledge of Paula’s house, including even the “dog ramp in the guest room” for her three dogs (“Thumbelina, Tulip, and Tinkerbell” ). They would have to tell us how Corey could describe Paula’s Jacuzzi and the television that stood above it. They would have to explain how Clark could have come into possession of a bottle of prescription cough syrup from the Beverly Glen Pharmacy, with Paula Abdul’s name on it. They would have to assume that Clark had orchestrated a broad conspiracy that included not only his two friends (who say that they met Paula at the interestingly named “Club Lingerie”), but also included an employee from a Sprint cell phone store who confirmed that Clack and Abdul came in together to activate a cell phone. Anyone doubting Clark at this juncture would also have to assume that Clark enlisted his parents in the conspiracy. The parents’ own phone records show numerous incoming calls from Paula, and they report answering the phone many times, speaking to Paula when she was calling for Corey. Anyone doubting the relationship has an enormous burden to meet, a mountain of evidence that they would have to explain away.

2) Why hasn’t Paula stood up and defended herself? This question is easy: Because Corey’s allegations are true, and Paula wants to avoid making statements that could later be seen as outright lies. When the charges first surfaced, I was curious as to whether Abdul would make a clean, clear denial. It never came. Instead we heard careful, secondhand statements from her spokespeople that she would “not dignify” his charges with a response. We also heard Abdul describe Clark’s allegations as “hideous and mean.” However, significantly, we never heard her describe the charges as untrue. Rather than stand up and give a full accounting of this episode, and if need be, apologize to Idol-nation, Abdul is currently in full stonewall mode, hoping the charges will go away. That alone speaks volumes about her sense of responsibility.

3) Isn’t all this irrelevant, since it is the audience that votes a contestant in or out? The answer is a resounding no. Up until the final 12 contestants have been chosen, it is the judges, not the audience, who determine the fate of each contestant. So, from the round of (approximately) 200 contestants, through the round of 12, Clark and Abdul were carrying on romantically at night, while she served as his head cheerleader during the day. Furthermore, even if judges had no impact on voting at all, the guidance that he received, the emotional and financial support, and the comfort of knowing that he had one of the judges in his, er, pocket, would have made for an enormous advantage. Like most reality series, American Idol is in part about conquering stress and adversity; being able to spend nights with one of the judges would certainly be a major a stress-reducer. Indeed, knowing what we now know, the scenes of Paula leaping to her feet to praise Corey, after having picked his song and bought his clothes, are enough to make one cringe.

4) Is FOX taking the charges seriously? Well, yes and no. Clearly the most cynical party in this entire saga is the FOX network itself. Their statement that they intend to investigate the charges but they need Corey Clark to help them, is absurd on its face, and is little more than a delaying tactic. FOX doesn’t need Corey Clark to come talk to them directly. The charges have been in the public domain for weeks, and unless FOX made a strategic decision to bury their head in the sand, they’ve already done their investigation. The simple truth is, FOX already knows that the charges are true, and the network is now thrashing around, buying time, trying to come up with a strategy of damage control. Fact-checking Clark’s allegations could be completed in a matter of hours. Just in case FOX is as dimwitted and helpless as it pretends to be, here’s a simple suggestion on how to investigate this case: Call Paula into your office, and ask her point-blank, “Did you have an affair with Corey Clark?” If she answers “no,” then tell her that you need to inspect her phone records for the first 3 months of 2003. By all appearances, FOX and Abdul are engaged in a little two-step right now, entitled “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

5) Isn’t Corey Clark simply drumming up publicity for his upcoming CD? Of course he is. He is trying to cash in, in the best way that he can. It’s quite convenient and strategic for him make the charges now that he is resurfacing with an album, but that in no way negates the strength of his evidence. Further, it is not hard to understand why Clark would go public: He is still wounded and bitter over his dismissal from American Idol (as a result of an arrest record). One of the themes of American Idol is the intense pain and despair that the contestants experience—at every phase of the competition—when they are rejected. Corey’s fellow contestants, interviewed on the ABC expose "Fallen Idol," used words like “depressed” and “suicidal” to describe their feelings after being voted off the show. Imagine then, what it was like for Corey Clark, a kid with no means, but full of dreams, who is sleeping with a 40 year old judge and among the final 12 contestants, to be publicly humiliated and abruptly kicked off the show. In addition to his very embarrassing dismissal from the show, virtually all contact with Abdul ceased overnight. He is bitter, vindictive perhaps, but having seen the evidence, I have little doubt about the basic accuracy of his charges.

6) But why would Paula risk everything to have a fling with a 22 year old contestant? Because when one is unhappy and emotionally needy, it impairs judgment and can lead to stupid decisions. Paula, herself, has already chronicled in People Magazine this year, her many emotional struggles in life, including chronic pain, a neurological disorder, problems with painkillers, bulimia, and two divorces. And don’t kid yourself into naively thinking, “But Paula could have had anyone she wanted.” It is no easier to have a fulfilling relationship if you’re a Hollywood star, than it is if you work at Walmart in Peoria. It only seems that way from afar. Clark quotes Paula as saying to him in their first telephone conversation that she wanted be like a “mother” to him. Then, he says, she amended that: “No, more like a sister—well, more like a special friend.” In Corey Clark, Paula found exactly what she needed, someone whom she could mother, befriend, and with whom she could share a romance. From the outside looking in, it of course looks ridiculously foolish. But telephone calls of 111 and 155 minutes in length are indicative of the nature of their relationship.

7) Can Paula remain on the show? Unless FOX wants to make itself a laughingstock and a model of hypocrisy, the answer is no. Remember, FOX has now run afoul of the very holier-than-thou standard that it asks contestants to meet. It is, by the way, a standard that I’ve always found outrageous. So what if one of the contestants (Frenchy) posed on a porn site? Does that disqualify her from becoming a pop star? Of course not, no more than Vanessa Williams, whose racy pictures have long since been forgotten. The absurdity of American Idol’s phony moralism, is that it would exclude the greatest stars of the rock era. Think about it: From Jerry Lee Lewis, to Chuck Berry, to James Brown, to Jim Morrison, to Jimmy Hendrix, to Janis Joplin, to Mick Jagger, to Johnny Cash (indeed the list is endless), all have had serious scrapes with the law. And all have made enormous contributions to music and pop culture. It is a fitting irony that FOX has found out that what goes around, comes around, with the integrity of its most successful program under fire.

What should FOX do now? Fox should simply cut its losses and come clean with the public. It should ask Paula Abdul to apologize to the show’s audience and contestants, and it should replace her. It should see this as an opportunity to revamp the show and improve it. If possible, it should recruit Naomi Judd to replace Paula. As a judge on CBS’s recent Star Search, Judd was everything that Abdul was not: creative, independent, witty, thoughtful, as well as warm. She would make a terrific addition to the show. And while FOX is making changes, it should scrap the problem-ridden voting system that allows each person to cast hundreds of votes on behalf of his or her favorite, thereby clogging the phone lines and causing many would-be voters to give up. The integrity of the voting process would improve a thousand-fold if FOX enforced a “one phone line, one vote” rule. American Idol will survive this scandal, but it will almost certainly do so without Paula Abdul.