Is that all there is?

Well, that sure clears things up, doesn’t it? I’m talking, of course, about what the rest of the nation is talking about today – Connie Chung’s interview with Rep. Gary Condit.

I’m tempted to rename my column today. Instead of calling it Between the Lines, maybe a discussion of ABC’s special with Condit last night should be called Between the Lies. The only thing you saw between the lies last night were the commercials.

“I’m not a perfect man. … I’ve made mistakes in my life. … I’ve been married for 34 years. … Blah, blah, blah, blah.”

Everybody’s lying, he said. The flight attendant is lying. The cops are lying. The news media are lying. Everybody’s lying but Gary Condit. Everybody’s confused. Everyone is mistaken. Everyone misunderstands. Only Gary Condit knows the real story.

It was not convincing.

I feel more vindicated than ever in being the first pundit in America to call for Gary Condit’s resignation. June 21 – can anyone top that?

This was a dismal performance. Connie Chung rose to the occasion. Condit did not.

There were some amazing moments. His emphasis on the lie-detector test and his ability to pass with flying colors was one of my favorites. He claimed it proved him innocent. Innocent of what?

Here’s one question I would have asked at that point: “Congressman Condit, do you think we can really establish the guilt or innocence of suspects based on polygraph tests paid for by the suspects, conducted by those chosen by the suspects and utilizing only questions approved by the suspects?”

If that’s the case, we can overhaul law enforcement in this country. We don’t need cops any more. We don’t need district attorneys. We don’t need detectives. We can just let suspects conduct the investigations.

So what did we learn from this big night for ABC? Absolutely nothing. Through no fault of Connie Chung, little new information was forthcoming from this interview – which is why I’m going to stop talking about it and bring up a related development in the Chandra Levy case broken in WorldNetDaily today.

I’m talking about Paul Sperry’s scooplet that investigators in the Chandra Levy missing-persons case have begun focusing attention on her workplace. What I found most interesting about this story, however, is the fact that Levy’s supervisors have not yet been interviewed by any law-enforcement investigators as yet.

That is unbelievable to me. This is the highest-profile investigation in the nation. The whole country is talking about the case. The FBI is involved. The Washington, D.C., police department is involved. The Justice Department is involved. Yet, with all that government manpower and all that investigative ability, WorldNetDaily’s Paul Sperry interviewed Levy’s supervisors before any law-enforcement people did.

Why should I be surprised? After all, we’re talking about the government. Government is always slow, always inefficient, always inept. Why should it be different when it comes to investigating crimes?

We’ve seen it over and over again. We saw the way police and FBI botched the investigation of the death of White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster. We saw the way the authorities botched the investigation of Waco. (In this case, however, it is worth pointing out that the government was very efficient in exterminating all the men, women and children in the church.) We saw the way the federal investigators botched the investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing. We saw the way they botched the probe of TWA Flight 800.

Why should it surprise me that no one bothered to talk to Chandra Levy’s bosses three months after her disappearance?

Connie Chung would do a better investigation of this than the FBI has done.

If there are any doubts yet in your mind about the fact that Gary Condit is still hiding some things, that he is not being forthcoming, that is spinning, bobbing and weaving instead of focusing attention on cooperating with police, I direct you to the Condit-Levy timeline in today’s edition of WorldNetDaily.

This chronology of events – something no other news organization has done – really puts the whole thing in perspective. It shows actions and reactions. It shows Condit acted only when forced to by events. It demonstrates that his interest – his only interest – remains Gary Condit’s well-being.

Whatever comes out of this man’s mouth is a lie. He’s not concerned about his family. He’s not concerned about the Levys. And he sure doesn’t give a whit about Chandra.