Posted on 11/14/2005 4:29:25 AM PST by Peach
Tim Russert, Democrat Shill
We realize Tim Russert only got his job at NBC because of Russert’s then boss Senator Patrick Moynihan’s friendship with the then head of NBC News. But Russert regularly goes beyond the call of duty to his DNC overlords.
Behold this lead into a question for GOP head, Ken Mehlman on today’s (November 13th) installment of Meet The Press:
MR. RUSSERT: "On solid intelligence." And then 15 months later, the secretary of state came on this program and said this.
(Videotape, May 16, 2004):
SEC’Y POWELL: But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed, and I regret it.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "Deliberately misleading." That’s the secretary of state. So why can’t Democrats now say that the administration deliberately misled the American people?
Because, Mr. Russert, you are a liar.
The actual context of Powell’s remarks from the cited May 16, 2004 Meet The Press broadcast gives his words an entirely different meaning:
RUSSERT: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?
POWELL: I’m very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I’m deeply disappointed. But I’m also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.
It is clear that in his May 16th remarks Powell was referring to the CIA asset called "Curveball," who had been deliberately misleading. — Not the administration.
In fact in his original answer Powell insisted the administration honestly believed the information the CIA had made available to them and had acted in good faith. But Russert edited Powell’s response to make it sound exactly the opposite.
Doing so, Tim Russert has once again exposed himself to the world as the Democrat hack that he is. Of course this is not news to anyone who has ever watched him.
Perhaps open an investigation, hold hearings!
Just saw this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1521324/posts
I just sent him a letter asking for an apology and mentioning at the end that it's no wonder trust in the media is at an all time low.
I used the quotes yesterday and then the actual transcript from his interview with Powell in 2004.
It didn't happen. I saw it. When addressing Mehlman, R asked a series of confrontational questions, including the misrepresentation in question here. Addressing Dean, R asked no confrontational questions; didn't accuse him or his party of any wrongdoing; didn't bring up any acandals; only asked the ritual question, what would Dems do. R was quite satisfied with an answer that was the equivalent of, "Oh, we'll think of something when the time comes."
Yes---I noticed how easy he was on Dean compared to the Repubbie.......Russert is unfair.
I used the original title in my thread and did a search; this is why when one does a search and it doesn't show up that we have duplicates.
But I'm glad it was posted twice actually!
When I watch Russert I see the same thing. His "hardball questions" to Dems allow them to clear up misunderstandings. His hardball questions to Republicans take them on. It's subtle, but if you've ever been interview, you know the difference. That's the "lie" that's harder - and more frequent. That said, I still feel Russert is often an outstanding interviewer.
Why isn't anybody seeing the real problem.
The other day, there was a thread that the CIA said Iran was close to nuclear production, etc. It will be YEARS before anyone trusts the CIA again. If ever.
He is a good interviewer. What I don't appreciate is mis-quoting someone the way he did.
I don't expect Russert to be fair. But hearing that he repeatedly asked what the dems solutions are and forced Dean to admit that they have none, but they'd come up with some by next year, sounds tougher than usual to me. And I doubt Dean was very happy when he left.
Me too. I missed it the first time.
We could end the WOT by Christmas.
Simply take TR to Club Gitmo, tell him the "freedom fighters" are really Bush-Rove operatives.
If he comes ANYWHERE close to giving the TOTALLY-DISGUSTING-DIRECT FROM THE DNC-TALKING POINTS-MEMO "interview" I saw him "conduct" with Ken Mehlman on 11-13-05 MTP......
...The WORLDWIDE WOT is OVER !!!!
A "Thanks for the post Peach" BTTT !!!
"His "hardball questions" to Dems allow them to clear up misunderstandings. His hardball questions to Republicans take them on."
exactly
The transcript will show Dean had every reason to be happy with the interview, since the "Democrat plans" thing is the only even barely difficult question, but it has been asked repeatedly in many contexts, and Dean has a pat, but garbled, answer. It did not embarrass Dean. R did not go into anything embarrassing to the Democrats.
No surprise...Hell even Larry Kings show has
become nothing more than NeoRatzi propaganda..
His two weekend shows, this last week, were
highly scripted and slanted hour long attacks
on all things Republican...Larry King is just
another leftist bag of pervert turds.
Thanks for posting this. It only reinforces my already low opinion of Russert.
Dittos. Russert is not only a shill, but is not very bright.
Okay. I guess people see and interpret things differently.
Actually, just reading the transcript of what Russert asked pertaining to this Powell quote, doesn't make Russert come off as a liar, but someone trying to mislead the viewer & twist the facts that he himself just stated. On paper, it's easily disputable.
And, on the Imus program, Andrea Mitchell keeps repeating, "we know Tim wouldn't lie."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.