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.
Timmy The Potato is at it again.
I quit watching this Demmie apologist back during the impeachment wars. Wonder why Fitzgerald would take The Potato's word over Libby's word? Demmies of a feather...?
When a supposedly intellegent man misleads this way--and fails to apologize-- it can't be out of ignorance or oversight. It's a lie.
Even when they do lie they can t win, if John Kerry is any inidication..
"it can't be out of ignorance or oversight. It's a lie."
It certainly isn't ignorance. He knows what he's saying. But it isn't a lie, since he's stated the facts. So it's manipulative. And he's good at it.
They should send this to Scooter Libby's attorneys. Another example of Russert distorting the truth.
bookmark
I've cut waaaay back on my viewing but was interested in watching Dean on MTP. But you're right -- the less I watch, the happier I am.
BTW, I'm a dudette (not a dude) :-)
And recently, Andrea Mitchell tried to worm her way out of an interview she had on CNBC where she was quoted as saying that "everyone" knew that Plame was an agent.
What Russert did here was more than just a confrontational interview. He deliberately took Powell's comments out of context and then used them to butress his question, "That’s the secretary of state. So why can’t Democrats now say that the administration deliberately misled the American people?"
This isn't a "hard" question, it is a deliberately misleading one. It is entirely different from the example you used, i.e., the "fun" experience you had on a local TV show. Russert is not/not an outstanding interviewer if the purpose of an interview is to ferret out the truth and not knowingly try to mislead the guest with bogus information. This isn't responsible journalism. Mehlman should demand an apology and a correction.
Tim Russert was Michael S. Dukakis' press secretary.
He is part of the "old media"/Democrat Party propaganda cabal.
A good reminder; thank you.
What Russert did here was more than just a confrontational interview. He deliberately took Powell's comments out of context and then used them to butress his question, "That’s the secretary of state. So why can’t Democrats now say that the administration deliberately misled the American people?"
Thanks :)
I've stopped watching Imus..It just became too much dem spin..
All the so called big three talk hosts are Rat shrills.
I like Special Report with Brit Hume..
As long as it's just FOXNews, talk-radio & the Internet providing the facts, the 'saturation-effect' of the MSM will continue to pay election-day dividends to the left.
The liberal mutual fellatio was disgusting.
I turned on a DVD of Terminator II.
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.