Thank you for posting. I saw the interview. Burns came across as frank, fair and honest. He was obviously struggling to be truly objective and caring about the situation in Iraq. He also freely admitted to the limitations of his perception, which were only too apparent in places. His premise about Vietnam being "one of the most prosperous countries in Asia" for instance.
By contrast, Rose was positively unseemly at times. He appeared to dig for a chance to vent his spleen at Bush. He was in this attack dog posture constantly throughout the interview-just waiting the cue for his 'I told you so' moment. If Rose is typical of the vaunted media news establishment, I shudder to think.
But I will definitely continue to look for Burns' byline in the future. I have never been disappointed in the past and this interview seals the case for me.
I've seen Rose often over the years. He is a skilled interviewer, unlike so many others (like the conservative Sean Hannity) and keeps things moving along well. But of course he's a socialist/lefty, but I have seldom seen him come off like a spitting 'Spitball Chris Matthews' type.
As I visualize in my mind the way he stoops his long body over his notes asking questions however, I can see how he was ready to pounce on anything to try to skewer the President.
But, as you kindly report, Mr. Burns was pretty darn fair. Good for him. He's a real reporter. I despise most of the media, and for about the thousandth time:
****
The socialist/Marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.