Iraqis > Who Cares?

Well now, this certainly makes one wonder why we're risking the necks of our servicemen in Iraq. Granted, those interviewed may have been specially selected or there may have been some other motive but Reuters is a large reputable news organization and I find this article very interesting although not statistically significant.

We've long known that many of the people in Iraq want us out but have assumed that most like to have us there. This certainly doesn't address which is the majority, but their opinions are fascinating. I think it would be enlightening for someone other than our government to take a serious poll of the Iraqi people and let us know...

Iraqis search for signs of change in U.S. election

By Aseel Kami Mar 10, 2008

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis are avidly watching the 2008 U.S. election race, searching for signs of policy change under a new president and prospects for U.S. troop withdrawals from their country.

"I do not care if the president is a man or a woman, what really matters is the change of American policy towards Iraq," said Muhenad Sahib, a university professor from the southern oil hub of Basra, Iraq's second largest city.

Athil al-Nujaifi, a member of a secular, multi-ethnic political bloc in the volatile northern city of Mosul, said a Democrat victory would offer the United States "a new future." "The current situation in Iraq is tied to President Bush and his inability to admit his mistake in occupying Iraq and his inability to avoid the mistakes the neo-conservatives committed,"

Nujaifi said.Mohammed Shaker, a member of Iraq's biggest Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, in Mosul, thought the Democrats would win but disagreed with Nujaifi, saying he did not expect U.S. policy to change regardless of the outcome of the election. But he hoped U.S. troops might withdraw anyway because of improving security.

SOME SEE NO IMPACTSome Iraqis felt their lives would be little changed whoever wins the November election.

"I follow the news but I don't care who will win because they are two faces of one coin," said Ali Naji, a 27-year-old shop owner in Iraq's southern holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.Qassim

Ahmed, a photography shop owner in Mosul and father of seven sons, agreed. "We are in a race to make a living for our children. These things will not be any use to us," Ahmed told Reuters.

Many of those across Iraq interviewed by Reuters over the past week felt U.S. voters could do worse than elect Clinton as the first female president of the United States.

"It would be fantastic because a woman has more sense ... she cares more about her life, her family and her people," said Qassim Tuaima, the owner of a Baghdad curtain shop.

Abdul-Latif al-Dulaimi, a 38-year-old architect, agreed, describing Bush as "hasty and stubborn.""Bush led his country to be hated and created violence in many parts of the world," said Dulaimi, who is from the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja just west of Baghdad.

But not all Iraqis are glued to the U.S. election.

"I don't watch it because I do not have a TV set," said Abu Ali, a 50-year-old vegetable shop owner from Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. "I would love any person who gave me money to buy a TV set."

(Additional reporting by Sabah al-Bazi in Tikrit, Aref Mohammed in Basra, Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Aws Qusay in Baghdad, writing by Paul Tait; Editing by Dominic Evans)

McCain

The right wing likes to claim that the media favors the left wing. However, this really is not the case, as you will see below.John McCain is one of our Arizona senators. There is absolutely no doubt that in the election next November unless something drastic happens, the state of Arizona will choose to elect him to the presidency whether I vote or not and no matter that we Democrats are able to 'get out the vote' or whatever! McCain wins Arizona!

I will vote, of course, because I have always voted just as a poor black angus calf goes up the chute to be bonked on the head and butchered. That's just what we do - me and the calf!

We could demand fairness, one man - one vote, but the states, under the Constitution can make the decision. Almost universally, to satisfy their political machines, to have a 'winner take all system' rather than 'proportional representation'. This is despite the fact that amazingly we claim to be Democratic even though obviously we are not. It is only a fluke when a president wins both the Presidency AND the popular vote! Note that the Republican primaries were based upon the winner take all strategy and nobody could beat McCain.

The Democratic primary is based upon proportional representation and there is much more competition between the cndidates since they are subject to popular vote.

Sure, McCain was a hero of sorts. He was a pilot who was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He spent the rest of the war in a cage. He had no choice and so far as I know did nothing valiant beyond managing to stay alive. Of course, that was not pleasant and he deserves credit for his service as a volunteer rather than being drafted and perhaps shot in a foxhole in the boonies like over 50,000 other guys were in that miserable war.

Frankly, I don't see him as a hero which, to me, means his doing something 'over and above the call of duty' - he was simply a POW!

Never-the-less, he has milked being a hero for over forty years with little else to qualify him for political office. All I can say in fairness is that he isn't the only one using military service as justification for election to office (from both parties). Actually, Sen. Kerry was much more a hero than McCain - and there have been others even more heroic than Kerry!

The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America:

THE MEDIA'S HERO

In the past week, The New York Times has described John McCain as "a Vietnam hero and national security pro." The Associated Press has referred to McCain's "Vietnam War-hero biography." UPI has referred to him as "the
71-year-old Vietnam hero." The Boston Globe called McCain "a 71-year-old war hero." The Buffalo News combined the two descriptions, describing McCain as "a 71-year-old Vietnam War hero." And Newsweek declared McCain "a war hero who is fun to be around." (Such casual invocations of McCain's war record are far from new. Two examples: In 2003, the Las Vegas Review-Journal sneaked a reference to McCain's Vietnam service into the beginning of an article about his efforts to ban gambling on the NCAA basketball tournament. In August 2000, the Chicago Tribune shoehorned McCain's status as a former prisoner of war into a brief article -- just 157 words -- about his skin cancer.)

The week's most intense focus on McCain's status as a war hero came on MSNBC following his appearance with President Bush at the White House. As the blogger Digby noted, MSNBC's
Brian Williams and Chris Matthews gushed over McCain:

WILLIAMS: You know what I thought was unsaid -- they took their position, Chris, we're seeing the replay -- they end up in this spot and the sun is coming is just from the side and there in the shadow is John McCain's buckled, concave shoulder. It's a part of his body the suit doesn't fill out because of his war injuries. Again you wouldn't spot it unless you knew to look for it. He doesn't give the same full chested profile as the president standing next to him. Talk about a warrior...

MATTHEWS: You know, when he was a prisoner all those years, as you know, in isolation from his fellows, I do believe, uhm, and Machiavelli had this
right -- it's not sentimental, it's factual -- the more you give to something, the more you become committed to it. That's true of marriage and children and everything we've committed to in our lives. He committed to his country over there. He made an investment in America, alone in that cell, when he was being tortured and afraid of being put to death at any moment -- and turning down a chance to come home. Those are non-political facts which I think do work for him. When it gets close this November, which I do believe, and you likely agree,
will be a very close contest between him and whoever wins the Democratic fight. And I think people will look at that fact, that here's a man who has invested deeply, and physically and personally in his country.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Of course the son of a Navy Admiral, a product of Annapolis who couldn't wait to become a Navy aviator... Williams acknowledged that "you wouldn't spot" McCain's war injury if he hadn't pointed it out.

Indeed, McCain's war record didn't come up, even in passing, during his appearance with Bush. There was no reminder of it in anything Bush or McCain said -- and, as Williams acknowledged, there was no visual indication of it, either. Williams and Matthews brought it up out of the blue. So what's wrong with bringing McCain's status as a war hero up out of the blue, as Williams and Matthews did, as many other news reports did this week? Or even as the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Chicago Tribune did in articles about gambling on the NCAA tournament and skin cancer?

McCain is, after all, a war hero; everybody agrees about that. There isn't anything wrong with Brian Williams and Chris Matthews talking about that.

But Matthews and Williams then agreed, in essence, that John McCain is more "committed" to America than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And that the "non-political facts" of McCain's service to his country will have very real political impact.

Well, it certainly will if Chris Matthews and Brian Williams keep telling voters that McCain is more "committed" to America and more "invested ... physically and personally in his country" than his Democratic opponent.

That isn't journalism; it's taking sides. And that illustrates what is troubling about the media's tendency to invoke McCain's admirable service at the drop of a hat: It begins to resemble cheerleading.

It would be virtually inconceivable for news reports to treat McCain's Democratic rivals this way. Try
to imagine a 157-word article about Barack Obama seeking treatment for skin cancer that notes in passing that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, or an article about Hillary Clinton introducing port security legislation that casually notes her years of work on behalf of children. Seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it?

But non-sequiturs like that occur regularly in coverage of McCain. The effect is to constantly remind voters of what may be the most admirable thing about him, enhancing his reputation on security issues. Which isn't to say that voters are
the only people affected in this way by media coverage of McCain. Reporters apparently are, as well.

The Washington Post reported this week: "Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the war hero and likely Republican nominee who once dismissed Obama for misspelling 'flak jacket,' has also belittled his credentials,
accusing him last week of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Had the Post actually looked into the merits of McCain's "flak jacket" attack on Obama rather than assuming that the "war hero" must be correct, the paper might have told readers the truth. The truth is that McCain once falsely accused Obama of misspelling "flak jacket" and that it was McCain who was wrong about the spelling of "flak." (After a written statement from Obama referred to "flack
jackets," McCain issued a statement purporting to correct Obama's spelling: "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

But McCain was wrong, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted. Multiple dictionaries indicate
that both spellings are acceptable, and numerous official U.S. military websites use Obama's spelling. Several reporters have nevertheless repeated McCain's attack on Obama without noting that he was wrong.)

The media's constant repetition of McCain's war record also serves to inoculate him from criticism.
Indeed, media outlets sometimes explicitly invoke McCain's service in response to completely unrelated criticism of him. And this appears to be something McCain himself is encouraging. In February, former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole wrote a letter to Rush Limbaugh asking Limbaugh to go easy on McCain. In response, Mitt Romney, who was then running against McCain for this year's GOP nomination, said that he wouldn't have had Dole write a letter on his behalf, explaining that "there are a lot of folks that tend to think that maybe John McCain's race is a bit like Bob Dole's race -- that it's the guy who's the next in line; he's the inevitable choice and we'll give it to him, and then, it won't work."

In response, McCain denounced Romney for "disparaging an American hero" -- a reference to Dole's service in World War II. In case McCain's point wasn't clear, he added: "I think Governor Romney should apologize to Bob Dole for that comment. He's a great American, and for Governor Romney, who has never had any military experience, to disparage the service and courage of an American hero, I think is disgraceful."

And again, just in case there was anyone who
still didn't get the point: "[T]o disparage a great American hero like Senator Bob Dole, who led our Republicans in the Senate? I mean, that's -- an apology is in order.

"Romney's comments about Dole had absolutely nothing to do with Dole being "an American hero," absolutely nothing to do with Dole's "service and
courage." Romney's own lack of "military experience" was completely irrelevant.

The standard McCain seemed to be setting was that because of Dole's military service, it is "disgraceful" to criticize him in any way -- even if the criticism has nothing to do with his service.

That's a pretty convenient standard for McCain to set, given his own war record. It is also completely irrational.

It almost goes without saying that the media ate it up with a spoon. MSNBC aired portions of McCain's attacks on Romney without noting that Romney had not in any way disparaged Dole's service, as did NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams.

Other news reports similarly repeated McCain's attacks without indicating that they were false -- and, of course, without explaining that McCain was in effect declaring that Dole's service renders any criticism of him inappropriate.

A few weeks later, McCain more directly benefited from the apparent willingness of some reporters to stipulate to McCain's premise that any criticism of a
candidate who has served in the military is out of bounds. (Any Republican candidate that is: Neither McCain nor the media applied that standard to past
Democratic candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom served in Vietnam.)

On February 20, MSNBC aired a clip of Barack Obama saying, "The American people understand that the last thing we need is to have the same old
folks doing the same old things making the same mistakes over and over and over again."

MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer then said: "Obama has used that line today, but this time the world 'old' seemed to pop up with more frequency. Was he
taking aim at John McCain's age, an American war hero?"

Set aside for a moment the fact that Obama hadn't even mentioned McCain in the comments in question.

Assume for a moment that Obama was talking about McCain. Pretend that his reference to doing the "same old things" and making the "same mistakes" really was a clever way to reference McCain's advanced age, as Brewer guessed.

What in the world does McCain being "an American war hero" have to do with Obama's comments?

Nothing. Not a damn thing. In fact, just a few sentences after the comments MSNBC aired, Barack Obama made clear the difference between criticizing
McCain and criticizing his service:

OBAMA: I revere and honor John McCain's service to this country. He is a genuine American hero. But when he embraces George Bush's failed economic policies, when he says that he is willing to send
our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq, then he represents the policies of yesterday. And we want to be the party of tomorrow. And I'm looking
forward to having that debate with John McCain.

And yet MSNBC pretends that Obama's criticism of McCain -- if that is even what he was doing -- is about McCain being "an American war hero."

What's next? Are MSNBC anchors going to respond to Democratic criticism of McCain's tax cuts for the rich by invoking McCain's service? Will they indignantly point to his time as a prisoner of war
the next time someone criticizes McCain for not having an economic plan, or opposing universal health care?

If this is going to be how the media cover this
campaign -- invoking McCain's status as a war hero every time anyone dares criticizes him, or even hints at criticism of him, or even might have hinted at
criticism of him -- they may as well just start wearing "McCain For President" buttons on their lapels and drop the charade that they are anything but in the tank for him.

Tim Russert - sleeze?

Tim Russert? - “Meet the Press”? I feel that I have been deceived by such a likable, 'round, friendly guy' with the perpetual smile and inquisitive 'look' – one who would ask the right questions and find for us the 'actual truth' of the matter....
There is enough below – almost too much – to convince me that my favorite political inquisitor is a paid Trojan horse to honest journalism and should be evicted from the position of influencing the American people on the public airways – at least as a legitimate journalist who only speaks the truth.

Sure there is room for the Rush Limbaugh's because we know who they are and where they stand. We do have free speech, after all. But, after all, sneaky liars and twisters of the truth, pretending to be objective reporters and interviewers should be not only exposed but expunged! I'm very sorry to say that Tim Russert is an evil in our nation and should be denounced and removed from the public influence.

But please don't take my word for it. Read the article I just received from 'Media Matters' with its expose' of Russert. Much of what is reported I do recall but thought little of – since Russert was considered an 'investigative reporter' or actually, 'investigative interviewer'. He didn't appear to have a bias – simply to be a 'devil's advocate'!

But the facts and quotes go on and on and on to the point which I'm overwhelmed by the evidence! Tim Russert must go! Other more honest news reporters have been eliminated for less. I'm posting the entire report from 'Media Matters' without regard to their copyrights because because I feel that they would not mind my spreading of their message in a common interest.

The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America

Meet Tim Russert

"It's never the question that's the problem, Matt, it's the answer." -- NBC's Tim Russert "It's 'never the question that's the problem'? Really? Spoken like the guy who gets to ask the questions." -- CJR's Liz Cox Barrett
MSNBC recently began running commercials touting its coverage of "Decision 2008." One begins with on-screen text asking, "Why do people care about politics?" Viewers then hear Tim Russert explain: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our families' well-being. It's about everything that matters." The ad ends with the on-screen declaration: "That's why you care. That's why we cover it." The serious and high-minded approach to political coverage Russert brags about would be a welcome change from the political coverage for which Russert is responsible. During this week's Democratic presidential debate, Russert didn't ask a single question about global warming, continuing his longstanding habit of all but ignoring the topic. He didn't ask a single question about the mortgage crisis. (As one Cleveland resident noted, "We've got the mortgage industry's toxic waste scattered all over this city, but Mr. Blue-Collar-Buffalo-and-Cleveland-Marshall-Guy Russert couldn't be bothered with a question about it.") He didn't ask a single question about executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil-liberties concerns. But that shouldn't come as a surprise; of all the questions he has asked while moderating presidential debates during this campaign, only one has dealt with any of those topics. He has, however, asked Dennis Kucinich what he felt compelled to insist was a "serious question" -- whether Kucinich has seen a UFO. And he has asked about John Edwards' expensive haircut. Funny, Russert doesn't mention UFOs or haircuts in that MSNBC promo. Russert's performance as a moderator of this week's debate has drawn widespread criticism. Most appalling was his bizarre fixation on Louis Farrakhan. Russert asked Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's praise for the Illinois senator. Obama, who had previously denounced Farrakhan, did so again. Then Russert asked about Farrakhan again. So Obama reiterated his denunciation. Then Russert, (who, I can only assume, was not bothering to listen to Obama's responses) asked about Farrakhan again. So Obama again reiterated his denunciation. Russert, plowing ahead, asked yet another question about Farrakhan, prompting Obama to answer yet again. Josh Marshall summed up Russert's behavior nicely: "It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails."
This wasn't the first time Russert made the odd decision to ask Obama about controversial comments made by a famous African-American. During a 2006 interview, Russert asked Obama about controversial comments Harry Belafonte made the day before. But Belafonte, as Jane Hamsher noted at the time, had made similar comments two weeks before, and Russert had never asked any guest about them. Russert gave no indication of why Obama was uniquely qualified or required to comment on Belafonte's comments. (The only other time Russert has ever asked anyone about any comments made by Harry Belafonte, according to Nexis? 2003, when Russert asked then-Secretary of State Colin Powell about comments Belafonte made about U.S. actions toward Cuba.) Given Russert's badgering of Obama about Farrakhan, you might be wondering how he handles endorsements by controversial figures who have a history of statements that are widely considered to be anti-Semitic ... when the endorser and the endorsed are both white Republicans. Last November, Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani during a joint event at the National Press Club where Giuliani praised Robertson as "a person of great, well-deserved reputation." Robertson has endorsed Jerry Falwell's claims that 9-11 was the fault of "abortionists," feminists, and the ACLU. He has suggested that the annual Gay Days event at Disney World would result in "the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor." He has linked Hurricane Katrina to legalized abortion. He has said "Jewish people" are "very thrifty" and "very wise in finance." Robertson wrote a bizarre conspiracy theory book called New World Order that, Anthony Lewis noted, "relied [so] heavily on a British anti-Semitic writer of the 1920's, Nesta H. Webster ... one sometimes thinks of plagiarism." Lewis concluded of Robertson: "Perhaps Pat Robertson in his heart is not an anti-Semite. He just thinks a satanic conspiracy led by Jews has threatened the world for centuries. The best you can make of such a defense is that he is a plain, ordinary crackpot." That's who Pat Robertson is; that's who Rudy Giuliani praised as "a person of great, well-deserved reputation." Now: How did Tim Russert react to Giuliani's enthusiastic acceptance of Robertson's endorsement? On Today on November 8, 2007, Russert said it would be "helpful" to Giuliani. In early December, Russert hosted Giuliani on Meet the Press. Russert didn't ask Giuliani a single question about Robertson. On January 24, Russert moderated a GOP debate. Russert didn't ask a single question about Robertson -- even though the debate took place in Florida, which was central to Giuliani's campaign "strategy" and which is home to a large number of Jewish voters who might not look kindly on Robertson's theories about a "satanic conspiracy led by Jews." So: During this week's Democratic debate, Russert grilled Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan, who Obama had repeatedly denounced prior to the debate, whose praise Obama did not accept, and who Obama reiterated his denunciation of multiple times during the debate.
Yet Russert never once asked Rudy Giuliani about his enthusiastic acceptance of Pat Robertson's endorsement or about his praise for Robertson. Not one question. He never said on NBC or MSNBC a single word about Robertson's history of inflammatory comments causing problems for Giuliani. The double standard couldn't be clearer. The only question is, what it is about Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani that makes Tim Russert treat them so differently? Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama and Colin Powell are uniquely required and qualified to talk about Harry Belafonte? Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama has to explain praise from Louis Farrakhan that he did not accept, but Rudy Giuliani doesn't have to explain an endorsement from Pat Robertson that he did accept? Glenn Greenwald has more. Given the intensity with which Russert questioned Obama about Louis Farrakhan -- a person whom Obama has nothing to do with -- two of Russert's own associations may be of interest:
At the beginning of Russert's June 2004 appearance on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Limbaugh noted: "We don't have guests on this program, but we made an exception here for our friend Tim Russert of NBC News." Russert replied, "It's an honor to be here, Rush. Thank you very much. " Later, the two reminisced about sharing a steak dinner. Although the appearance came just weeks after Limbaugh's comparison of the torture at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank, Russert politely chose not to ask his host about the comments, or about any of Limbaugh's countless inflammatory statements about women and minorities.
Russert was a frequent guest on Don Imus' radio show and appeared just two days after Imus' comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team that ultimately led to his firing. Russert didn't say anything to Imus about the comments, nor did he comment on the Imus controversy in any other forum. Phil Noble noted in the Columbia Journalism Review in 2000 that at least one of Russert's appearances on Imus' radio show featured the two men engaging in what Noble described as "kidding" about homosexuality. Noting Imus' lengthy history of anti-gay rhetoric, Noble concluded: "Russert's kidding was the equivalent of sharing a watermelon joke with David Duke."
Back to this week's debate. Russert asked Obama a question about "keeping your word." When Russert sets up a question by announcing that it is about the candidate's character, there's a pretty good chance that he is about to reveal something about his own. (Last fall, Russert began a question to Hillary Clinton by announcing that the question "goes to the issue of credibility." He was right; the question went to his credibility: Everything he said after that was false. More on that below.) In this case, Russert asked about Obama's position on accepting public financing in for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee:
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring, keeping your word. Nothing more important. Last year you said if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it. You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we can work on an arrangement here. Why won't you keep your word in writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?
This is horribly misleading. In fact, in response to the questionnaire Russert referred to, Obama wrote: "Yes. ... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
So when Obama now says, as Russert puts it, "if we can work on an arrangement," that isn't "waffling," that is entirely consistent with his response to the questionnaire. Russert mischaracterized Obama's response to the questionnaire in order to accuse him of "waffling" and not "keep[ing] your word."
In response, Obama correctly noted that what he had previously said was that if he is the nominee, he will "sit down with John McCain" to pursue an agreement. Russert then followed up: "So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word." But as Obama had just explained (and as his answer to the very questionnaire Russert cited confirms) the "word" Obama had given was that he would pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee -- exactly the position he holds now. Russert was dishonest in saying that Obama would be breaking his word if he opts out of public financing.
As bad as his performance this week was, it wasn't as bad as his handling of last fall's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. That may have been the all-time worst performance by a debate moderator. To cite just two examples: Annenberg's FactCheck.org agreed that Russert's question about the Clinton archives was "breathtakingly misleading." Another question misrepresented previous questions Hillary Clinton had been asked (including one of Russert's own questions), misrepresented her answers, quoted her saying things she did not say, then concluded by suggesting that Clinton is a liar. Somebody was lying, all right, but it wasn't Hillary Clinton. I explained Russert's stunningly bad performance in greater detail at the time.
It takes a special kind of dishonesty to falsely describe someone's previous comments in order to accuse them of lying and breaking their word. There should be a word for that kind of behavior. In light of Russert's question to Clinton last fall and to Obama this week, perhaps it should be called "pulling a Russert."
After Russert was blasted by FactCheck.org for a "breathtakingly misleading" question to Clinton about the archives, you'd think he would be extra careful to get it right next time, wouldn't you? In this week's debate, Russert again asked Clinton about the archives -- and Russert again got the facts wrong.
Russert's mishandling of the influence that comes with his lofty perch atop the political media food chain is by no means limited to his conduct during presidential debates.
Last year, Russert was interviewed for a Bill Moyers report about how the Bush administration "misled the country" into the Iraq war with the help of a "compliant press ... [that] pass[ed] on their propaganda as news and cheer[ed] them on." During the interview, Russert famously complained that, during the run-up to the war, nobody called him to tell him they had concerns about the administration's case for war: "My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."
Though the image of one of the nation's most influential reporters staring at the phone, waiting for it to ring rather than actively seeking out the news might strike you as appallingly poor journalism, it isn't the most self-damning thing Russert said during the interview.
When Moyers asked him about the three networks' reliance on the Bush administration for their Iraq stories, Russert responded: "It's important that you have an opposition party. That's our system of government" -- suggesting that the reason the media relied on the Bush administration for Iraq reporting was the lack of an opposition party. The notion that the media shouldn't challenge the government unless the political party out of power does so first is self-evidently wrong. But Russert was also wrong about the lack of an opposition party, as I explained last year:
There was an "opposition party" during the run-up to the Iraq war. The majority of congressional Democrats opposed invading Iraq and voted against the law authorizing the use of force. Among the Democrats who voted against the authorization were some of the party's most prominent and powerful members, including Sens. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Dick Durbin, and Reps. John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel.
Given that the majority of congressional Democrats voted against the authorization, including such household names as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, how could Tim Russert suggest there was no "opposition party" during the Iraq debate?
Maybe because there was scant evidence of an opposition party on Russert's Meet the Press during the run-up to the Iraq war. On his personal blog earlier this year, Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Duncan Black examined five months of Meet the Press guest lists, starting on the day Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq to the day coalition forces actually invaded. Of the appearances by Democrats that involved a discussion of Iraq, eight appearances were by Democrats who voted for the authorization, and only three were by Democrats who voted against it.
Remember, a majority of Democrats voted against the authorization; but on Russert's Meet the Press, there were nearly three times as many Democratic supporters of the authorization as opponents.
Is it any wonder that Russert said there wasn't an "opposition party" during the Iraq debate?
In November 2006, Russert demonstrated that he still didn't have room for the "opposition party" on his television show: The first broadcast of Meet the Press after Democrats won control of both houses of Congress, due in large part to their opposition to the Iraq war, featured two guests: John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Neither was elected as a Democrat. Both are among the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war.
Over the years, Russert has regularly smeared Democrats and progressives over issues large and small:
Last year, John McCain launched a petty attack on Barack Obama over an Obama press release that spelled "flack jacket" with a "c" in the word "flack." You might think that a United States senator treating a debate over war as though it was a spelling bee would be mocked by the media for trivializing questions of life and death. Not when the senator is John McCain; not when the media figure is Tim Russert.
Here's how Russert reported the flap: "Senator Obama talked about Senator McCain going to an Iraqi marketplace warring a flak jacket and surrounded and protected by American troops, but misspelled the word flak. And Senator McCain seized on that, suggesting that Senator Obama doesn't have the necessary experience in military and security affairs."
Other than the inanity of repeating McCain's attempt to correct Obama's spelling, Russert made another mistake: He didn't bother to check to see if McCain was right. In fact, Webster's, NBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira, and several U.S. military websites all agree that "flack" is an acceptable spelling of the word. So Russert's repetition of McCain's attempt to spell-check Obama's press releases was not only inane, it was also fundamentally false.
During a January interview with Hillary Clinton, Russert aired a truncated quote by former President Bill Clinton to falsely suggest that Bill Clinton had been talking about Obama's presidential campaign when he said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." In fact, Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment had been about Obama's record of opposition to the Iraq war, not about his bid for the presidency. Before airing a clip of Bill Clinton's remarks, Russert told viewers: "This is exactly what President Clinton said in Dartmouth. Here is the tape." But the clip showed Clinton saying only 15 words, and omitted the sentences immediately prior, which make clear that Clinton was talking about Obama's position on Iraq. Russert's use of the video clip was beyond misleading and well into dishonest -- the whole dispute was about the context of the "fairy tale"; the transcript shows Russert was clearly wrong, and he played a video clip that omitted any of that context and acted as though it proved he was correct.
Russert blamed Bill Clinton for the fact that North Korea had purportedly expanded its nuclear weapons program from having the ability to build two nuclear devices in 1993 to 13 in 2006: "When President Clinton said that, the North Koreans probably had the potential to build two nuclear devices. It's now up to 13. And if nothing is done, when George Bush leaves office, it could reach 17. It seems as though the United States talks tough with North Korea, but allows the program to go forward." Russert omitted the rather important detail that, as Media Matters noted, "North Korea did not produce any plutonium, nor build or test any nuclear bombs, during Clinton's eight years in office."
Five months after Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in a campaign in which the Iraq war was a central issue, Russert announced that "Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the Republicans in the public voters' mind on national security and foreign policy issues." Not only was Russert's claim contradicted by the results of the most recent elections, it was contradicted by contemporaneous polling.
In June 2006, Russert asked a guest if same-sex marriage was an issue "that the Republicans used successfully to demonstrate that the Democrats were out of sync on cultural -- and values." But, as Media Matters noted, polling leading up to the 2004 election "found that the public was split equally on which party better represented their values," and that "[m]ore recent polling indicates that more people think Democrats better represent their values than do Republicans."
Immediately following the January 15, 2008, Democratic presidential debate he moderated, Russert misrepresented statements by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards in order to suggest that their positions had shifted since a September 2007 debate Russert moderated. (Russert, in other words, "pulled a Russert.")
In October 2006, Russert falsely claimed that "one-third of [convicted lobbyist Jack] Abramoff's money went to Democrats." In fact, Abramoff, a powerful Republican activist, never gave a dime to any Democrat. This is not an obscure fact; the false GOP talking point that Abramoff had contributed to Democrats had been debunked long (and often) before Russert made the claim. Earlier in the year, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell faced a barrage of public criticism for repeating the false claim.
In November 2006, Russert suggested that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) opposed lobbying reform and the creation of the Office of Public Integrity. In fact, Reid had introduced lobbying-reform legislation calling for the creation of that office.
Speaking about Hillary Clinton earlier this year, Russert suggested that there is irony in a "self-avowed feminist" having shown "some emotion," as though feminists are the dour, humorless beings Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson think they are. At least Russert stopped short of using the term "feminazis."
In February 2007, Russert said: "My ear heard something that I had not heard from Democratic candidates in some time. Up front, Senator Obama began his speech with references to his faith, and then came back to that same issue in the speech. ... What's that about?" This is abject nonsense. It is a Republican lie to say that Democrats do not discuss their faith.
Just the week before -- seven short days -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had talked about his religious upbringing. Where? In an interview on Meet the Press. Tim Russert's Meet the Press. How did the topic come up? Russert read Edwards a quote of Edwards saying, "I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and so I have a belief system that arises from that. It's part of who I am. I can't make it disappear." Edwards responded in part: "I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church, my dad was a deacon. In fact, I was there just a couple weeks ago to see my father get an award. It's, it's just part of who I am."
So: On February 4, 2007, Tim Russert read John Edwards a quote of Edwards talking about his faith. Tim Russert then (presumably) listened as Edwards spoke of his faith, of having been baptized, of his father being a deacon. Seven short days later, Tim Russert told America that it had been "some time" since he last heard a Democratic candidate talk about faith.
Other examples of Democrats discussing their faith abound: Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton. John Kerry (including in his speech accepting the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, which, presumably, Russert listened to at some point). Name a significant Democrat; it's a near certainty he or she has discussed his or her faith. It is simply false to suggest otherwise, as Russert did. Russert wasn't telling the truth; he was peddling a right-wing smear of Democrats.
In 2006, as Democrats were criticizing the Bush administration's decision to allow a company owned by the government of Dubai to run terminals at six U.S. ports, Russert suggested that Democrats were criticizing the deal in order to exploit it for political gain. "Here's the situation," Russert told viewers. "Democrats believe they can look tough on national security." Russert made no mention of the other possibility: that Democrats were talking about port security because they had been talking about port security for years.
The most prominent Democrats in the country -- Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards among them -- had been discussing port security for years. They had been doing so in the most high-profile ways available to them: in speeches at the 2004 Democratic convention, during presidential debates. Even on Tim Russert's Meet the Press, where, presumably, Russert was listening to them.
Yet, in 2006, Russert suggested Democrats had just discovered and were cynically exploiting the issue. (A few weeks later, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press and told Russert: "I heard you on another show with [Today host] Katie Couric, Tim, saying something, in effect that the Congress hadn't done much either. Back in 2001, we introduced legislation for port security and rail security; 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It's been repeatedly spurned by the administration.")
Last year, during congressional debate over Iraq, Russert said that "the Democratic leadership realizes to vote against funding for the troops would be seen in a general election as not supporting the troops." Russert said nothing similar about Republicans who had voted against a previous version of the bill. To Tim Russert, Democrats who vote against a war-spending bill are voting "against funding for the troops" and will be seen as "not supporting the troops." But when Republicans vote against a war spending bill ... no problem.
Russert is also a serial misinformer about Social Security, frequently parroting bogus talking points produced by conservatives who want to privatize the program:
In questioning guests about Social Security, Russert uses a pro-privatization talking point about the declining ratio of workers per retiree to join the privatizers in suggesting that the system is in crisis: "When Social Security was created there were ... 42 workers for every retiree. There are now going to be, soon, two workers per retiree."
But economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot explained in their book Social Security: The Phony Crisis that this statistic is grossly misleading: "[T]he decline in this ratio has actually been considerably steeper in the past. ... These figures also neglect to take into account the reduced costs faced by the working population from having a smaller proportion of children to support. A more accurate measure of the actual burden faced by the employed labor force would be the total dependency ratio, which includes both retirees and children relative to the number of workers."
In using the alarmist pro-privatization rhetoric, Russert neglected to mention that the decline in the worker-to-retiree ratio has been steeper in the past. Nor does he mention that the total dependency ratio is, and is projected to remain, considerably lower than it was in the past.
Contrary to his carefully cultivated reputation as a tough interviewer who won't let guests get away with anything, Russert allows advocates of Social Security privatization to spin and mislead with impunity.
Russert employs crisis rhetoric favored by the privatization lobby and frowned upon by those who prefer to discuss Social Security accurately. He does so in part by trumpeting a decade-old quotation of Bill Clinton talking about the Social Security trust fund (and by attempting to use the quotation as a gotcha when interviewing Democrats). Clinton's comments were based on projections that were accurate at the time, but more recent projections show the trust fund to be in much better shape. Russert's use of Clinton's 1998 comments based on 1998 projections to argue that Social Security is in crisis now is like a child going to her parents in the dead of winter and citing a weather report from the previous July to argue that she should be able to wear shorts to school.
Along with his carefully cultivated image as a blue-collar son of South Buffalo, the thing everybody knows about Tim Russert is what a tough questioner he is. Like his regular-guy shtick, everybody knows this in large part because Russert himself keeps telling us it's true. He told Time magazine, for example, "I just don't let any kind of personal feelings interfere with my professional job, with my professional mission of trying to elicit information and ask questions. I believe very deeply, particularly about someone running for president, that if you can't answer tough questions then you can't make tough decisions. And so I apply that standard to all candidates from all parties."
In a piece headlined "How to beat Tim Russert," Slate.com's Jack Shafer wrote, "Plotting his interviews out like chess matches, he deploys aggressive openings, subtle feints, artfully constructed traps, and lightning offenses to crack the politicians' phony veneer and reveal the genuine veneer beneath. ... If you've switched your position on anything, or if your views on, say, the balanced budget clash with your advocacy of new tax cuts, expect Russert to grill you."
But this popular (and Russert-approved) view of Russert isn't quite right. There are a variety of ways you can avoid such tough questioning.
You could, for example, advocate Social Security privatization. If you do that, you can not only use a variety of phony arguments and bogus claims to buttress your position, you can do so with the confidence that if you need a moment to catch your breath, Russert himself will fill in for you.
Or you could be a Republican senator and presidential candidate talking about the decision to go to war in Iraq. Important Safety Tip: Do not skip the part about being a Republican.
In the first few months of 2007, Russert interviewed John McCain, John Edwards, and Joe Biden. All were running for president. All had been in the Senate for the 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Russert asked all of them about the decision to go to war. Russert asked Biden and Edwards why they voted to authorize the use of force despite the "caveats" in the 2002 NIE that cast doubt on the notion that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. But when Russert interviewed McCain a few weeks after interviewing Biden, he let McCain assert that the invasion of Iraq "was certainly justified" because "[e]very intelligence agency in the world, not just U.S., believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Oddly, Russert -- the notoriously tough questioner who won't let anyone get away with anything and who brags he applies the same "standard to all candidates from all parties" -- didn't challenge McCain about the doubts expressed by American intelligence agencies in the NIE. (A year earlier, McCain had claimed on Meet the Press that "every intelligence agency in the world believed that he [Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction." Russert didn't challenge McCain that time, either. He does keep asking Democrats about the NIE, though.)
Media Matters has documented many other examples of Russert lobbing softballs to conservatives and letting them get away with misleading spin and false claims:
Russert allowed former Reagan adviser Ken Adelman to claim that "no one knew" that intelligence indicating Iraq had WMD "wasn't true." In fact, many, people had challenged the accuracy of that intelligence. The "no one knew" claim has long been the GOP's defense against criticisms of its decision to go to war, but Russert was either unprepared to challenge it or uninterested in doing so (just as he would later give McCain a pass on the same.)
On the May 20, 2007, edition of Meet the Press, guest Newt Gingrich asserted that an alleged plot to carry out an armed attack on Fort Dix was evidence that terrorists "don't plan to stop in Baghdad. They are coming here as soon as they can get here." This is a common right-wing talking point, but it has been repeatedly disputed by experts. In the weeks prior to Gingrich's appearance, The Washington Post, McClatchy, and NPR had all run reports that included intelligence officials and other experts disputing the claim. NPR cited, among others, retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. According to NPR, "calls asserting that terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric." The NPR report also featured a clip of Carafano saying, "There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario." But rather than challenging Gingrich's claim, Russert turned to his Democratic guest and instructed him to respond to Gingrich's far-fetched assertions.
In early 2006, Russert hosted Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and failed to challenge a series of dubious assertions Pace made in support of his claim that the Iraq war was "going very, very well."
In 2004, Russert asked Jerry Falwell about his comments that abortion rights advocates, feminists, and homosexuals, among others, were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. Falwell falsely claimed that he "likewise" held responsible "a sleeping church, a lethargic church." Falwell wasn't telling the truth, but Russert let him get away with it. Russert also asked Falwell about a study that showed that "[t]he states with the highest level [of divorce] are the so-called Bible Belt, in the South." In response, Falwell asserted that "born-again, Bible-believing Christians who take the Bible as the word of God," the divorce rate is lower. That wasn't true, either -- but again, Russert failed to challenge Falwell. Keep in mind: Russert brought both of these topics up. He presumably had Falwell's 9-11 quote handy; after all, he read it to Falwell. But when Falwell falsely described his comments, Russert let him get away with it.
Interviewing Sens. John Warner, a Republican, and Joe Biden, a Democrat, Russert asked Warner about whether the Bush administration distorted or withheld evidence that the aluminum tubes sought by Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with WMD. When Warner dodged the question, not saying anything about the aluminum tubes but instead simply asserting that Bush "would not intentionally take any facts and try and mislead the American public," Russert did not press Warner either on that dubious assertion or on his failure to answer the question. Instead, he turned to Biden and grilled him on his vote to authorize the use of force, asking Biden about the 2002 NIE that contained caveats about the WMD intelligence. Russert didn't ask Warner why he voted to authorize force despite the NIE caveats.
Russert allowed Richard Perle to suggest that former Vice President Al Gore supported the invasion of Iraq in a 2002 speech. In fact, during that speech Gore opposed the invasion.
Russert repeatedly failed to challenge false and dubious claims by Vice President Cheney during a September 2006 interview.
In 2005, amid speculation that the investigation into the Bush administration's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame would yield indictments on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, conservatives were frantically trying to downplay the seriousness of those charges. Appearing on Meet the Press, Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did so by claiming "there were charges against former President Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice" during his 1999 Senate trial on impeachment charges. In fact, there were not, as Russert should have known; the impeachment trial was a fairly high-profile event. Nevertheless, Russert let Hutchison's false claim go uncorrected.
In 2005, Russert hosted RNC chair Ken Mehlman, who claimed that the 9-11 Commission had "totally discredited" the notion that the Bush administration manipulated prewar intelligence. Given that the 9-11 Commission didn't even address the administration's use of prewar intelligence, this was a pretty big falsehood. But Russert let Mehlman get away with it.
In early 2007, Russert let John McCain make a series of wild claims without challenging them. McCain claimed Joe Lieberman's re-election in Connecticut was evidence that it was not "clear-cut" that the public opposed the Iraq war. Russert failed to note that exit polls showed that Lieberman was re-elected in spite of his support for the war, not because of it. Nor did Russert note that Lieberman spent the bulk of the campaign frantically pretending to be a war critic and trying to convince voters that he intended to end the war and bring the troops home.
McCain also claimed that at the time of the first Gulf War, "only 15 percent of the American people thought we ought to go to Kuwait and get rid of Saddam Hussein there." In fact, a Gallup poll taken the day before the launch of Operation Desert Storm found 79 percent of Americans supported going to war in the Gulf. McCain could hardly have been more wrong, yet Russert didn't correct the glaring falsehood.
Interviewing Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Russert asked such hard-hitting questions as whether or not Schwarzenegger agreed with the assessment that he had a "mastery of the state's rising independent center"; whether Schwarzenegger thought a description of him as a "moderate" was "fair," the open-ended "What is an Arnold Republican?" and, best of all: "You're a Republican winning in California, a Blue State, in a Democratic year. People would have you on the short list for the Republican nomination in 2008. But they can't for one reason: You were not born in the United States. Is that fair?" Russert had a follow-up to that one: "You've been a citizen for 23 years, shouldn't you have an opportunity to run for president?" In between tossing Schwarzenegger softballs, Russert let him get away with whoppers like his claim that "we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years or so." That was true -- if by "30 years or so" Schwarzenegger meant "six years."
Russert doesn't just toss softballs to conservatives when he interviews them. He carries their water in other ways, too.
As Media Matters' Eric Boehlert has explained, during the 2004 election, Russert apparently knew that then-Cheney aide Scooter Libby had given false testimony to the special counsel investigating the Bush administration's outing of Valerie Plame -- but Russert kept this information secret.
President Bush and his press secretary indicated during the Plame leak investigation that anyone who had anything to do with the leak would be fired. When it was clear that Karl Rove had participated in the leak, Russert helped the Bush administration move the goalposts, describing Bush as having "said early on in this [investigation] that if anyone broke the law, that he would deal with it." Since Rove was never convicted of anything, under this standard, Bush wouldn't have to fire him.
Russert adopted the GOP's inflammatory description of a Democratic Iraq proposal as "slow-bleed."
Russert falsely claimed there was "no evidence" that former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi "was associated with Curveball," a relative of a top Chalabi aide who became the most influential source for U.S. intelligence on Iraq's biological weapons program. In fact, independent reporting and the then-recently released Robb-Silberman report on intelligence regarding WMDs (to which Russert referred) indicated a clear connection between Chalabi and Curveball.
During the fight over President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Russert twice claimed that when former President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans voted for them despite ideological differences with the "two liberal jurists." Russert also claimed that Alito's judicial philosophy is "no more conservative than Ginsburg and Breyer's were liberal." Russert wasn't telling the truth. Ginsburg and Breyer were seen as moderate nominees, not liberal, and had in fact been recommended for nomination by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.
Immediately after the 2004 vice presidential debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney, Russert repeated Cheney's claim during the debate that he had previously never met Edwards until moments before the debate started -- a claim Cheney made in order to suggest that Edwards didn't show up for work at the Senate. The next morning, Russert noted that in fact the two had met multiple times before, including one morning in 2001 when they were both on Meet the Press and, according to Russert, "they stopped and shook hands." Russert said that, during the debate, he "thought that John Edwards would call him on it right at that very moment." So -- according to his own statements -- Russert knew while watching the debate that Cheney had lied. Yet after the debate, he repeated Cheney's lie, without giving viewers any indication that it wasn't true.
Is it any wonder that Cheney's staff believes they can control the message on Meet the Press? The Washington Post's Dana Milbank reported during the Scooter Libby trial:
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
If you still aren't persuaded that on Meet the Press, it is often the question -- and the questioner -- that is the problem, spend a few hours poking around Bob Somerby's Daily Howler archives. Be sure to seek out his analysis of Russert's interviews with Al Gore, Howard Dean, and George W. Bush.