Tim Russert's finest hour....

[Postman]

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

[Gabi Hayes]

1. joke, yes?

typical Russert: ask a 'tough' question, then allow a long disingenuous/mendacious response, said question becoming a softball, turned to Cheney's advantage because of the almost ubiquitous lack of any sort of meaningful followup

pretty simple formula, almost like they rehearsed it. that interview is RIFE with examples of the 'tough' question, followed by a long winded BS answer, followed by a question on an entirely different topic. contrast that with his dogged approach with the typical dem guest

I guess that's why Cathie Martin said the Meet the Press was their NUMBER ONE option when they wanted to catapult the propaganda: "we control the message a little bit more,"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/27/national/w093216S19.DTL&hw=

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html

[MannyGoldstein]

4. What Would You Suggest That He'd Have Done?

Something that would not end his career - you can only do *those* things once.

I wish that the media would have been tough on BushCo, but that would be the job of reporters, not folks like Russert who do interviews. For example, The NY Times was guilty as sin - and they've accepted blame an apologized. But I don't see how Russet could have done things much differently, and still attract guests.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. too bad for him. he made his choice, which, apparently meant for him

to become a stenographer to the powers that be

except, of course, in Clinton's case, when he became obsessed with Clinton's infidelity.

it's been suggested that it might have had something to do with the apparently unhealthy state of Big Russ' marriage....wonder if it had something to do with.....infidelity on Big Russ' part? bit of transfer going on there? worked out quite well for his pal/boss, Jack Welch, getting the war party back in there so they could make brazilions more on the phony invasion, which Clinton was urged to do but refused

interesting how you defend him for not doing his job. he had BY FAR the most influential TV interview show, and would not have suffered for guests. it didn't hurt him at all when he doggedly pursued the democrats, and I daresay it wouldn't have mattered during the current junta. he just might not have gotten as many 'off the record' phone calls from the likes of Scooter Libby. his cozy situation with the WH most likely wouldn't have been as such.

but, when you've made your bed, you have to lie in it. he chose money/power/fame/cushy dinners with plush pals over being a journalist.

[Jane Austin]

8. Russert never thought of himself as an avenger for a particular point of view.

He said it was his job to get politicians on the record, to find out what they were thinking.

I think he did a pretty good job of doing that.

I would rather he have gone about it differently, but that's not how he saw his job.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. B-B-But Russert Was An Unquestioning Sycophant Of BushCo!!!

Based on the knowledgeable and fact-filled posts that I've read on DU in the last few days, I now know that your alleged conversation could not have taken place.

So please stop, OK?

[Gabi Hayes]

5. you might want to read that joke of an interview before you make a comment like that

as I said above, he asked the de riguer 'difficult' questions, but let Cheney filibuster away without calling him on ANY of his bullshit

[Rex]

3. Cheney lied and thousands die.

A finer piece of shit may exist, but I doubt it.

[gratuitous]

7. Boy, those are some real tough questions

I guess I misunderestimated Russert's tenacity and toughness. Let's see, he asked Cheney if his analysis might not be entirely correct, and Cheney buried him under an avalanche of bloviation. Russert, undeterred, mentioned . . . wait for it . . . an unnamed "top general"! Whoa, that must have rawked Cheney's world, that must have!

Cheney, with a dismissive wave of his rhetorical hand, completely baffles Russert's argument by saying . . . saying . . . "I disagree." No wonder Russert was floored. No way someone comes back from that, boy! The shocking thing is that Russert, confronted with "I disagree" didn't just keel over right then and there.

So, what was Russert's reply to that devastating comeback? (To refresh your memory, Cheney said he disagreed.) Did he say that perhaps an army general might have more military know-how and experience than someone who coasted through the 1960s on five deferments, someone who had never served in uniform for one day in his entire miserable life? No, Tim then toddled off to an irrelevant observation about Kosovo, and Cheney's preposterous statements stood.

If that was my "finest hour," and I was being paid as much as Russert was getting and occupying such an exalted major media post, I'd have fucking killed myself for being such a fraud.