Mr. Russert, Will You Ante Up For War Victims Like You Asked Of Scott McClellan?
Mr. Russert, last Sunday (June 1, 2008) on Meet The Press you had as your guest former George W. Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan. You asked him the following question:
Some have suggested because you were part of the propaganda machine that sold the war, that many people have died and been injured because of the war, you should donate some of the profits from this book to the families of the victims of the Iraq War. Will you do that?
Here's the clip from the show:
That's an excellent question, Mr. Russert. Although you haven't accepted any culpability for your own enabling during the lead up to the war as McClellan has stepped-up to do, it's still a fact that Meet The Press provided a national platform for the Bush administration to push its war with minimal challenge from YOU. Thus, Mr. Russert, I'd like to ask you that very same question:
Because you were part of the propaganda machine that sold the war, that many people have died and been injured because of the war, shouldn't you, Mr. Russert, donate some of your hefty salary from your show to the families of the victims of the Iraq War. Will you do that?
On last Sunday's show, you also chided Scott McClellan for not questioning his boss, George W. Bush, on whether the war on Iraq was "a war of necessity or a war of choice" -- the same question you asked Bush on February 8, 2004 in your highly anticipated interview from the White House Oval Office. Here's that exchange between you and G.W. Bush:
RUSSERT: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?G.W. BUSH: I think it's -- that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? I mean, it's a war of necessity. We, we, we -- my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at that says the man was a threat.
Bush wasn't granting many interviews at the time so this was a real "get" for Meet The Press. However, as we now know, Mr. Russert, since you were such an asset to the Bush administration, this interview was more a "get" for them than for you. Here's that clip:
Mr. Russert, this is what you said to Scott McClellan ragarding that very same question of whether it was a war of necessity or a war of choice:
Why didn't you [McClellan] say to him, "Mr. President, this is the fundamental issue confronting our country." Why didn't you go to your superiors and say, "Guys, ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem here. This is the fundamental issue, choice or necessity, and the president seems unaware of it.
Mr. Russert, you are so oblivious to what journalists do that your own clip proves your inanity. You're supposed to be the "journalist." Why didn't YOU drill down on Bush over that very same question? You had the perfect opportunity when you asked it but YOU JUST LET IT GO! Yet you assail Scott McClellan -- a man who's shown more courage in two weeks than you've shown in years! Do you really believe we're that naive?? It wasn't McClellan's job to grill Bush. Bush was McClellan's boss! It was YOURS!
I waited an entire week for that George W. Bush Meet The Press interview. It was so heavily hyped that I honestly believed you might do your job. Even today it stands as one of the most disappointing hours on television. Bush just rambled on and you let him push his agenda. It rivaled Geraldo Rivera and Capone's empty vault for hype with no substance. But its ramifications weren't silly. They were grotesque! (MTP/Bush transcript link below).
In Dick Cheney's March 16, 2003 appearance on Meet The Press (transcript link below), Cheney filibustered your every question and pushed his agenda for war. You asked all the EXPECTED questions from which Cheney made his case. Eighty hours later, Bush launched "Shock & Awe."
A former government official has already claimed, Mr. Russert -- under oath I might add -- that your show was useful to the administration in pushing its pre-war message. Here's what Vice President Cheney's own former Communications Director Cathie Martin said during the perjury trial of Scooter Libby:
"I suggested we put the Vice President on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format."
As Dana Milbank wrote in the Washington Post on January 26, 2007:
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her [Martin's] 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."
For the record, Mr. Russert, lots of us like whistle-blowers like Scott McClellan. We need them because in the lead up to the war and throughout this Bush administration, corporate media has not done its job. Right now McClellan is doing what corporate media should have been doing all along. He's telling us the truth. We thank him for his courage and for his offer to share the proceeds of his book with those who have suffered.
And YOU, Mr. Russert. Will YOU ante up for the victims of the war that YOU helped to promote? If McClellan should do it -- SHOULDN'T YOU
Cheney's MTP transcript (March 16, 2003)
Bush's MTP transcript (Feb 8, 2004)
Follow Linda Milazzo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LindaMilazzo
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is great and what was going through my mind as I watched Russert drill Scott on MTP. It could beyond Russert to include just about all of 24/7 'entertainment' cable. We are going through thing with this election also that should be changed. Look at yesterday's CNN American Morning question for starters..
Another thought...
YES!. . .YES! . . . Replace Russert with DAVID SHUSTER. Russert is one of those dinosaurs, like most of Washington these days. OUT WITH THE OLD - - - -IN WITHTHE NEW!
Russert has SOME NERVE asking McClellan to give back. He should expect all the media to do the same. None of of you people pushed very hard on those yellow cake stories about Wilson finding no evidence for war. You all just kept on fanny-kissing Bush. RUSSERT SHOULD BE ASHAMED as a journalist, saying a thing like that to McClellan.
NBC show replace Russert with David Shuster.
Linda, I didn't read your whole post but your headline grabbed me because I had seen the interview with Scott McLellan - a very good interview, btw - and was taken a little aback by Russert's implicit demand that Scott forgo any profits on his book.
My first impression was that Russert, commander in chief of beltway propaganda, wanted to warn Presidential aides against writing tell all books. That bothered me because I think Scott McLellan was an an example of an author who was providing a valuable public service.
My second impression was that Scott might be needing those profits. He will not be getting many job offers from the Bush insiders, will he? Bob Dole really ripped into Scott and that won't be helpful on his resume.
I found Scott personable, smart and insightful in contrast to the things people were saying about him.
Excellent article, Scott McClellan got it right. The Media gave Bush and Party a free ride; completely free of scutiny. What little they did to protest the headlong rush to war was directed to the viewership, Nothing was demanded of the Administration or the Senate and Congress. The media has not called for the impeachment of GWB, or for indictments of others involved in this fiasco; even after all of these disturbing revelations. Yet Russert has the Audacity to ambush Scott McClellan with this question. Reguardless of the amount of time it took him to come clean, he showed a great amount of bravery to do so. Its not like he will be getting job offers around the country, i'm sure he will need every bit of the meanial profits for the book to live on and support his family. If only Russert showed the same amount of spunk to insist that GWB and company outfit the boys in combat with proper safety gear. The same amount of testicular fortitude to insist that GWB pass the best G.I. Bill for the boys in combat, and the gonads to cover the war objectively after it became fashionable.
Thank you for this post. The mockery that people like Gotcha! Russet have made of the formerly credible institutions of the media as they have spun down the drain of corporate/White House propaganda pushing has all the stench of what's at the bottom of that drain.
Great post -- keep the fire under the derrier's of the complicit media. The 'Merican public were spun into beleiving this horse shit because no one asked the right questions or pressed the issues.
Yes, I have been very uncomfortable about how the press has gone after Scott McClellan with such sanctimonious questions in regard to what he ought to have done when it was the job of the press corps as you so aptly point out, to challenge the runup to the war in Iraq, not encourage it & applaud the very early results as many did & changing their opinions ONLY after the reverses started to occur.
Wow! the power of video clips to remind us of what has happened in the past where the actors in the conflict are "set in stone," so to speak. What a powerful display of Russert's hypocrisy when we view the two tapes. Yes, I'd like to see Russert, Friedman, Krauthammer et al put through the same excruciating inquisition that has been imposed on McClellan! The American press played a HUGE role in the runup to the current mess in Iraq.
BUT once again, American journalists are providing a rationale for another war in the Middle East, this time against Iran by giving plenty of platforms for this adm. to frame the situation, from its viewpoint. With no disputation of the facts, or alternative pts. of view! What is promising, however, is the new generation of younger, multi-cultural, international journalists from all over the world who are making excellent use of the Internet & alternative news networks to give their audiences & readerships much improved international news. Hopefully, this will make a difference!
Well said, but Russert and his colleagues hear nothing. They are interested in only one thing: being the first to have access to government handouts.
Great post, sir, thank you. TR is celebrated as the de facto house organ of the Bush people and, while he ignores and dissembles whenever anyone comes close to asking the kind of questions you do of him, he and his bosses need to know that we are aware of his failures to hold the powerful accountable for their words and actions.
Tim R is a fraud by any definition of the word--he pretends to ask weighty questions, pretends to do his job (which indicates he KNOWS what his job is supposed to be), but consistently fails to get--or even SEEK--the truth. he has admitted that he sees his role as the protector of the powerful and their entitlement to ignore or keep secret the truths they find unpleasant or which reveal their crimes.
Only the casual watchers of MTP are unaware of Russert's bias toward and enablement of the powerful. Thanks for revealing his utter debasement in their service.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
