The Questions Tim Russert Could Have Asked Bush

[lame54]

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2008/6/17/204337/145
The Questions Tim Russert Could Have Asked Bush
By Bob Kendall
06/17/2008 08:43:37 PM EST

It was interesting to see a flashback of Tim Russert's interview when he asked George Bush about Iraq.
Russert brought up the fact that Bush had launched the Iraq War based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein intended to use these weapons against the U.S.A.

Russert did not hesitate to let Bush know that when these weapons were never found many Americans were horrified that the U.S. had launched a war based on lies.

Hesitantly Bush acknowledged in words to this effect, "I thought there were weapons of mass destruction threatening the United States."


Tragically Tim Russert failed to follow up this admission with one particularly important question. He could have continued:
"Why did you not wait until the UN inspection committee headed by Hans Blix of Sweden had the opportunity, as it requested, of finishing its investigation instead of promptly invading Iraq?"

Seeing the Russert interview of Bush during the current tributes toward the former NBC television commentator following his death prompted me to think about questions that should be put to Bush, and that he should be compelled to answer:

Mr. Bush, now that you know the truth, that the Iraq invasion was based on a non-existent threat, why do you continue the Iraq War?

Do you feel to blame for the 600,000 and some estimate over a million Iraqis dead?

Do you feel responsible for those 4,600 U.S. military personnel arriving back home in the U.S. in coffins?

Do you feel responsible for over 55,000 U.S. service personnel who were wounded?

How do you feel about those more than 2 ½ million Iraqis who fled for their lives to Iran, Syria and Jordan?

Do you ever think about the chaos your Iraq War generated for the entire Middle East?

After all, Iran, Syria and Jordan had to house, feed and help these refugees from the war you started!

You, Dick Cheney and others once confidently boasted that the first U.S. troops arriving in Iraq would be greeted as liberators! What happened to that expectation that notably failed to materialize?

You, Cheney and others further stated that once democracy was accepted in Iraq that it would spread like wildfire to the entire Middle East. You and your regime would be held in high esteem.

You are even less popular in the Middle East based on unfolding events than you are in your own country, and in the U.S. the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll has you at the astounding figure of 27 percent!

You, George Bush, a towering beacon spreading democracy?

You, Cheney the rest of your minions have creating seemingly endless chaos throughout the entire Middle East.

That is precisely why it is puzzling to see you do a silly sword dance when you visited Saudi Arabia. It was in Saudi Arabia where Osama bin Laden and his followers began their terror, which ended in the 9/11 tragedies of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, killing 3,200 citizens.

This was not a plot spawned in Iraq as some political and media propaganda moguls have ranted on about, notably Dick Cheney.

The contract the U.S. wants the Iraqis to sign a long-term lease for 63 for the 80 oil wells of Iraq.

The fact is, Mr. Bush, people all over the world can't help but want to ask you to answer this one question truthfully.

Was this horrifying war with all its death, destruction and almost $10 trillion in debt over oil?

That is the question that should have been asked by Tim Russert and other journalists but was never asked of Mr. Bush.

Will one member of the mainstream media in this entire nation pose this question directly to George W. Bush?

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. K and R

www.wearableartnow.com

[UpInArms]

2. and the Dimson would have responded - as he did on July 4 2001 -

with "Who cares what you think?"

[Gabi Hayes]

3. this is exactly what is wrong with Russert's approach, but it wasn't really wrong for him, or

for those with whom he cooperated in fomenting the FEAR of NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST that was at the very heart of the marketing campaign designed to win approval for that illegal invasion

it all boils down to the specter of the mushroom cloud looming over the fallen towers

combine those two symbols and peace never had a chance

Russert eagerly gave all the warmongers their forum, week after week, allowing almost NO dissenting voices to appear. did you see the Bill Moyers interview with him?

Russert CHOSE to ask the questions he did, and he knew that meaningful followups would include the likes of those included in the OP

but is was his MO to allow the questionee to filibuster away at length and almost never, ever call him/her on the BS that flowed so easily, unthreatened by any fear of contravention

I love the way his defenders here have asserted that such an MO was fantastic; he was acting as a prosecutor, allowing his witnesses to state their cases, leaving them on the record. they forget that the prosecutor's JOB is to never ask a question w/o knowing the answer, so that he/she will be able to catch any falsehood
that may be forthcoming

a person who merely records the statements of a person making a statement has a common name: stenographer


that's all he was, a stenographer to those in power, just as his most influential colleagues at the Post, the Times, PBS, and the other networks all copped, in some small, insignificant way

why is that so difficult a concept to deal with?

it was made very obvious here, among many other places, while he still lived. why does the fact of his passing make the truth any less salient? because it's bad taste to speak ill of the dead?

analyzing his style/effect as a journalist is off limits now, because? at what point will it be acceptable? a week from now? two? a month? a year?

or will this shower of encomia forever obscure the real, deleterious effect coverage like his, especially as the pre-eminent opinion leader in all broadcasting, which is to say in all news (in this day and age, "if you didn't see it on TV, it didn't happen" couldn't be more apt), had on just about every aspect of society, as a result of our being lied into the most disastrous entanglement in history?

his legacy should, but probably won't, be rationally discussed, as a lesson in how NOT to perform one's obligations as a journalist. he wasn't. he was, at very best, a stenographer.....

don't even begin discussion of his behavior during the impeachment process, when he, for some odd reason, took the exact opposite tack he did once administrations changed. I wonder if it had anything to do with who owns NBC...

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Russert's "questions" were only lead-ins to Repug excuses.

I'm sure they let him know in advance what "tough questions" it was OK to ask, and which were strictly out of bounds.

Actually extracting information was not the intention.