Jefferson Parish president blasted Russert for "nitpick[ing] a man's mother's death"
On the September 25 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Jefferson Parish president Aaron Broussard lashed out at host Tim Russert for rebroadcasting Broussard's appearance on Meet the Press three weeks ago, in which he emotionally recounted the story of the death of the mother of Jefferson Parish emergency services director Thomas Rodrigue. In that September 4 appearance, Broussard suggested that after repeatedly requesting assistance for several days, St. Rita nursing home patient Eva Rodrigue "drowned on Friday," September 2. Russert re-aired the September 4 appearance, noting that "MSNBC and other blog organizations have looked into the facts behind your comments." MSNBC reported that Thomas Rodrigue disputed some portions of Broussard's version of those events. Responding to Russert on September 25, Broussard criticized attempts of "black-hearted people [who] want to nitpick a man's mother's death," and stated that "Mother Nature is not playing any political games" in light of the tragedy he has witnessed.
Although Broussard's specific timeline may have been off, the Department of Homeland Security's National Response Plan (NRP) supports his contention that the federal government's response to the situation was delayed.
From the September 25 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: As you well know, Mr. Broussard, when you appeared here last time, very difficult time, very emotional time. You made some accusations that ricocheted around the country and have created an enormous response. I want to go back and play those for you and then some things written about them and give you a chance to respond. Let's watch.
BROUSSARD (video clip): It's not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area, and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now. It's so obvious.
RUSSERT: Hold on. Hold on, sir. Shouldn't the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of New Orleans [sic] bear some responsibility? Couldn't they have been much more forceful, much more effective, and much more organized in evacuating the area?
BROUSSARD: Sir, they were told, like me, every single day, "The cavalry is coming." On the federal level, "The cavalry is coming. The cavalry's coming. The cavalry's coming." The guy who runs this building I'm in, emergency management, he's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard Nursing Home, and every day she called him and said, "Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?" And he said, "Yeah, Mama. Somebody's coming to get you. Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday." "Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday." "Somebody's coming to get you on Thursday." "Somebody's coming to get you on Friday." And she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night.
RUSSERT: Mr. President --
BROUSSARD: Nobody's coming to get us. Nobody's coming to get us. The secretary has promised. Everybody's promised. They've had press conferences. I'm sick of the press conferences. For God's sake, shut up and send us somebody.
BROUSSARD: I've never watched this. Why are they taking me here?
RUSSERT: Mr. Broussard, obviously that was a very painful, emotional moment, but let me show you some of the --
BROUSSARD: Sir, I've never looked at that. I've never heard that. I'm sorry. You take me to a sad place when you let me hear that.
RUSSERT: Well, it was important, I think --
BROUSSARD: Go ahead. Go ahead, sir. Go ahead, sir.
RUSSERT: Thank you very much.
BROUSSARD: Go ahead.
RUSSERT: All right, sir. Thank you very much. Take your time. But it's important I think --
BROUSSARD: Go ahead.
RUSSERT: -- that our viewers see that again because MSNBC and other blog organizations have looked into the facts behind your comments, and these are the conclusions, and I'll read it for you and our viewers. It says: "An emotional moment and a misunderstanding. Since the broadcast of the [Meet the Press] interview ... a number of bloggers have questioned the validity of Broussard's story. Subsequent reporting identified the man whom Broussard was referring to ... as Thomas Rodrigue, the Jefferson Parish emergency services director. ... Rodrigue acknowledged that his 92-year-old mother and more than 30 other people died in the St. Rita nursing home. They had not been evacuated and the flood waters overtook the residence. ... When told of the sequence of phone calls that Broussard described, Rodrigue said 'No, no, that's not true. ... I contacted the nursing home two days before the storm on Saturday, [August] the 27th and again on Sunday the 28th. ... At the same time I talked to the nursing home I had also talked to the emergency manager ... to encourage that nursing home to evacuate.' ... Rodrigue says he never made any calls after Monday, the day he figures his mother died. ... Officials believe the residents of St. Rita's died on Monday the 29th, not on Friday, September 2, as Broussard has suggested." Your comments obviously --
BROUSSARD: Sir, this --
RUSSERT: Go ahead.
BROUSSARD: Sir, this gentleman's mother died on that Friday before I came on the show. My own staff came up to me and said what had happened. I had no idea his mother was in the nursing home. It was related to me by my own staff, who had tears in their eyes, what had happened. That's what they told me. I went to that man, who I love very much and respect very much, and he had collapsed like a deck of cards. And I took him and put him in my hospital room with my prayer books and told him to sit there and cry out and pray away and give honor to his mother with his tears and his prayers.
Now, everything that was told to me about the preface of that was told to me by my own employees. Do you think I would interrogate a man whose mother just died and said, "Tommy, I want to know everything about why your mother just died"? The staff, his own staff, told me those words. Sir, that woman is the epitome of abandonment. She was left in that nursing home. She died in that nursing home. Tommy will tell you that he tried to rescue her and could not get her rescued. Tommy could tell you that he sent messages there through the EOC [emergency operations center] and through, I think, the sheriff's department, "Tell Mama everything's going to be OK. Tell Mama we're coming to get her."
Listen, sir, somebody wants to nitpick a man's tragic loss of a mother because she was abandoned in a nursing home? Are you kidding? What kind of sick mind, what kind of black-hearted people want to nitpick a man's mother's death? They just buried Eva last week. I was there at the wake. Are you kidding me? That wasn't a box of Cheerios they buried last week. That was a man's mother whose story, if it is entirely broadcast, will be the epitome of abandonment. It will be the saddest tale you ever heard. A man who was responsible for safekeeping of a half a million people, mother's died in the next parish because she was abandoned there and he can't get to her. And he tried to get to her through EOC, he tried to get through the sheriff's office. He tries every way he can to get there. Somebody wants to debate those things? My God, what sick-minded person wants to do that?What kind of agenda is going on here?
Mother Nature doesn't have a political party. Mother Nature can vote a person dead, and Mother Nature can vote a community out of existence. But Mother Nature is not playing any political games here. Somebody better wake up. You want to come and live in this community and see the tragedy we're living in? Are you sitting there having your coffee, you're in a place where toilets flush and lights go on and everything's a dream, and you pick up your paper and you want to battle ideology and political chess games? Man, get out of my face. Whoever wants to do that, get out of my face.
RUSSERT: Mr. Broussard, the people who are questioning your comments are saying that you accused the federal government and the bureaucracy of murder, specifically calling on the secretary of Homeland Security and using this as an example to denounce the federal government. And what they're saying is, in fact, it was the local government that did not evacuate Eva Rodrigue on Friday or on Saturday. And they're making that, in fact --
BROUSSARD: Sir --
RUSSERT: Let me just finish. I'll give you a chance to respond.
BROUSSARD: Yes.
RUSSERT: And, in fact, the owners of the nursing home, Salvador and Mable Mangano, have been indicted with 34 counts of negligent homicide by the Louisiana state attorney general. So it was the owners of the nursing home and the local government that are responsible for the lack of evacuation and not the federal government. Is that fair?
BROUSSARD: Sir, with everything I said on Meet the Press, the last punctuation of my statements were the story that I was going to tell in about maybe two sentences. It just got emotional for me, sir. Talk about the context of everything I said. Were we abandoned by the federal government? Absolutely we were. Were there more people that abandoned us? Make the list. The list can go on for miles. That's for history to document. That's what Congress does best, burn witches. Let Congress do their hearings. Let them find the witches. Let them burn them. The media burns witches better than anybody. Let the media go find the witches and burn them. But as I stood on the ground, sir, for day after day after day after day, nobody came here, sir. Nobody came. The federal government didn't come. The Red Cross didn't come. I'll give you a list of people that didn't come here, sir, and I was here.
So anybody that's saying, "Oh, they were all here," you know, they weren't living on my planet, there weren't living in my parish. They did not come. I can't make it any more clearer than that. Did inefficiencies, did bureaucracy commit murder here? Absolutely, it did. And Congress and the media will flush it out and find it out, and those people will be held accountable. You've already given an example. These people in the nursing home in St. Bernard, they're getting indicted. Good. They ought to be indicted. They ought to get good old-fashioned Western justice. They ought to be taken out and administered to like they did in the Old West.
Yes, there's a lot of people that they're going to find that are going to be villains in this situation, but they're also going to find for the most part that the Peter Principle was squared. The Peter Principle is you promote somebody to the level of incompetency, but when you promote somebody to the level of incompetency in a life-or-death department, then those people should be ousted. Those people should be strung up. Those people should be burned at the stake. And I'm sure Congress and the press is going to do that.
RUSSERT: At the local, state and federal level.
BROUSSARD: Sir, at every level. Are you kidding? This is a jigsaw puzzle. This is a mosaic. The blame will be shared by everybody. The heroic deeds will be magnified as individual stories of heroics come out from different people and agencies that did eventually come here. Sir, this is chaos. It's organized chaos at best. There are plenty of heroes that have to be uncovered. There are plenty of villains that have to be uncovered. Let the process go on. Let it happen. I don't have time to do it, sir. I didn't even watch my own broadcast that you played to me in my ear. It pained me to hear that again because Tommy Rodrigue is a friend of mine. He works for me. I was at his mother's wake.
When somebody wants to nit-pick these details, I don't know what sick minds creates this black-hearted agenda, but it's sick. I mean, let us recover. Let us rebuild. If somebody wants me to debate them on national TV, hey, buddy, be my guest. Make my day. Put me at a podium when I got a full night's sleep, and you will not like matching me against anybody that you want. That person is going to be in trouble. If this station or anybody else or any other station wants to do that, you just give me a full night's sleep, sir. I haven't had one in about 30 days. But you wind me up with a full night's sleep, I'll debate every detail of everything you want, sir.
RUSSERT: Aaron Broussard, the president of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, we thank you for coming on and correcting the record and putting it in context. And we wish you well and to all your people in the recovery. And we hope to talk to you again.
BROUSSARD: Thank you, sir.
















Aaron Broussard LIED...now he's BACKPEDALING instead of ADMITTING he told a WHOPPER in order to make the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT look bad. This guy is a FRAUD...How can anyone believe ANYTHING he has to say...KUDOS to Russett&NBC for FINALLY setting the record straight (better late than never).
What may I ask is the POINT of this thread? Does MMFA think Broussard is in the right? Oh please...
by jeter2 - Monday September 26, 2005 03:40:36 PM EST ------------------------------
I agree Jeter, the Malkin blog and Powerline had this stuff at least a week ago about how this original story was fabricated as to the dates to spin the blame for these patients deaths onto the federal government. The nursing home people who HAVE NOW BEEN INDICTED were responsible for this tragedy. Thanks to MMFA for showing Russert to be the fair-minded guy that he is.
"I agree Jeter, the Malkin blog and Powerline had this stuff at least a week ago about how this original story was fabricated as to the dates to spin the blame for these patients deaths onto the federal government. The nursing home people who HAVE NOW BEEN INDICTED were responsible for this tragedy. Thanks to MMFA for showing Russert to be the fair-minded guy that he is."...by bruce1ace
Bruce, I saw the ORIGINAL broadcast...it was a tearjerker. I first HEARD that it was a HUGE FIB from my favorite talk show host Howie Carr (WRKO Boston, Ma.)...he directed us to the MSNBC website where the the CORRECTION was "hidden" (without Howie I couldn't have found it).
I figured that's WHY MMFA never covered the story...SO I'm curious on WHY they are covering it NOW? The guy OBVIOUSLY lied. THIS is NOT nitpicking.
by jeter2 - Monday September 26, 2005 04:14:26 PM EST ---------------------------
I think MMFA got the "good guys" and the "bad guys" confused on this one. The one doing all the lying and spinning was on the side AGAINST the Feds. Russert was CORRECTING the record. How ironic for MMFA to point this out.
Im trying to get the facts/spin straight…
Broussard insinuated in his September 4th interview on “Meet the Press” that the bureaucracy of the federal government resulted in the death of his friend’s mother. Thomas Rodrigue’s mother died on Monday, August 29th as a result of being abandoned by her care givers and local authorities. Broussard contends the 92 year old woman died on Friday, September 2nd because she did not receive federal aid in time.
Is that correct?
You can read the actual timeline of events here:
New details and interviews with the son whose mother died in the flood show that the tragedy unfolded from Saturday through Monday, Aug. 29 — not Monday through Friday, Sept. 2 as recounted by Broussard. The owners of the nursing home were indicted Tuesday for the deaths of more than 30 residents, which officials say occurred on Aug. 29. So the patients at St. Rita nursing home died the same day the hurricane struck New Orleans. The purportedly slow federal response had nothing to do with it.
[link to powerlineblog.com]
BTW, I am NOT excusing the Feds slow response to the disaster in any way. However, lets realize truth from fantasy when placing blame.
That is correct.
There's also some question on whether Broussard was lying when he blamed FEMA in the first broadcast. Russert didn't mention that in the follow-up and, needless to say, MMFA didn't mention it either.
P.S. As the other comments say, thanks to MMFA for pointing out how Russert got to the bottom of this and revealed the truth that others tried to hide. Keep up the good work!
"So the patients at St. Rita nursing home died the same day the hurricane struck New Orleans. The purportedly slow federal response had nothing to do with it."
Understood. It's obvious that Broussard is critical of the federal response but I think it is a far leap of logic to call him a liar who misrepresented what happened to attack the government. Broussard should be given the benefit of the doubt. Emotionally charged and upset over this disaster, he related the story of what happened to his friend's mother as it was related to him via second hand information from friends and co-workers.
Granted he could be lying and covering up his tracks, but frankly only people who know about that sort of thing would think this. Also, if Broussard is the fraud that Jeter contends he is, then he should be given an emmy for his performance. Do you really think Broussard is an actor?
The reason Media Matters posted this is to show that Russert was playing the game of character assasination, not to make Broussard wrong.
by miercoles - Tuesday September 27, 2005 02:56:42 PM EST -----------------------------
Granted he could be lying and covering up his tracks, but frankly only people who know about that sort of thing would think this. Also, if Broussard is the fraud that Jeter contends he is, then he should be given an emmy for his performance. Do you really think Broussard is an actor?
Response: In my opinion, he certainly spun the story in the wrong direction. Why not come on the air and have the same outrage over what really happened regarding the nursing home owners who fled the scene? That would have generated the same emotional response from viewers. We could all see that the Feds were slow to arrive and botched the recovery, despite what idiot Brown is saying today. There's no need to pile on with fabricated nonsense. To answer your question, I think Broussard was so angry at the entirety of the situation that he lashed out at an easy target. IMO
The guy obviously lied, huh? You don't think it's possible the guy made a mistake?
I think you should put yourself in Broussard's shoes given the circumstances in NO when he was first interviewed. You think he faked that emotion? You think he wasn't caught up with the tragedy surrounding him? And following his interview, he gets the fighting keyboarders scrutinizing his every word and they figure out he made a mistake regarding the circumstances when a 92-year-old granny died. And they reach the conclusion he lied; he's a fraud.
Man, that is heartless stuff. Really. I mean talk about finding any excuse to kick a man when he's down.
And I can't see how this is major achievement by Russert either. I mean it took real courage to go after a victim of Katrina like that. If there's a journalistic equivalent of a chickenhawk (chickenhack perhaps?), that's what you're dealing with here, not some box-office moment of journalistic excellence.
(And FYI, the other side of the media monitoring spectrum - i.e. Bozell's crew - are complaining that Russert let Broussard off the hook. Welcome to bizarro world.)
by eddie-george - Tuesday September 27, 2005 ----------------------------------------
It is possible that Broussard made a mistake, and he was certainly facing unbelievable circumstances. However, I certainly prefer that his "errors" be exposed and the true criminals in THIS PARTICULAR EVENT (the nursing home owners) be brought to justice rather than listen to some general indictment of a slow-moving Federal Government that had nothing to do with the tragic result IN THIS CASE.
I don't look at this as "kicking a man when he's down" as you say. I look at it as correcting the record.
Well then people should set the record straight without accusing Broussard of lying. Is that too much to ask?
Jeter2,
I will agree that Broussard was a liar. He told us facts that were not true. He may not have intended to lie, but it was a lie nonetheless. A lie does not technically require intent according to some definitions of the word. Do you agree that if we hold the president by the same standard as Broussard, the president is a liar as well?
Or do you hold the president to a lower standard?
Can you see why some of us believe the president is a liar as well as Broussard?
open_mind,
I think you make a good point. I do not agree with your definition that stating a falsehood one believes to be correct is a lie. It is simply a mistake.
It seems painfully obvious that Broussard in the interview thought he was relaying what he believed to be the truth but it is also apparent that he did not have all the correct facts. He simply believed what was relayed to him. I think most of us would have believed the same had we been in his shoes.
If we say Broussard is lying and then by definition Bush must also be lying, we will have to then go on to say anything anyone says in good faith that proves to be innacurate will also be a lie.
The failure of New Orleans is a tragedy. People from every level of government and private citizens made mistakes both before, during, and after the storm. The tragedy is that some people died along with livelihoods and property destroyed as a result.
"I will agree that Broussard was a liar. He told us facts that were not true. He may not have intended to lie, but it was a lie nonetheless. A lie does not technically require intent according to some definitions of the word. Do you agree that if we hold the president by the same standard as Broussard, the president is a liar as well?
Or do you hold the president to a lower standard?
Can you see why some of us believe the president is a liar as well as Broussard?"...by open_mind
======================
open_mind, I BELIEVE that Bouchard began by relating a TRUE story ( a woman, Eva Rodrigue had died/drowned at the nursing home) but MAY have gotten "carried away" and ended up EMBELLISHING the story, and when all was said&done--- delivered a FALSE account or LIE about what had ACTUALLY happen. Did he do this INTENTIONALLY? That's certainly debatable ONLY because it could be argued he had a "motive" (which was to blame the Federal Authorities)...HOWEVER that aside, even as he was emotionally telling the story he must have known he was NOT being TRUTHFUL.
And keep in mind his CLAIM that Rodrigue's "staff" told him the story (as he first related it) does NOT ring true:
==Thomas Rodrigue, the Jefferson Parish emergency services director. ... Rodrigue acknowledged that his 92-year-old mother and more than 30 other people died in the St. Rita nursing home. They had not been evacuated and the flood waters overtook the residence. ... When told of the sequence of phone calls that Broussard described, Rodrigue said 'No, no, that's not true. ... I contacted the nursing home two days before the storm on Saturday, [August] the 27th and again on Sunday the 28th. ... At the same time I talked to the nursing home I had also talked to the emergency manager ... to encourage that nursing home to evacuate.' ... Rodrigue says he never made any calls after Monday, the day he figures his mother died.==
So it seems UNLIKELY that he (Rodrigue) would have TOLD anyone, let alone HIS staff that he SPOKE to his mother each day. So where did Bouchard get such a story????
As far as HOLDING Bush to the SAME standards--well of course I do. I'm guessing you are REFERRING to his CLAIM of WMD? I no more buy his CLAIM of bad intel (something that should have been verified...then verified again) before launching a war, than I do of Bouchard's CLAIM that "others" had told him the story of Thomas Rodrigue receiving calls from his Mother day after day after day until she finally expired on Friday.
Bush wanted to GO to war. He lied about/embellished info to do so... Bouchard wanted to POINT the finger of BLAME solely at the federal government for "allegedly" not rescuing this poor woman...when IN FACT the woman drowned days (Monday) BEFORE the Feds even arrived. He lied about/embellished info to drive his point home.
Bush and Bouchard both "juiced" up their stories.
And that is my FINAL word on THIS TOPIC....
The people that falsely claimed there were WMD in Iraq, and that Iraq was a "grave danger" and had "ties to al Qaeda"---by comparison far, far more important issues---should be interrogated by Russert at the kind of length he questioned Broussard about a nursing home incident.
Russert has (finally) shown how he can "speak truth to Power"!
As well as what a Bush/Rove hack he is. Not that we need any more evidence as anyone who just searches Media Matters archives.
Has he brought Chertoff back to demand where the "front page" is that said New Orleans dodged a bullet on his show that lets him and Homeland Security off the Hook? Pat Tillmans True murder and the propaganda he perpetuated? Oh and how about the torture?
Here is what I wrote NBC/ MTP
GoodNight Russert I think Tim Russert is on to something.... He can have a weekly segment where he exposes the "Lies" he helps propagate ....He can start with Abu Ghrab, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, the 2000 election...Ohio 2004...the Bush Mandate...Frist Blind trust...the Liberal Press...The Free Press and G.E. oh and how about bringing back Chertoff and asking him to show us which headline he was reading that says New Orleans dodged the bullet.
Sure glad that poor woman's Timeline may now be corrected cause I'm hoping Tim can finally get some sleep.
macnnyc wrote: "GoodNight Russert I think Tim Russert is on to something.... He can have a weekly segment where he exposes the "Lies" he helps propagate ....He can start with Abu Ghrab, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, the 2000 election...Ohio 2004...the Bush Mandate...Frist Blind trust...the Liberal Press...The Free Press and G.E. oh and how about bringing back Chertoff and asking him to show us which headline he was reading that says New Orleans dodged the bullet."
IMHO you need to let go of the radical leftist agenda a little bit and take a look at some of these controversies from a different perspective.
I know that is difficult, but unless you do, you place yourself smack in the middle of the 'conspiracy theorists' and on the fringe of politicaly speaking.
I don't doubt your sincerity and the fact that you see your leaders in congress say some of the same things. However, It is obvious to me that the Democratic leadership brings up these issues and uses them for a while then dropping them when they are proven false because they have nothing meaningful to offer.
I mean there could be a conspiracy of which Russert is a part or it could be that you've been mislead by your leaders as they use anything they can to attack their opponents.
Having said that, I personally am not a Russert fan.
"IMHO you need to let go of the radical leftist agenda a little bit and take a look at some of these controversies from a different perspective."
-----
There is no "different perspective" from which every one of those issues is not predicated upon a pack of lies told by the Bush administration.
Not even rose colored glasses and a respirator could make those things look or small better.
Did Broussard confused the nursing home incident with the awfull federal response? Broussard is not a journalist. He did not grill the employee that lost his mother to get the facts straight. He seems to be sticking to his main point and that is that the feds were not helpful but actually got in the way. Has russert followed up on Broussards other comments in the original interview? What about the water that was sent back and the communication lines severed?
He was obviously upset about the deaths in the nursing home. He has not backed down on his original contention that FEMA dropped the ball and people died.
Throughout all the immense & continued sufferings of death & loss, Mr. Broussard demonstrates his compassion through the resolute honesty delivered in his words. To call this man “a fraud” further blinds the issuer, who…[and] continues to deceive others via the mold–encrusted, pyrrhic blanket of diæresis. A cowardly act of shame to turn away from a fellow–American, who suffers & cries out, can never be condoned; “See what a scourge is laid upon your hate…[we] have [all] lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish’d.”
Who cares, is MM really that bored?
Nice job, Russert. Good that you take the time to address the comments of a man STUCK in a natural disaster, with no power, fresh water and in muck. Nice, that you would feel the need to protect the BushGovernment in your nice surrondings and air conditioned office. Nice, that you got the memo from RoveCo that you need to show your loyalty to the White House and find a way to discredit this man. Nice, to see that you have gone back to the Real issues, facing the nation.
An emotional man stuck in a swamp of death and with people dying around him.....to make sure that the Adminstration looks good. What a waste, of time, I agree with Brussard, "there are dark-hearted people" in America today, that the lives and now deaths of others really do not matter....just win the politcal points. Typical GOP policy today, thank Russ.
Five words: Tim Russert is a moron.
OK, Broussards recollection of horrific events may have been wrong. Quite understandable considering what happend down there. And possibly the recollections may have been purposely embellished due to the severe emotional suffering Broussards parish went through and he was venting. Again quite understandable. And if Mr. Russert felt he had to set the record straight, he could have made a short report on it. I am not sure what his motives were. Someone should ask Mr. Russert. But to bring the man on and blindside him with the replay of a highly emotional moment is appalling. Was that really necessary? I think not.
Shame on you Tim.
"OK, Broussards recollection of horrific events may have been wrong." (jjlist)
Not "may have been" wrong, they were wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts.
"Quite understandable considering what happend down there." (jjlist)
Not really. A lie is a lie. No excuses.
"And possibly the recollections may have been purposely embellished due to the severe emotional suffering Broussards parish went through and he was venting." (jjlist)
purposely embellished = lie
"Again quite understandable." (jjlist)
Again, no it isn't.
"And if Mr. Russert felt he had to set the record straight, he could have made a short report on it. I am not sure what his motives were." (jjlist)
This we agree on. There wasn't any need to bring Broussards back. A short report would have sufficed. Motive? Probably a chance for Russert to look "tough".
"But to bring the man on and blindside him with the replay of a highly emotional moment is appalling. Was that really necessary? I think not." (jjlist)
We agree again. Too bad Russert isn't this "tough" on those that dragged us into Iraq.
It's a shame some people can't let this go. The man didn't lie, he simply repeated what he had heard in an extremely difficult time for all involved down there. Unless anyone here can say they have been in the same shoes then you can no more make a blanket statement that he lied than the man in the moon.
Russert is a pimp for the RUNC and Herr Rove in particular. This wasn't a chance for Russert to look "tough" it was Russert following orders to a "T" and it backfired on him bigtime.
"It's a shame some people can't let this go. The man didn't lie, he simply repeated what he had heard in an extremely difficult time for all involved down there. Unless anyone here can say they have been in the same shoes then you can no more make a blanket statement that he lied than the man in the moon. Russert is a pimp for the RUNC and Herr Rove in particular. This wasn't a chance for Russert to look "tough" it was Russert following orders to a "T" and it backfired on him bigtime." (Buzzramjet)
Talk about making a "blanket statement"? Unless you have solid proof that Russert is "following orders" from Rove or any Republican, then I'd say you're just as guilty as you accuse others of being. I loath Bush and his henchmen, but I'd like to be one Democrat that doesn't lose their objectivity and spout this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense. It makes us all look foolish.
I saw this emotional broadcast and my impression at the time was that he might be exaggerating, so I wasn't all that surprised to find out later that it hadn't happen the way he first relayed it. He never made mention [originally] that the story had been repeated to him, which makes me doubt his story even further.
I do think much too much is being made of this story, and I do find it curious that Russert walks on eggshells around Republicans, but I'm more inclined to belive its out of fear (of Republican power) than of any complicity. Broussard was an easy target for Russert, and I still contend he went after him to appear "tough". I also fail to see how this "backfired" on Russert.
You suggest that Russert may have acted out of "fear" (of Republican Power) which I think even worse than being complicit. This then suggests that he was not just "following orders" but that he had a choice to make...and he chose to act in response to fear. Which may be why I can not respect his work.
As an aside,
What I find amusing about the hysteria on the left over "the media" as in this example with Russert, is the fact that so many here seem to think that if anyone in the media is not in lock-step with radical leftist philosophy, then these commentators must be owned lock, stock, and barrel by either the GOP, Rove, and/or Bush.
IMHO that puts those who write about the GOP/Bush/Rove conspiracy in the same classification as those "black helicopter" conspiracy theorists. You don't like Russerts questions or his punditry so you make up some sort of grand conspiracy to fulfill your need that the other side is nefarious, evil, and somehow out to get us all. To me that is paranoia of the first order.
It could be that Russert and others, like myself, just don't share your viewpoint or your interpretation of events. As I see it, to suggest a conspiracy means you don't have to provide facts. (The fact that there is no proof that Russert is a closet GOP spokesman proves to you only that they have hidden the proof). It is much easier for many here to rant and call people names than to discuss the issues.
It is okay to disagree with Russert and be critical, as I too am critical of him. But when I see people writing about GOP/Bush/Rove conspiracy, I know that these people are not arguing logically but are instead relying psychologically on an easy way out. By blaming everything on a conspiracy and denigrating anyone who disagrees these people only proves to me that they are out on the fringe.
Having said that, I know there are people on the right who are just as paranoid. There are also many people on both sides of good will who have honest disagreements. I do enjoy reading and discussing issues with those people.
I expect them to be in lock-step with the truth. That's my leftist ideology.
taz, pretty cold my man. I pray you never have to go through what Broussard and his neighbors did. And if you do, I will also give you a pass. I also think its shameful to compare this with the situation in Irag. It belittles the plight of our fellow citizens who were let down by local, state , and federal government.
"taz, pretty cold my man. I pray you never have to go through what Broussard and his neighbors did. And if you do, I will also give you a pass. I also think its shameful to compare this with the situation in Irag. It belittles the plight of our fellow citizens who were let down by local, state , and federal government." (jjlist)
Cold, in what way? The man lied, exaggerated. embellished, take your pick. You're making excuses for him, which is your right, I just don't happen to agree. I believe he deliberately lied, his motives might not have been nefarious, but a lie is a lie.
I only brought up Iraq to point out that I wish Russert would go after those that dragged us into that war with the same ferocity he went after Broussard with. I find it odd that you'd object to that.
I dont think its odd. You are comparing apples and oranges. Your lack of compassion strikes me as being cold.
"I believe he deliberately lied, his motives might not have been nefarious, but a lie is a lie."
Will someone please tell me what indications there are that this was deliberate? I'd really like to know.
What a great job Russert did....everyone is screaming now the lies...the gall...the jounalistic integrity...what bugs the CRAP out of me and one of the reasons I think Russert is a chickenHACK is that he thinks this is a HUGE story he and his MSNBC/ROVE machine need to correct. Now that the 'truth' is coming out that the lies/embellishment of the rape/murder conditions of the Superdome and Convention which was used by the Federal Government/military/Red Cross to NOT GO IN THERE....is being revealed...where is Russert's journalistic capital on this.
Russert carries the water for the Bush administration. He's not as jingoistic as Novak/Hume but just take a momnet and search the archives. He is however an apologist. So when I evaulate the motivations, and their value, of a Russert and Broussard it is Russert I find the lesser man, and his contribution to this American crisis embarrassing.
With this report Russert has lost my respect. He still has a job, and to some he may be doing a good job... I'm sure GE/NBC are proud of him...
Just as those of us one the outside of the disaster will miss the smaller picture i.e., the personal tragedy, loss, and pain, those on the inside, in their turmoil, may not see the bigger picture or spend their waking hours hashing over minute details of their stories in order to avoid being nit-picked by the press. Those people have real problems to face down at the moment.
In a perfect world, we could promote the President of Jefferson Parish to President of the United States.
RUSSERT: And, in fact, the owners of the nursing home, Salvador and Mable Mangano, have been indicted with 34 counts of negligent homicide by the Louisiana state attorney general. So it was the owners of the nursing home AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (my emphasis) that are responsible for the lack of evacuation and not the federal government. Is that fair?
This is the part of the whole interview where there is a problem. Russert is clearly trying to place the blame on the local government when the where there is none. According to MSNBC:
“The pathetic thing in this case was that they were asked if they wanted to move them and they did not,” Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti said Tuesday. “They were warned repeatedly that this storm was coming. In effect, their inaction resulted in the deaths of these people.”
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
In that same article Thomas Rodrigue, the victim's son, defended Broussard's comments:
"When asked how Broussard could have gotten the details of his mother’s story so wrong, Rodrigue said, Broussard “was emotional, absolutely and he was from the time that he found out that, you know, that my mother had died and I was here doing what I’m required to do for the citizens for Jefferson Parish.”
Rodrigue said he hasn’t spoken with Broussard since the Meet the Press broadcast. “He’s been busy, I’ve been busy,” Rodrigue said. “I haven’t really had a chance to sit down and talk to him.”"
The whole idea that the local government failed just seemed to either come out of nowhere or come from Republicans.
"The whole idea that the local government failed just seemed to either come out of nowhere or come from Republicans." Skip
Skip, it is posts like that where you show you have zero credibility. Most "normal" people understand that there were breakdowns at all levels. For you to not see that shows you cannot look at a situation without your hatred for the right taking front and center above all logic. Good luck with that. To quote Napoleon Dynamite "IDIOT"!
You are absolutely right. There WERE breakdowns at all levels. They are all responsible with lots of deaths and suffering. But those breakdowns had nothing to do with the deaths of those people in the hospital. Russert tried to absolve the feds and blame the locals with his question to Broussard.
I think though that I didn't make my point clear. I did not mean to say that the Nagin nor Blanco had no responsiblility in the disaster.
The media spin has come back around to try to exonerate the Bush Admninistration when in fact, all levels of government failed in their preparation and response in New Orleans. I, like most Americans, do not live in Louisiana and thus will limit the focus of my criticisms to that government to which I have recourse - the Federal government. Let the New Orleanians and Louisianans take care of their incompetent officials but we all need to pay attention to how the feds performed and make the proper adjustments in the polls or your area could feel the effects of their incompetence next.