NBC's Williams allowed Bush to make false and misleading assertions about Katrina recovery, pre-war WMD claims, and Iraqi links to 9-11
SUMMARY: In his interview with President Bush, NBC's Brian Williams allowed Bush to falsely claim that "we delivered" on the promises Bush made during a September 2005 address to the nation in New Orleans; that Saddam Hussein had an active weapons of mass destruction program prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq; and that Bush had never suggested ties between Iraq, Saddam, and the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Williams also left unchallenged Bush's objection to the argument that the Iraq war has acted as a recruitment tool for terrorists.
During his August 29 interview with President Bush, portions of which aired on various NBC and MSNBC programs on August 29 and 30, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams allowed Bush to falsely claim that "we delivered" on the promises Bush made during a September 2005 address to the nation in New Orleans. In fact, only one of Bush's three proposals to help "rebuild" the Gulf Coast has been implemented to date. Additionally, Williams did not challenge Bush's false suggestion that Saddam "had the capacity to make" weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Nor did Williams rebut, in a separate portion of the interview, Bush's denial -- again -- that he had ever suggested ties between Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Williams also left unchallenged Bush's objection to the argument that the Iraq war has acted as a recruitment tool for terrorists, a claim Bush said is "not based upon fact."
Hurricane Katrina
In a segment of the interview devoted to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Williams left unchallenged Bush's claim that "we delivered" on promises made during his September 15, 2005, address to the nation from Jackson Square in New Orleans. Bush said: "When it's all said and done, the people down here know that I stood in Jackson Square and I said we're going to help you, and we delivered." In fact, while Bush originally laid out three proposals to help the Gulf Coast "not just rebuild" but "build higher and better," only one has been implemented. The proposed initiatives included a "Gulf Opportunity Zone," "Worker Recovery Accounts," and an "Urban Homesteading Act." According to a White House fact sheet, the "GO Zone" would "provide tax relief and loans for businesses and entrepreneurs to invest in the region," and to date, it is the only measure passed by Congress and signed into law. As the Associated Press reported on August 29, Congress has taken no action on Bush's proposed "Worker Recovery Accounts" and "Urban Homesteading Act," which would have awarded a $5,000 grant for job-seeking related activities to qualified recipients who became unemployed due to the storm and would have made available -- for free -- government-owned property to people who wished to rebuild. Williams did not mention any of these programs.
By contrast, during an interview with Donald E. Powell, the Gulf Coast region recovery and rebuilding coordinator, on the August 27 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace noted that two of Bush's three promises from the Jackson Square speech were "never kept":
WALLACE: In fact, Mr. Powell, two of the three promises that the president made that night to fight poverty were never kept: the worker recovery accounts to help evacuees as they were looking for jobs after the displacement of the hurricane and the Urban Homestead Act [sic], which was going to provide free land. Neither of those things ever happened.
Would New Orleans be in better shape today if the president and Congress had kept those promises?
This portion of Williams's interview with Bush aired on the August 29 editions of both NBC's Nightly News and MSNBC's Scarborough Country, as well as the August 29 and August 30 editions of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews.
Later in the interview, Bush continued to repeat the thoroughly debunked claim that Saddam possessed "the capacity" to build weapons of mass destruction at the time the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Bush told Williams that Saddam "had weapons of mass destruction at one time and had the capacity to make 'em, and that's a dangerous mix." Bush added: "[O]ne of the lessons of September the 11th was, when you see a threat, you have to deal with it, and ... I saw a threat. The Congress saw the threat. The United Nations saw the threat, and I will tell you here, getting rid of Saddam Hussein has made the world safer." At no point did Williams challenge Bush on his WMD claims.
At least three different U.S. or U.K. government-sanctioned reports have found that before the U.S.-led invasion, Saddam was not in possession of illegal WMDs and did not have an active chemical, biological, or nuclear WMD program. With regards to the specific issue of Saddam's "capacity," the Iraq Survey Group's final report -- more commonly known as the Duelfer report -- specifically addressed the state of Saddam's WMD programs at the time of the invasion, noting that "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability -- which was essentially destroyed in 1991 -- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized" and that Iraq "had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions." The former head of Iraq's nuclear program under Saddam, Jafar Dhia Jafar, confirmed in 2004 that Iraq had ceased nuclear development following the imposition of U.N. sanctions in 1991 and had never started up again. "There was no capability," Jafar told the BBC. "There was no chemical or biological or any of what are called weapons of mass destruction."
This portion of the interview aired on the August 30 broadcast of Hardball.
Saddam's ties to 9-11 terrorist attacks
Additionally, Bush repeated his claim that he had never said "that Iraq ordered" the 9-11 terrorist attack. Responding to Williams's question as to whether there "has ... ever been an effort to link Iraq with 9-11," Bush stated: "No, I really haven't [done that] because I'm very careful. ...You know, I personally do not believe Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said to Al Qaeda, 'Attack America.' " In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, and here), Bush claimed such a connection existed, often generally and specifically in a letter to Congress at the start of the war. In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney has claimed that Iraqi intelligence officers met with alleged 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks, despite no confirmed reports of such a meeting, and also asserted that war in Iraq would constitute "a major blow" against the 9-11 terrorists. Nonetheless, Williams did not challenge Bush's suggestion during this segment of the interview.
This portion of the interview aired on the August 29 editions of Nightly News and Scarborough Country, and the August 30 editions of NBC's Today and Hardball.
Iraq war as a terrorist recruitment tool
At one point in their discussion of Iraq, Williams asked Bush about "the argument that some on the left make that the war in Iraq has amounted to a colossal recruitment poster in the fundamentalist world." In his rebuttal, Bush dodged the actual argument about which Williams asked, noting simply that Islamic fundamentalists existed prior to the Iraq war. Bush said: "The fundamentalist world attacked the United States and killed 3,000 people before I even thought about removing Saddam Hussein from power." Bush further claimed that such arguments are "not based upon fact." But rather than press Bush on the specific issue he had raised -- whether the terrorist ranks have grown worldwide as a result of the Iraq war -- Williams shifted to the topic of domestic military recruiting, recalling the story of a "kid who joined the National Guard angry about what they did to us on 9-11, thought he was going to Afghanistan, killed in Iraq."
To counter Bush's claim that the argument is "not based upon fact," Williams could have noted that several government analyses have found that U.S. actions in Iraq have aided terrorist groups' recruiting and provided them with a training ground for their new followers, as Media Matters documented. Indeed, the State Department's 2005 annual terrorism report found: "Foreign fighters appear to be working to make the insurgency in Iraq what Afghanistan was to the earlier generation of jihadists -- a melting pot for jihadists from around the world, a training ground, and an indoctrination center." A January 2005 report from the CIA's National Intelligence Council similarly noted: "The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq." Independent analyses have perceived a similar trend in terrorist recruitment. In a 2005 report, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a British think tank that focuses on political-military conflict, concluded that it "is probable that [Al Qaeda] recruitment generally has accelerated on account of Iraq." "Al-Qaeda has added Iraq to its list of grievances," the report stated. "With Osama Bin Laden's public encouragement, up to 1,000 foreign jihadists may have infiltrated Iraq."
This portion of the interview aired on the August 30 editions of Nightly News and Hardball.
From the August 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
WILLIAMS: You could not have been more contrite, as you were in today's remarks: "The government at all levels fell short of its responsibilities." You have apologized for the damage, but what about the damage to your presidency? And, Mr. President, here's what I mean: Most of the analysts call it your low point. A lot of Americans are always going to believe that that weekend, that week, you were watching something on television other than what they were seeing. And Professor [Michael Eric] Dyson from the University of Pennsylvania said on our broadcast last night it was because of your patrician upbringing, that it's a -- it's a classic --
BUSH: Dyson doesn't know -- I don't know Dyson, and Dyson doesn't know me. But I will tell you this: When it's all said and done, the people down here know that I stood in Jackson Square and I said, "We're going to help you," and we delivered. And that's -- what matters, Brian, is that we help the good people here rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, and we're going to do that.
You know, commitments in politics sometimes mean nothing. I made a commitment that means something. And that's what's going to happen. And look, I understand people are second-guessing decisions, and Professor Dysons of the world say things. My heart and my soul is to help these people. And they know it. And they understand that when the federal government makes a commitment it's part of a renewal process. And that's what we need to be focused on.
From the August 30 edition of MNSBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
WILLIAMS: When you take a tour of the world, a lot of Americans email me with their fears that, you know, some days they wake up and it just feels to them like the end of the world is near, and you go from North Korea, to Iran, to Iraq, to Afghanistan and you look at how things have changed. How Americans are viewed overseas, if that is important to you. Do you have any moments of doubt that we fought the wrong war, that there is something wrong with the perception of America overseas?
BUSH: Well, those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war? And the answer is, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, "Let's hope calm works," and we were attacked.
WILLIAMS: But those weren't Iraqis.
BUSH: No, I agree. They weren't Iraqis, nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are part of -- Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorists. These terrorists have made it clear they want us to leave Iraq prematurely. And why is it? Because they want a safe haven. They'd love to get a hold of oil. They have territorial ambitions. And no, I think fighting this war is the absolute right thing to do.
Now, in terms of image, of course I worry about American image. We're great at TV, and we're getting crushed in the PR front. And so, we try to work hard and try to work smart about how we get a message out that says we respect Islam. We just reject the ideology of extremists who kill innocent people to achieve political objectives. And we've got to do a harder job.
But somehow people -- if what you're saying is if we retreat for the sake of popularity, is that the smart thing to do? And my answer is absolutely not. It would be a huge mistake to give the battlefield to these extremists. We retreat; they follow us. And I see it as clearly as day. And I understand the challenge, and I understand -- I also understand the frustrations of our citizens.
WILLIAMS: Let's, if we might, get back to 9-11 for one second. Has there ever been an effort to link the two? How far have you gone?
BUSH: No, I really haven't. Because I'm very careful. I understand what happens when you lay something out that people can tear apart. It hurts credibility. And you know, I personally do not believe Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said to Al Qaeda, "Attack America."
WILLIAMS: How close was he associated with Al Qaeda, in your view?
BUSH: Well, he was -- he was on our state sponsor of terrorists list. And he was paying families of suiciders. He has -- he also, by the way, had weapons of mass destruction one time and had the capacity to make them. And that's a dangerous mix. We didn't put him on the state sponsor of terrorists list. The previous administrations put him on the state sponsor of terrorists list.
[...]
WILLIAMS: Do you see that the argument that some on the left make that the war in Iraq has amounted to a colossal recruitment poster in the fundamentalist world?
BUSH: No, I don't see that at all. The fundamentalist world attacked the United States and killed 3,000 people before I even thought about removing Saddam Hussein from power. I just don't buy that argument. It is an argument that's not based upon fact.
WILLIAMS: But it's that tie -- it's the story in the paper recently of the kid who joined the National Guard, angry about what they did to us on 9-11, thought he was going to Afghanistan, killed in Iraq.
BUSH: Brian, all I can tell you is, is that we have a volunteer army full of motivated, decent, honorable citizens wearing our uniform and morale is high. Morale is really high. You talk to the families and you talk to these kids who are fighting for this country, they understand the stakes and they're proud to be doing it. And this country owes them a debt of gratitude.
Lying is just what he does. The Duelfer report directly says there were no WMD programs in Iraq before the invasion unless he means a decade of so before the invasion.
What does anyone expect in the era of corporate media? BushieCo + GE = $$$$. My favorite part of the interview is when BW teased a "surprise" in the questioning about GWB's book list for the summer. W avoided any kind of appraisal of Camus' 'The Stranger' dodging it by saying he had "read a lot of Shakepeares." Instead of stifling a giggle, BW intoned, George Bush, a president reading Shakespeare.
Bush is such a damn liar. He's never read Shakespeare in his life. Not even in comic book form. He can barely speak common English, no way could he get thru Shakespeare's complicated syntax.
"Reading" with "Understanding"
Anyone can READ Shakespeare...the issue is to they UNDERSTAND what they've read?
Did anyone beside me pick up on Bush saying he has an "ekeletick" reading list? He said this after discussing all the books he has been reading this summer.
Mr. Bush may well have gotten away with alot of false statements to Brian Williams, but he also showed what an ignorant jerk he really is.
Intellectually, I understand why MMFA has this item up. BUT I'm giving Brian Williams a pass on this one. He got Bush to really open up for us (having read "three Shakespeares" will be in my Doofus Hall of Fame). Sometimes pompous doofs like Bush need nothing more than open mic to let the world revel in their stupidity. While BW may not have verbally challenged W on the pseudo-intellectual vomit pouring forth, the way he'd drop his head was priceless.
Abraham Lincoln once said that it was better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.
Seems that Brian didn't have car fare to get home with.
He needed to get a ride.
So...what kind of questions did he ask?
BUSH: No, I agree. They weren't Iraqis, nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are part of -- Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorists. These terrorists have made it clear they want us to leave Iraq prematurely. And why is it? Because they want a safe haven. They'd love to get a hold of oil. They have territorial ambitions. And no, I think fighting this war is the absolute right thing to do.
Apart from the blatant LIE in which he attempts to deflect all the OBVIOUS times he IMPLIED 9/11 & Iraq were connected (of course he didn''t say Iraq ORDERED the attacks - even slavish, moronic FOX watchers might have clued in that saying it was OBL and then saying it was Hussein was strange), what in the hell kindof logic does this amount to?
1. We never "blamed" Iraq. 2. But we invaded, overthrew and occupied it anyway, becuase, you know they had . . . . um, well, we thought they had . . . . um, yeah. 3. The terrorists then showed up and started blowing things and people up. 4. The terrorists now want us to leave because they have "territorial ambitions." 5. They couldn't have had those ambitions if we hadn't overthrown Hussein and created a completely insane, unstable cluster-f**k by having NO PLAN and NO UNDERSTANDING of the land we conquered. 6. Therefore, we must stay becuase if we don't the people who want to take the land we detroyed (who could not have done so before we invaded, because as much of an evil scumbag as Hussein was, he was damn STABLE in his power) will take it,because we gave them the ability to do so. They are now in a position to get Iraq's oil and have a "safe haven" because of OUR ACTIONS.
ARRRRRRRRGH!!!
HTF can you people support this man and his administration? It doesn't even make any sense!
You want to stop terrorists? DO THAT. Get the hell out of IRAQ and so something to stop terrorists? What exactly are we doing to "stop" them anyway? Are we blowing up training camps? Are we rooting them out? Are we seeking to prevent people from joining terrorist organizations? If so, how?
How exactly are we safer having sacrificed over 2,000 Americans and killed or created the conditions by which 100,000-plus Iraqis have been killed and indoing so created more ill-will against our coutry than ever before and thus created more people inclined to join terrorist organizations? HOW? Please explain to us oh-so-unAmerican librals just how we are currently SAFER and more secure?
If it doesn't make sense, how can you support this man and his administration?
Duhhbya, following Coach Karl's orders, has become expert at claiming "I never said that."
Of course he's never said that in the exact "quote" he pulls out his can of Red Herrings - what he has done, though, is just beat the batschit out of the area all around the bushes.
That was the best summing up of this Mongolian Clusterf**k that Bush and Blair have landed our two countries in that l have read in ages!!
The only problem is that those who believe in this misbegotten action seem to lack the ability to think for more than five minutes or worse than that retain any information which cannot be said in a thirty second sound bite.
BUT ... Bush has always claimed that Saddam Hussein was funding the terrorists ...
You can take a small child and give him or her a piece of candy ... as soon as the child puts it in the mouth, you give the kid an electric shock ... soon, the child equates the candy to the electric shock ... the two are totally apart from each other, but now that connection is there in the kid's mind ...
This is how Bush got "America" (the part that have the attention span of a bored gnat) to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 - that he has claimed he has never done ...
Here's the dynamite lie I'm trying to uncover. heard it on the Count-Down presentation of the Brian Williams interview. I swear I did:
Bush says:
" I never thought about taking out Saddam Hussein before 9-11."
Or words to that effect.
Can anyone fooking find it?????
It's excluded from the published transcripts!
If any one can find it, please email me!!! Vigilante.sozadee@gmail.com
Bush and the Republican administration live and die by this theory I call the "huge mess theory."
First they promote and sell their agenda to the people claiming everything will be neat and tidy and clean.
Second, their falwed policies create a massive, smelly mess that nobody can even truly comprehend without getting angry.
Third, when people get fed-up about the mess, the Bush admin comes forward, blames the creation of the mess on someone else supposedly forcing them to do it. It wasn't their fault they made the mess...Iraq made them do it.
Fourth, Bush basically says that the mess is so massive and complicated that only his Administration has the knowledge and ability to clean it up. Anyone else coming in to clean it up won't have the proper understanding because they weren't there when the mess started or when it piled up. ONly the people who watched the mess have a proper analysis of how to clean it up.
Finally...they don't clean up anything, let the mess sit and stink up the country and then blame the Democrats when they eventually clean it up for not doing it fast enough.
First off, foreign jihadists account for a tiny fraction of the Sunni, ex-Baathist, IRAQI insurgency. So if the insurgency succeeds in taking over the Iraqi government, which isn't its goal (that being to rid its nation of a foreign occupying army), and gained control over oil resources, the petroleum would be in Iraqi hands!! As opposed to the BushCo plan which sells it off to international corporations which, as stipulated in the 100 Economic Orders issued by the now-defunct C.P.A., can take 100% of its profits out of Iraq, essentially stealing from the people their most valuable resource.
Bush's "rebuttal" to Williams' assertion that the Iraq war has emboldened terrorist groups was to reiterate a well-known fact, but in the end Bush never was able to discredit the KNOWN fact that the Iraq War has not made America safer. Sure, Al-Qaeda existed before 9/11, but that in no way means that sympathetic minded terrorist organizations have not been formed and STRENGHTENED by subsequent U.S. foreign policy!
"We just reject the ideology of extremists who kill innocent people to achieve political objectives. "
Hey, I finally agree with him on something. I'll bet I'm more consistent on that than he is.
Bush doesn't mind if they are Cuban extremists that kill innocent people. As long as they attack copuntries the U.S. doesn't like, it is OK, it's not really terrorism. But if similar extremists attack an ally of the U.S., it's terrorism. What a croc.
Bush is the leader of the biggest terrorist supporting government on EARTH! Be it in Cuba, Haiti, Iran, and in the past Nicaragua and El Salvador, the U.S. government has had no problem supporting and cheering terrorists as long as they fulfill U.S. policy objectives.
I was actually referring to my rejecting the Republican party. I thought that was the most obvious example, if we want to count actual innocent corpses.
But your other examples are good , too.
9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS
Question 1: Mr. President, the fact is that 9/11 happened during your administration. Given the specific information that has come to light following the 9/11 Commission's investigation, we know that both terrorist attacks were an immanent threat and the planning for 9/11 hijackings occurred before you took office. What would you now say to those who ask why weren't the FBI, FAA, state and local officials, and flight schools put on high alert following the admonishing 'PDB' given to you on August 6th, 2001? and once the attacks succeeded in its first act, did you sit silently for over 7-minutes and particularly when we weren't sure if the attack was nuclear? Secondly, regarding the 9/11 Commission's report; do you feel that the Commission reached its full potential in answering the questions it was set up to ask? and do you feel that Commission's findings were accurate? and do you feel recommendations to be sound, worth-while pursuits? and to date [some five years later], how many of those recommendations are in place and are they working? Where are we failing in our efforts and what is your plan to shore up our shortcomings?
THE IRAQ WAR
Question 2: Mr. President, you ordered the first unprovoked strike in the Iraq War. In the lead up to the war, Americans and Congress believed Iraq to have had untold stockpiles of WMDs and a nuclear program which could pass any of those onto terrorists. Your administration repeatedly and verifiably suggested if not stated that there was a link between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11 and not once did anyone from your administration state the opposite despite the fact - over half of the American public believed 'Saddam did have a connection with 9/11' at that time. You've recently stated that no one in your administration ever said 'Saddam ordered 9/11.' Would you care to clarify and in doing so, qualify how [that] is true? and would you say that Saddam ordered, assisted, collaborated, or is in any way complicit in the 9/11 attacks? in point of fact, nothing has turned out to be true in motivating our cause for war. Would you, given the chance again, order the attacks on Iraq? You've also stated that we're not leaving Iraq so long as you're President. Why? and what were the gaps in planning that have kept us in Iraq 3.5 years longer the 6-week forecast given to us by your administration?
HURRICANE KATRINA
Question 3: Hurricane Katrina was a calamity in proportion to no other natural disaster in recent history. Following the hurricane storm, you stated that 'no one could have anticipated the failure of the levees.' A day before Katrina, you were advised by the Director of the National Hurricane Center that the levees were indeed in danger of being 'over-topped' or possibly breached with a massive loss of life (there are also numerous studies on the topic dating back to 1993). If that's not anticipating, what is it? and why did it take you 5-days to visit the region from your ranch in Crawford given the magnitude of the event? and what provoked you to publicly commend Michael Brown's efforts in the disastrous aftermath?
Mr. President, before, during, and after three of the nation's worst events the American public was failed by its federal government. You've stated before the bucks stop with you. Now, we're told we face another immanent danger in Iran. Today Iran has no nuclear weapons and in most estimates is at least 10-12 years away from developing a non-ballistic warhead and repeatedly denies its program is for hostile purposes. North Korea has non-ballistic warheads at the ready (9-12 in most estimates) and had only one missile at the start of your administration. Given the three catastrophic failures during your administration thus far, why should the public trust your ability or sophistication to handle a situation seemingly as important as Iran? And Why was North Korea allowed to continue to develop nuclear warheads and why are they not the focus of your administration in deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapons by rogue states?
If any media outlet with access to GWB would ask such questions, there wouldn't be a Repub administration for several generations. And if they were that aggressive, they summarily would be dismissed from having access. Thus it is easier for their corporate concerns to softball BushieCo, prop them up, hold them to lowbar standards as we all go down together.
my questions are just ancillary to the core of the relative MMFA article's thesis. i would have bought that argument (about losing access) a few years ago, but this president is dead with only two years left. there is no convincing argument that suggests any reporter would lose access if he/she were to ask the obvious questions. would Brian Williams have lost his White House Credentials? No. He doesn't have any.
if we're students of history (or even medicated monkeys), we're shown in retrospect the identical lead up to the Iraq War with our handling of Iran. No such questions on the topic were asked in this interview.
Thankfully, there will be no UN resolution allowing the use of force and it wouldn't seem that congress under any cirumstances would vote to allow it either, even if there's no change in November.
However, you will see an emboldened policy by the White House towards Iran after November if conservatives maintain their control of the house and senate.
Sunlight is the best anticeptic, but neutering this administration with an out and out defeat in the house will ensure a more intellectual approach to dealing with nuclear arms not only in Iran, but worldwide.
Half expected him to break out into " Don't Bogart That Joint, My Friend" and fire one up!
Never thought the W. was a pot head?? Would explain alot?? and yet his pension for war??
Maybe we should get him a Pot Card, he can grow his own and forget he's President.
Maybe it will have the opposite effect of making him less nausiating to the rest of us??
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!@! No way of doing that, he's hopeless. Impeachment, and a side by side cell with his good buddy Dick.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
These neocon morons gave us a leader who insisted on finishing his baby book while the World Trade Center was under attack.
So, I caught the tail end of the 8/31 show, and what are the freepturd dittododos doing?
Whining about BW's "body language" ... these people whine more that John McEnroe and Billy Martin combined ...
Normally when I see interviews the media has with Bush, I get the feeling that they are all ignorant and have no idea Bush is selling them another bottle of snake oil. They all just want to high-five Bush and then go party with him.
I didn't get that impression with this interview. Instead I got the impression that Williams knew Bush was digging himself deeper into a hole with every answer. I mean, in Bush's reponse about connecting Iraq with 9/11? He made the connection even as he denied making any connection. Frankly, Williams mannerisms made me think he was trying not to just laugh in Bush's face with every response. He was also standing still and firm as Bush fidgeted and posed.
Williams may not be perfect - he's human too - but he's a better journalist than anyone else who comes to mind. Did he challenge every asinine statement by Bush? No. However, having watched Williams more frequently recently, I don't get the impression of someone who is a fan of Bush, especially with regard to Williams' reporting on Katrina.
Perhaps Williams just recognizes that there isn't a purpose to asking some questions. Those who recognize Bush's rediculous and often circular reasoning don't need the question asked. Those who are in denial will continue to be.
This is about as close as it will get to confrontational journalism since the corporate media is basically playing to two masters; the government & the public. They will toe the line for the government, while asking carefully designed questions intended to give the public the impression of hard-hitting journalism.
In a sense, Williams simply gave Bush room to hang himself. Most people opposed to his administration already know that Bush is full of crap, and can point it out ever more easily every time he opens his mouth.
In some of the team sports, you'll find the coach telling the players "don't give your opponent any bulletin board material"...
"bulletin board material" in this sense meaning comments or quotes that might motivate the opponent to a better effort in the game or the contest.
The above transcribed interview of the president (which I take to be abridged) strikes me as a kind of "bulletin board material"...
Not because it contains anything personally insulting (but it does seem to insult the intelligence), but for how stupid and worthless seem all the things said and contained in the transcript, both by the president and the hack who interviewed him.
You can of course read it yourself, and reach a different conclusion; and I'd not take everything said and subject it to an analysis; but regards the simple question of "what does Iraq have to do with the attacks of 9-11?"
I'd remind you that last week, a reporter asked the president that very question, at a White House press conference, and the president's response was:
"Nothing".
But try and get anything as clear and succinct as that, from the above transcript.
Just so as to make clear what it is I'm referring to about the transcript, if what we had here was instead testimony in a legal proceeding, and the question was "what does Iraq have to do with the attacks of 9-11", then what I'd expect to see added to the transcribed record as it reads above, is somewhere the observation that the respondent is "equivocating" or evading the question; perhaps for the interviewer to even ask the Judge or other authority of the legal proceeding to instruct the witness to answer the question...
Because whereas last week the president answered directly and truthfully the word "nothing", when asked "what does Iraq have to do with the attacks of 9-11?"...
The above transcript reads so stupid and worthless as to seem like the words of an idiot; or simply one who was intentionally being equivocal and evasive.
And the most noteworthy thing transcribed above (noteworthy to me), is this:
WILLIAMS: ...Has there ever been an effort to link the two [9-11 and Iraq]? How far have you gone?
BUSH: No, I really haven't. Because I'm very careful. I understand what happens when you lay something out that people can tear apart. It hurts credibility. And you know, I personally do not believe Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said to Al Qaeda, "Attack America."
Now perhaps you don't make as much of words as I do; but believe me, the brains behind the schemes of this administration make a great deal of the words they choose to use; and when the president answered last week "nothing" to the question of what 9-11 has to do with Iraq, he answered quickly to a question he was not prepared for...
And we see why his handlers are so protective of him, and allow him so few press conferences; and even then, to have him as prepared, and the conferences as staged, as possible.
When the president says...
I personally do not believe Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said to Al Qaeda, "Attack America."
...not only is he using what I believe to be as cleverly devised and well-prepared a sentence as any he speaks, but if you read it well, you will see it contains not the least suggestion that 9-11 and Iraq have "nothing" to do with one another; quite the opposite, that sentence contains every suggestion that those two things may be related, even intimately, so far as to read that (truly) he did say...
...Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said to Al Qaeda, "Attack America."
...and I am not twisting words here; that is what was said; and again, perhaps you don't hold the words to as sharp an analysis as I do, but you can be sure the brains behind the schemes do...
Especially in the wake of the president saying last week, unprepared and even ill-advised, that 9-11 and Iraq have "nothing" to do with one another.
And given that truth, what a strange thing it is to hear, to hear the word "nothing", give way to the sentence...
I personally do not believe Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said to Al Qaeda, "Attack America."
...but I can't watch Dumbya anymore...all I hear when he speaks is "blablablablabla...", so I don't even bother. And Brian Williams' questions were almost as bad as Nora O'Donnell's whenever she hosts "Hardball".
Ugh.