If It's Sunday, It's Anti-Bush Spin

I used to think that Tim Russert was a competent interviewer. Now, I think he's a partisan hack.

In my view, he has managed to turn Meet the Press into a propaganda arm for the Democratic National Committee.

Although Russert has always been easier on Dems than on Republicans, at one time he was more balanced in his questioning. That's changed. Russert has taken on the role of an anti-Bush Administration activist.

On today's program, Russert directed a Bush-bash fest with Bill Clinton legacy spinmeister Madeleine Albright and useful tool Lindsey Graham.

First, it's ridiculous to believe that a RINO like Graham was booked as a guest to speak in support of the Bush Administration.

It seemed that when Graham wasn't attacking Bush and the White House, he was backpedaling and apologizing for offering support to the President in the past.

Russert graciously set Albright up to say: Bush did a miserable job in Iraq; Bush misled the country with faulty intelligence in making the case for war; Bush and Cheney support torture; and Republicans have poisoned the political climate, with the RNC's White Flag ad as a case in point.

For the most part, Graham agreed with Albright on every point. Occasionally, he would present an opposing view. This happened when Albright would say that she agreed completely with what Graham had just said. It was as if a little bell would go off in Graham's head, signaling that he had been too anti-Bush Administration in his remarks. Only then would he criticize the Dems.

For example, Russert showed an edited bit of the RNC's "Retreat and Defeat" ad. Graham said that the ad should be pulled. He ran down the list of Dems who have claimed our troops have not made progress in Iraq and called for retreat. Graham then went on to characterize them as patriots.

Albright jumped in to say that she was in complete agreement with Graham, that the attack methods being used by the Republicans are shameful. At that point, the bell went off for Graham. He then tacked on that the Dems are not blameless. He said that Dems haven't helped matters by calling the President a liar.

Overall, Graham consistently gave far too little, far too late. Throughout his appearance, his defense of the President was extremely limp.

Graham also went off on the torture issue, insisting that the U.S. must stop the torturing of prisoners.

(By the way, does the U.S. have a meat grinder for human flesh at any of its terrorist detention facilities? As a matter of policy, does the U.S. cut off heads, cut off limbs, cut out tongues, or gouge out eyes?

The term "torture" is bandied about, but it's not clearly defined. Do U.S. military personnel routinely practice "torture" as the Dems and RINOs claim?)

The assumption was that currently the U.S. regularly engages in torture tactics. No challenge of that assumption was made. For instance, there was no one to point out the reasoning behind not wanting to limit what approach can be used when dealing with a terrorist under the ticking bomb scenario, something that even John McCain has acknowledged would demand tough measures.

Too bad Dick Durbin wasn't there to add some spice to the discussion by calling Americans the keepers of gulags.

I think for a moment Albright thought she would not have to answer for statements she made in 1998 about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed.

Russert did read a quote from Albright's book. It rather weakly stated that she believed Iraq was a danger to the U.S. Albright quickly covered that by saying the Clinton Administration effectively dealt with the Iraq problem by sanctions and strategic bombing.

Naturally, Russert did not challenge her, and neither did Graham.

Albright did not have to account for her hawkish stance in 1998 and the litany of remarks she made back then about Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction.

On February 18, 1998, at a town hall meeting at Ohio State, Albright said:

For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm.

In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people. In fact, he is a repeat offender, having used them both in the battle and against his people.

...First of all, I'd like to repeat and say that the United States does not challenge Iraq's territorial integrity, nor do we want to see the Iraqi people suffer any further. Our problem, and the world's problem, is with Iraq's leaders. Today those leaders have a choice: they can allow UN inspections to proceed on the world's terms, or they can invite serious military strikes on ours.

At the same forum, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen also presented a strong case for military action against Iraq.

From the meeting's transcript:

Saddam Hussein, as Secretary Albright has indicated, has developed an arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. He has used these weapons repeatedly against his own people, as well as Iran. I have a picture, which I believe CNN can show on its cameras, but here is a picture taken of an Iraqi mother and child, killed by Iraqi nerve gas. This is what I would call "Madonna and Child, Saddam Hussein Style."

(Shouting.)

Now, the United Nations believes that he still has very large quantities of VX. VX is a substance, a nerve agent, which is so deadly that a single drop can kill you within a couple of minutes. Anthrax is a biological agent that kills people within five to seven hours seven days, rather, after they breathe an amount the size of a single dust particle. If you were to take a five- pound bag of anthrax, properly dispersed, it would kill half the population of Columbus, Ohio.

Now, at the time of 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, he had also loaded chemical and biological weapons into artillery shells, missile warheads as well. He was working on a missile that would have a range of nearly 2,000 miles. That means it could travel all the way from Baghdad to as far as Paris, and perhaps other capitals in Europe, and one day, perhaps, even to the United States. He has fired these missiles against four of his neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran and Israel.

And because of the threats posed by Saddam and his deadly arsenal, the United Nations insisted that he eliminate all of these weapons of mass destruction following the Gulf War.

...But Saddam has delayed; he has duped; he has deceived the inspectors from the very first day on the job. I have another chart which shows exactly what I'm talking about. From the very beginning, he declared he had not offensive biological weapons programs. Then, when confronted with evidence following the defection of his son-in-law, he admitted they had produced more than 2100 gallons of anthrax. The UN inspectors fear that he may have produced as much as three times that amount.

...These inspectors, again, they've done a good job, but their work isn't over; and that's why we need them back on the ground, searching for these deadly weapons that Saddam has used in the past and could use again in the future. We hope that Iraq will agree to let the inspectors do their work, but if Saddam refuses, we're prepared to use military force to achieve that which he will not allow the inspectors
to do.

Our military goal would be to deliver a serious blow that would significantly diminish Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, the threat, and reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors.

Why didn't Graham call Albright on her effort to rewrite history and to distance herself from the reality of the Clinton Administration's position on Iraq?

Perhaps he hadn't had his morning coffee and wasn't up for the fight. Maybe he's a spineless RINO and accordingly has no interest in speaking up for the President or his party. It's possible that Graham was coached by John McCain to let Albright and Russert deliver as many blows to Bush as possible, and Graham was willing to take the fall.

I don't know why Graham chose to aid Russert in his anti-Bush Administration campaign. In any case, Graham helped the Dems in their drive to hurt Bush's credibility.

Why did Russert give Albright the opportunity to trash the current Administration without holding her accountable for her words and actions during her tenure as the Secretary of State?

That's simple. He's a partisan hack.

Just days away from the elections in Iraq, this is all very disheartening to me.

As Joe Lieberman has said, it would be a colossal mistake to "seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

Apparently, Russert, Albright, and Graham are eager to make that colossal mistake.

As Samuel Johnson said in The Idler, 1758, "Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages."

Let's be clear. Russert is not an objective journalist. He has a horse in this race and it's definitely not Bush.

Sometimes, it seems that it's not America.