10 Questions Russert Didn't Ask

[Gaard]

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2086684">10 Questions Russert Didn't Ask
The missed opportunities for follow-ups.</a>

10 Questions Russert Didn't Ask
The missed opportunities for follow-ups.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK (February 08, 2004) -- Partisans may debate whether Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning was too tough or too easy on President George W. Bush in his questioning. Certainly, Russert challenged Bush sharply on several occasions, but he also missed opportunities to raise at least 10 highly relevant questions:

1. When Bush said flatly that he was "not surprised" by the level of resistance the U.S. has met in Iraq after the war, Russert did not ask: If that's true, why then did the U.S. not prepare much better for what would follow?

2. When Bush said the CIA was "ably led" by George Tenet and that Tenet's job was not in jeopardy, Russert did not ask: "Why do you not hold Tenet at all accountable for deeply flawed CIA intelligence in the run-up to a major war?"

3. As a follow-up: Mr. President, What do you think of Tenet's comment that he never thought Iraq was an "imminent" threat? Or Colin Powell's remark earlier this week that he could not have justified the war if he knew the threat of weapons of mass destruction was not real?

4. When Bush flatly asserted, "We're doing a very good job of dismantling al-Qaeda," Russert did not challenge this notion at all.

5. Bush said one reason we had to go to war was because Saddam could have developed nuclear weapons "over time." Russert did not ask him to cite any fresh evidence that the Iraqi nuclear program was in any state to do this any time in the foreseeable future.

6. When Bush denied that he had launched a "pre-emptive" war because, after all, he went to the United Nations first, Russert did not ask: How did that make the invasion any less "pre-emptive?"

7. Bush claimed that we went to war because efforts at "containing" Saddam Hussein had failed. Russert did not ask for evidence that Hussein had not, in fact, been contained by sanctions, especially in light of no WMDs being found in Iraq.

8. Bush also repeatedly asserted that the United Nations had failed at "disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully" or that its efforts were "not working." Russert did not ask: How can you say this when, on the verge of war, U.N. inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and reporting that there appeared to be no WMDs there -- which, in fact, has been proven correct?

9. When Bush, responding to the "AWOL" controversy, claimed that he did, indeed, show up for National Guard service in Alabama, despite no apparent evidence proving this, Russert could have asked: Can you name one person who saw you serve in Alabama?

10. Finally, Russert did not ask Bush what he thought of the many serious charges in the recent book about former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill.

Yep.

 

[buckmasterson]

1. When Bush said flatly that he was "not surprised" by the level of resistance the U.S. has met in Iraq after the war, Russert did not ask: If that's true, why then did the U.S. not prepare much better for what would follow?

How exactly could he have prepared for this? War isn't cut & dry.

2. When Bush said the CIA was "ably led" by George Tenet and that Tenet's job was not in jeopardy, Russert did not ask: "Why do you not hold Tenet at all accountable for deeply flawed CIA intelligence in the run-up to a major war?"

Bush never said he didn't hold him accountable. He said his job wasn't in Jeopardy. Obviously Bush will live or die by his team. A sign of a good President.

3. As a follow-up: Mr. President, What do you think of Tenet's comment that he never thought Iraq was an "imminent" threat? Or Colin Powell's remark earlier this week that he could not have justified the war if he knew the threat of weapons of mass destruction was not real?

Bush may die by his team...

4. When Bush flatly asserted, "We're doing a very good job of dismantling al-Qaeda," Russert did not challenge this notion at all.

It's a fact that al-Qaeda isn't the threat that it was.

5. Bush said one reason we had to go to war was because Saddam could have developed nuclear weapons "over time." Russert did not ask him to cite any fresh evidence that the Iraqi nuclear program was in any state to do this any time in the foreseeable future.

Sadam was made of evil and money. It was a matter of time.

6. When Bush denied that he had launched a "pre-emptive" war because, after all, he went to the United Nations first, Russert did not ask: How did that make the invasion any less "pre-emptive?"

Bush did follow the requirements. A vote was taken.

7. Bush claimed that we went to war because efforts at "containing" Saddam Hussein had failed. Russert did not ask for evidence that Hussein had not, in fact, been contained by sanctions, especially in light of no WMDs being found in Iraq.

The UN was not getting anywhere. The comment about "In light of no WMD found" is after the fact, and unfair to use.

8. Bush also repeatedly asserted that the United Nations had failed at "disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully" or that its efforts were "not working." Russert did not ask: How can you say this when, on the verge of war, U.N. inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and reporting that there appeared to be no WMDs there -- which, in fact, has been proven correct?

Think about it. How many of us really had faith in the UN? The UN is also seriously flawed.

9. When Bush, responding to the "AWOL" controversy, claimed that he did, indeed, show up for National Guard service in Alabama, despite no apparent evidence proving this, Russert could have asked: Can you name one person who saw you serve in Alabama?

Russert doesn't seem to be a cheap shot artist.

10. Finally, Russert did not ask Bush what he thought of the many serious charges in the recent book about former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill.

See above.


I don't know what more could be expected of Russert in this interview. I think he did a good job given the time he had. As for The President, he still has answers to give. Maybe he will do so when he's out of office next year.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: buckmasterson
Bush did follow the requirements. A vote was taken.

There was no U.N. vote. The U.S. decided it wasn't going to bring the matter to a vote when it looked like we might lose it.

The UN was not getting anywhere. The comment about "In light of no WMD found" is after the fact, and unfair to use.

There were inspecters on the grounds and what banned materials that were found (missles) were being destroyed. And it's perfectly fair to use use "In light of no WMD found" after the fact. The inspectors said there had found no WMD, we said there are WMD's. So far they were right, we were wrong.

 

[buckmasterson]

Huh, I thought there was a vote? Oh well, they'll be one in November!


"There were inspecters on the grounds and what banned materials that were found (missles) were being destroyed. And it's perfectly fair to use use "In light of no WMD found" after the fact. The inspectors said there had found no WMD, we said there are WMD's. So far they were right, we were wrong."

Come on now, how many of us really had faith in the UN Inspectors?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: buckmasterson
Bush did follow the requirements. A vote was taken.

There was no U.N. vote. The U.S. decided it wasn't going to bring the matter to a vote when it looked like we might lose it.

The UN was not getting anywhere. The comment about "In light of no WMD found" is after the fact, and unfair to use.

There were inspecters on the grounds and what banned materials that were found (missles) were being destroyed. And it's perfectly fair to use use "In light of no WMD found" after the fact. The inspectors said there had found no WMD, we said there are WMD's. So far they were right, we were wrong.

The inspectors were there because Saddam had not presented/provided the information that was requested.
Inspectors were having to go out a find the banned items and oversee the destruction.

How much was out there that they were not discovering. 2+ years of prep after playing a shell game for a few years.


Russert did not ask questions/followup that would serve no purpose except making the interview look politically motivated and possible blow up in his face.

 

[chess9]

Russert hardly asked the tough questions. Anyone who watched the Dean CROSS EXAMINATION vs. the Bush PILLOW TOSS knows the difference. Russert is a very conservative Republican loyalist. He was threading the needle between his many competing objectives. In retrospect, and after reading a transcript of the interview, my wife was right. Russert should be given an F for that performance. I was too easy on him.

-Robert

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The inspectors were there becuase Saddam had not presented/provided the information that was requested.
Inspectors were having to go out a find the banned items and oversee the destruction.

And? They were still there for the first time in 4 years. There was potential to avoid a war.

How much was out there that they were not discovering. 2+ years of prep after playing a shell game for a few years.

How much have we found after looking the past 9 months? 10 year old rockets that at one time contained chemical weapons and trucks which were sold to Saddam by the British.

Russert did not ask questions/followup that would serve no purpose except making the interview look politically motivated and possible blow up in his face.

Russert didn't ask the questions because he either had an agreement not to in order to get the interview or isn't as good as I thought he was.

Some of those questions are extremely valid and deserve answering by the president. And considering the absolute dearth of interviews he gives he may never have to answer them.

 

[EagleKeeper]

]Originally posted by: SViscusi
They were still there for the first time in 4 years. There was potential to avoid a war.

Once can always avoid war by ignoring the consequences of the opponents actions. (Pre WWII). The fact is that for 10 years everybody was tiptoeing around and playing footsie. Countries in Europe were breaking the rules, Iraq was breaking the rules and finaly the US stated (right or wrong) that enought was enough. The line was drawn in the sand twice. The first line was crossed, the second may not have mattered. Had the sabres not been rattled after the first line was crossed, the inspectors would not have been back in. They were there only under the threat of trouble. Once that threat was reduced, they would have been back out. That was the track record of Saddam.

]Originally posted by: SViscusi
How much have we found after looking the past 9 months? 10 year old rockets that at one time contained chemical weapons and trucks which were sold to Saddam by the British.

The problem was not so much what we have found (and there still is a lot of country to look at) but what the capability was and where it was heading.
The intent can cause an ounce of prevention to be valid to prevent the pound of cure being applied. Vacination.

]Originally posted by: SViscusi
Russert didn't ask the questions because he either had an agreement not to in order to get the interview or isn't as good as I thought he was.

Some of those questions are extremely valid and deserve answering by the president. And considering the absolute dearth of interviews he gives he may never have to answer them.

Agreed. His job may depend on his capability on getting the exclusives.
All interviews have certain ground rules that are layed out by the person being questioned. The interviewer breaks those rules at their own risk.
The crossing over a line may cause the interview to be abruptly terminated and/or denial of White House access (kiss of death for a political correspondent).

Some of those questions may come out during the election debates/coverage. should the Dems bring some of the issues up, they also better be prepared to catch/handle the response. Some anwers may not be what they expect or want to hear. (Pandora's Box)