Meet The Press: Russert - His press aid ended the interview early!!

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, one at a time for the slow(and/or those who didn't/cant read the linked article)....

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 14 minutes before being cut off?

Russert's interview of Powell was ended abruptly (moving the camera off of Powell...and Powell demanding the interview to continue on.) after 13 minutes.

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 8 minutes before being cut off?

The article doesn't say that Russert's aid cut off the interview after 8 minutes. All it says is the interview quickly ended. It may have continued on to a graceful ending. I'm betting that's the case as the article was intentionally vague on that point.

Yes - sorry it was 13 minutes - it ended up being 14 or so.

My point though was that info's assumption that powell's interview wasn't for time reasons is absurd. It is just as likely if not more so that his was because of time than Russert's because Powell's ran OVER the alloted time and Russert's did not.

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, one at a time for the slow(and/or those who didn't/cant read the linked article)....

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 14 minutes before being cut off?

Russert's interview of Powell was ended abruptly (moving the camera off of Powell...and Powell demanding the interview to continue on.) after 13 minutes.

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 8 minutes before being cut off?

The article doesn't say that Russert's aid cut off the interview after 8 minutes. All it says is the interview quickly ended. It may have continued on to a graceful ending. I'm betting that's the case as the article was intentionally vague on that point.

Yes - sorry it was 13 minutes - it ended up being 14 or so.

My point though was that info's assumption that powell's interview wasn't for time reasons is absurd. It is just as likely if not more so that his was because of time than Russert's because Powell's ran OVER the alloted time and Russert's did not.

CkG

Thank you conjur for getting to the bottom of CkG's obfuscation.

There are reports that say Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns. Hence, it is not absurd for me to assume Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns.

No such reports have been presented for Russert's interview. This article, for example, does not clarify that there was a non-time based concern or not.

 

[arsbanned]

...obfuscation...

Yes. Excellent word- and describes a lot of what goes on in here.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
heartsurgeon,

do you have any evidence that russert ended his interview because of the questions being asked? THat's probably the difference. Powell's aids were trying to cut and run BECAUSE of the questions being asked. You haven't shown that Russert left the interview for the same reason. In other words, you have failed to show that Russert was being a hypocrite.

Uh, Powells interview went over the allotted time. Russerts interview didnt even go the allotted time.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Infohawk
heartsurgeon,

do you have any evidence that russert ended his interview because of the questions being asked? THat's probably the difference. Powell's aids were trying to cut and run BECAUSE of the questions being asked. You haven't shown that Russert left the interview for the same reason. In other words, you have failed to show that Russert was being a hypocrite.

Uh, Powells interview went over the allotted time. Russerts interview didnt even go the allotted time.

You don't know that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, one at a time for the slow(and/or those who didn't/cant read the linked article)....

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 14 minutes before being cut off?

Russert's interview of Powell was ended abruptly (moving the camera off of Powell...and Powell demanding the interview to continue on.) after 13 minutes.

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 8 minutes before being cut off?

The article doesn't say that Russert's aid cut off the interview after 8 minutes. All it says is the interview quickly ended. It may have continued on to a graceful ending. I'm betting that's the case as the article was intentionally vague on that point.

Yes - sorry it was 13 minutes - it ended up being 14 or so.

My point though was that info's assumption that powell's interview wasn't for time reasons is absurd. It is just as likely if not more so that his was because of time than Russert's because Powell's ran OVER the alloted time and Russert's did not.

CkG

Thank you conjur for getting to the bottom of CkG's obfuscation.

There are reports that say Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns. Hence, it is not absurd for me to assume Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns.

No such reports have been presented for Russert's interview. This article, for example, does not clarify that there was a non-time based concern or not.

Buahahahahahaha!!!! It doesn't matter. 13-14(which was the length of the interview) The point remains you ASSume Powell's wasn't for time reasons when it is CLEAR the interview was past the allotted time. Yet, somehow it's a perfectly good excuse for cutting off an interview that had not yet reached it's alloted time.

So bleat on about 13 or 14 and think it proves something- it doesn't. 13 into the interview that went 14 minutes. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU don't understand logic and have troubles with reading and comprehension as shown by your posts here.

Now again - YOU ASSume Powell's aid cut it off because of the questioning instead of time because that's what the accusation was- however the FACT that the interview was over the allotted time shows there is evidence it was as she claims - because of time. I don't care about Russert's excuse for time - but if his was about "time" then I fail to see why someone elses couldn't be about "time".

CkG

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, one at a time for the slow(and/or those who didn't/cant read the linked article)....

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 14 minutes before being cut off?

Russert's interview of Powell was ended abruptly (moving the camera off of Powell...and Powell demanding the interview to continue on.) after 13 minutes.

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 8 minutes before being cut off?

The article doesn't say that Russert's aid cut off the interview after 8 minutes. All it says is the interview quickly ended. It may have continued on to a graceful ending. I'm betting that's the case as the article was intentionally vague on that point.

Yes - sorry it was 13 minutes - it ended up being 14 or so.

My point though was that info's assumption that powell's interview wasn't for time reasons is absurd. It is just as likely if not more so that his was because of time than Russert's because Powell's ran OVER the alloted time and Russert's did not.

CkG

Thank you conjur for getting to the bottom of CkG's obfuscation.

There are reports that say Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns. Hence, it is not absurd for me to assume Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns.

No such reports have been presented for Russert's interview. This article, for example, does not clarify that there was a non-time based concern or not.

Powells interview was supposed to be 10 minutes. Not 14. It went over, and briefly stopped at 13, before ending at 14.

Russerts interview was to be 10 minutes, but at around 8 minutes it came to an end.

Im not saying Russerts a liberal either.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, one at a time for the slow(and/or those who didn't/cant read the linked article)....

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 14 minutes before being cut off?

Russert's interview of Powell was ended abruptly (moving the camera off of Powell...and Powell demanding the interview to continue on.) after 13 minutes.

Who's [sic] 10 minute interview ran 8 minutes before being cut off?

The article doesn't say that Russert's aid cut off the interview after 8 minutes. All it says is the interview quickly ended. It may have continued on to a graceful ending. I'm betting that's the case as the article was intentionally vague on that point.

Yes - sorry it was 13 minutes - it ended up being 14 or so.

My point though was that info's assumption that powell's interview wasn't for time reasons is absurd. It is just as likely if not more so that his was because of time than Russert's because Powell's ran OVER the alloted time and Russert's did not.

CkG

Thank you conjur for getting to the bottom of CkG's obfuscation.

There are reports that say Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns. Hence, it is not absurd for me to assume Powell's interview was cut short because of non-time concerns.

No such reports have been presented for Russert's interview. This article, for example, does not clarify that there was a non-time based concern or not.

Buahahahahahaha!!!! It doesn't matter. 13-14(which was the length of the interview) The point remains you ASSume Powell's wasn't for time reasons when it is CLEAR the interview was past the allotted time. Yet, somehow it's a perfectly good excuse for cutting off an interview that had not yet reached it's alloted time.

So bleat on about 13 or 14 and think it proves something- it doesn't. 13 into the interview that went 14 minutes. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU don't understand logic and have troubles with reading and comprehension as shown by your posts here.

Now again - YOU ASSume Powell's aid cut it off because of the questioning instead of time because that's what the accusation was- however the FACT that the interview was over the allotted time shows there is evidence it was as she claims - because of time. I don't care about Russert's excuse for time - but if his was about "time" then I fail to see why someone elses couldn't be about "time".

CkG

" The point remains you ASSume Powell's wasn't for time reasons when it is CLEAR the interview was past the allotted time. "
Correlation does not equate with causation. Even if Powell's interview went past time, this does not mean that was the reason it was ended. The reports suggest otherwise in fact. The report suggests an aide was worried about how the interview was going.

"So bleat on about 13 or 14 and think it proves something- it doesn't. 13 into the interview that went 14 minutes. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU don't understand logic and have troubles with reading and comprehension as shown by your posts here."
Are you talking to me or conjur? If you are talking about me, that suggests you have reading comprehension problems. I have not even discussed the number of minutes. Re-read my posts. If you are talking to conjur, you should have been more clear about it. Work on your writing skills.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
" The point remains you ASSume Powell's wasn't for time reasons when it is CLEAR the interview was past the allotted time. "
Correlation does not equate with causation. Even if Powell's interview went past time, this does not mean that was the reason it was ended. The reports suggest otherwise in fact. The report suggests an aide was worried about how the interview was going.

Yet YOU and others on the left just eat up the "report" and the supposed "correlation" between the perception of how the interview was going and the ending of it, instead of looking at the factual evidence(the stuff not based on your opinion or perception ) that they were indeed over the allotted time.

Suit yourself, whatever helps you sleep at night...

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Duplicitous. Very nice.

Umm, the difference is, they were limiting the interview because of time contraints, not to stop a certain type of question from being answered, as in Poweel's interview.
I know, slight difference, but a difference nonetheless.

I think this analysis is correct except I think there is a big difference.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Duplicitous. Very nice.

Umm, the difference is, they were limiting the interview because of time contraints, not to stop a certain type of question from being answered, as in Poweel's interview.
I know, slight difference, but a difference nonetheless.

I think this analysis is correct except I think there is a big difference.

Again, like I stated - it is your opinion and perception that it was cut off because of the question. However when people look at the facts of the powell interview you'll see that the interview was infact over the alloted time. Is it really THAT hard to understand? Just because someone claims it was cut off because the questioning- doesn't mean it is. And in this case just because Russert didn't like being cut off (like his aide did to someone else) -he stuck this out there; so now people will let their mind wander and "suppose" things instead of looking at the factual evidence that backs up Powell's aide's assertion that it was because of time.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Hahaha, I just love it when some asshole gets bit in the ass with his own hypocracy. I notice that every time some f@cktard runs a stop sign on my left, five minutes later I do exactly the same. It's a curse being a chimp.

 

[arsbanned]

Again, like I stated - it is your opinion and perception that it was cut off because of the question. However when people look at the facts of the powell interview you'll see that the interview was infact over the alloted time. Is it really THAT hard to understand? Just because someone claims it was cut off because the questioning- doesn't mean it is. And in this case just because Russert didn't like being cut off (like his aide did to someone else) -he stuck this out there; so now people will let their mind wander and "suppose" things instead of looking at the factual evidence that backs up Powell's aide's assertion that it was because of time.

Riiiight. Powell had to basically tell this woman to shut up and sit down so he could continue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Riiiight. Powell had to basically tell this woman to shut up and sit down so he could continue.

And that proves she was stopping it because of the questioning - how? Oh, that's right...it doesn't.

CkG

 

[arsbanned]

Well darnit you have me there.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Riiiight. Powell had to basically tell this woman to shut up and sit down so he could continue.

And that proves she was stopping it because of the questioning - how? Oh, that's right...it doesn't.

CkG

Read the transcript of the Powell interview and you'll see.

TIM RUSSERT: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein, citing.

(Camera moved off of interview subject)

EMILY MILLER, STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS AIDE: You're off.

SECRETARY POWELL: I am not off.

EMILY MILLER, PRESS AIDE: No. They can't use it, they're editing it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Riiiight. Powell had to basically tell this woman to shut up and sit down so he could continue.

And that proves she was stopping it because of the questioning - how? Oh, that's right...it doesn't.

CkG

Read the transcript of the Powell interview and you'll see.

TIM RUSSERT: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein, citing.

(Camera moved off of interview subject)

EMILY MILLER, STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS AIDE: You're off.

SECRETARY POWELL: I am not off.

EMILY MILLER, PRESS AIDE: No. They can't use it, they're editing it.

Again - how does that prove it was because of the question(ing)?
Like I've said - your perception of "why" doesn't make it true. Her assertion that it was about time is backed up by the fact that the interview was over the alloted time.
But whatever - believe what you want if it helps you sleep at night. Russert's aide cut off an interview, and Powell's attempted to also. Both aids said it was because of time. Russerts aide tried to cut it off before the alloted time was done, and Powell's attempted to AFTER the alloted time was past.

CkG

 

[conjur]

To anyone but you it's obvious she did not want Powell to answer that question.

 

[illustri]

I'd like to know what Powell thinks.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think it matters what Powell thinks, not to the Bushies, anyway. They just brought him onboard to lend some veneer of respectability to their enterprise, and he's now too far compromised to say much of anything. Maybe he thinks that the situation is salvageable, that some how, some way, reason will prevail in the Bush Whitehouse, and that he can make a difference from the inside. Fat Chance.

Or maybe he's holding out 'til just before the election, when He'll put a torpedo dead amidships into the Bush re-election campaign. We can only hope.

 

[Infohawk]

"Or maybe he's holding out 'til just before the election, when He'll put a torpedo dead amidships into the Bush re-election campaign"
Neocons wouldn't care. Heck, if Bush said he now worshipped Satan, they'd find a way to blame Clinton for taking over Bush's body.

I think the only way they would question Bush is if Reagan came back from his disease and proclaimed Bush a communist.

Good thing neocons aren't in the majority - on this board, or in America.

 

[YellowRose]

Folks you are missing the point. Powell is Sec. of State and Russet is a talk show host. When someone tries to end an interview with a talk show host , who cares. Its another thing when its a press sec for a member of the government. I saw the interview and I wonder just who this Emily person really works for Rove or Powell

 

[dbk]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
Folks you are missing the point. Powell is Sec. of State and Russet is a talk show host. When someone tries to end an interview with a talk show host , who cares. Its another thing when its a press sec for a member of the government. I saw the interview and I wonder just who this Emily person really works for Rove or Powell

I agree completely. Rather a sad attempt by a tabloid.

 

[Codec]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Good thing neocons aren't in the majority - on this board, or in America.

Amen to that.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Codec

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Good thing neocons aren't in the majority - on this board, or in America.

Amen to that.

LMAO! Yall just keep right on with your singing... "In my own little corner, in my own little chair, I can be whatever I want to be....". You guys are so marginalized that coming here is like a visit to the zoo. Just pray that us grownups don't tire of your amusing antics or get so busy taking care of what really matters that we forget to toss you a bone to gnaw on every now and then.