As the Daily Howler wrote on Friday, it was a week for peering inside the dead souls of the U.S. media elite. And the most revealing two paragraphs came from the corporate media’s least self-aware disinfotainer, Chris Matthews. Jealousy probably underlay the MSNBC Hardballer stating, immediately after hearing of boss Tim Russert’s death, that Russert was the targeted dupe for the ‘scary nukes’ issue that Bush/Cheney used to get us into Iraq. Here’s Matthews on Thursday, June 13 (emphasis added):
One other thing, and may be tricky to say this and I’ll say it. When we went to war with Iraq, he and I had a little discussion about that and this is where he is every man. This is where Tim is Mr. or Miss America or Mrs. America. He is us as a country. I said, why–how can you believe this war is justified? And he said, “The nuclear thing. If they have a bomb that they can use, we’ve got to deal with. We can’t walk away from that.”
And that to me was the essence of what was wrong with the whole case of the war. They knew the argument that would sell with Mr. America, with the regular guy, with the true American patriot. They used the argument that would sell, that would get us into that war. Tim was right on the nail. He was us, the American people. And that to me is something that has been coming in my head the last couple of hours when Tim and I had that conversation, that that was the thing that sold America. And the guys who wanted the war used that one thing that would sell the patriot in Tim Russert.
In sum, Cheney felt that Russert was the key guy he had to dupe, and it couldn’t have been easier: ‘TRUST ME TIM, SADDAM’S GOT NUKES!’ That’s all: no push back, no inquiry, End of F-cking Story. The Howler quotes Matthews and adds (emphasis by fairleft):
Matthews, of course, is describing a private discussion. There’s no proof that this discussion occurred . . . But did Russert really get played, as embellishments led us to war in Iraq? You don’t have to rely on Matthews. Who can forget the embarrassing exchange Russert had with Bill Moyers, just last year? Had Russert been duped by the war machine? Fairly plainly, Moyers was asking–and as he answered, Russert made one of the most embarrassing statements a big journalist ever has made:
MOYERS (4/25/07): Critics point to September 8, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the New York Times [fairleft: the aluminum tubes were for nukes b.s.]. And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the New York Times. It’s a circular, self-confirming leak.
RUSSERT: I don’t know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the New York Times. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that. My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.
MOYERS (voice-over): Bob Simon didn’t wait for the phone to ring.
Has any journalist on this level ever embarrassed himself so badly? Russert complained that no one called him with the actual skinny. As he continued, Moyers compared Russert’s passive conduct to the work of CBS’s Bob Simon, who somehow managed to air a report casting doubt on the nuclear claims. Simon hadn’t been sitting around hoping the phone would ring:
MOYERS (continuing directly): You said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people–who were you talking to?
SIMON: We were talking to people–to scientists–to scientists and to researchers, and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start.
MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 Minutes?
SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called.
MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone?
SIMON: Just picked up the phone.
MOYERS: Talked to them?
SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras.
Moyer’s voice-over concludes:
Few journalists followed suit. And throughout the fall of 2002 high officials were repeating apocalyptic warnings with virtually no demand from the establishment press for evidence.
Iraq is just the most glaring example of how debased our political mass communications are now. And it’s Russert and similar — hell, it’s practically Russert himself — who have established and dominated our national political debate over the past 16 or so years. Unfortunately the new national conversation he and his have created — of Gennifer Flowers, of blow-jobs and travel-gates, of Al Gore’s untrustworthy clothing, of straight-talking Republicans, of ‘tell me your favorite bible verse’, of Hillary’s got cooties — has been a long national nightmare.
.
Excellent diary with Bill Moyers’ links. Once duped is sad. The American people need to stand up and have their voices counted in the GE. The lies have become clear as has the failed policy to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, find or kill OBL and eradicate the Al Qaeda training camps in the Pak-Afghan border region.
For Immediate Release September 10, 2006
TIM RUSSERT: Well, just stop there because it’s real important. This article says that in 2002 the U.S. pulled its Special Operation Forces out of Afghanistan and really did lower down the volume in going after Osama, which is at the exact time that President Bush said, “I don’t spend much time on him,” talking about bin Laden.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: He’s not the only source of the problem, obviously, Tim. If you killed him tomorrow, you’d still have a problem with al Qaeda, with Zawahiri and the others. But bin Laden has been a top priority for us from the very beginning. He continues to be a top priority today. That hasn’t changed. The President and I get periodic reports on our efforts in that regard. There has been no lessening of our interest or of our activity —
TIM RUSSERT: Pakistan has now a peace pact with the terrorists in the area where we think bin Laden is, creating what Richard Clarke, the former White House advisor on terrorism called a sanctuary; and reports from the Rand Corporation, that the Pakistan CAI, the ISI —
THE VICE PRESIDENT: ISID —
TIM RUSSERT: — are in cahoots with the Taliban. So if the Pakistanis aren’t willing to seek bin Laden and have a peace pact with the terrorists, where are we?
…
TIM RUSSERT: But let’s look at what you told me on that morning of September 16, 2001, when I asked you about Saddam Hussein. Let’s watch. (Video clip is played.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: At this stage, the focus is over here on al Qaeda and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up at this point. (Video clip concludes.)
TIM RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.
TIM RUSSERT: You said Saddam Hussein was bottled up, and he was not linked in any way to September 11th.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: To 9/11.
TIM RUSSERT: And now we have the select committee on intelligence coming out with a report on Friday that says here:
“A declassified report released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.”
You said here it was pretty well confirmed that Atta may have had a meeting in Prague — that, that was credible. All the while, according to the Senate intelligence committee, in January and in June and in September, the CIA was saying that wasn’t the case.
…
TIM RUSSERT: The bottom line is the rationale given to the American people was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and he could give those weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, and we could have another September 11th. And now we read that there is no evidence according to Senate intelligence committee of that relationship. You said there’s no involvement. The President says there’s no involvement —
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Tim, no involvement in what respect?
TIM RUSSERT: In September 11th, okay? And the CIA said leading up to the war that the possibility of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction was “low.” It appears that there was a deliberate attempt made by the administration to link al Qaeda in Iraq in the minds of the American people and use it as a rationale to go into Iraq.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Tim, I guess — I’m not sure what part you don’t understand here.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
He finally put on the tough guy act with Cheney in September, 2006. Big deal.
So Russert opens his show to the aims of the high and mighty, at least in part, and then expresses his interest in having access to opposing views? But giving airtime to opposing views would likely impact upon his access to the high and mighty, and it is all about access, right? Real journalism has no place here.
chris matthews…he’s still in love with W in his flight suit on “Mission Accomplished Day”.