Posted by Curt on 3 December, 2006 at 5:30 pm. Be the first to comment!


If you had the misfortune of watching Tim Russert’s insane performance this morning my condolences. If you haven’t seen it then I will torture you here with his act. Check out the beginning of his show where he has the National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on:

In his first question Mr. Russert suggests that Rumsfelds memo was a policy paper. No longer was it a memo with a few ideas that Rumsfeld floated. Mr. Hadley handles that well by answering:

I think maybe you misunderstand a little bit what the memo was about. The president, as you know, before that date had called for a review of where we were heading in our approach and the way forward on Iraq. It drew on work that had already been started in a number of agencies in the government. And one of the things the president said is, “I want to look at new ideas, I want to have an open door to ideas.” And what I think that Rumsfeld memo represents is kind of a laundry list of ideas that have been considered. Some he, he put, as he said, above the line, some of them he put below the line.

Russert then goes on to make the absurd assertion that Rumsfeld was suggesting we move out of Iraq completely. When in fact they were only idea’s he was floating “below the line”.

Russert then continued on to assert that Bush never said that adjustments needed to be made in Iraq, Oh yeah?

And I’ve been saying to the American people that our goal in Iraq has not changed, which is a country that can sustain itself, defend itself, govern itself. Our tactics are adjusting.


On the security side, we’re refining our tactics to meet the threats on the ground. I’ve given our commanders in Iraq all the flexibility they need to make adjustments necessary to stay on the offense and defeat the enemies of freedom.

Now as far as “major” adjustments, which only means withdrawal to these moonbats, Bush said it will never happen….thank god. Rumsfeld can float ideas below the line as much as he wants but it just won’t happen.

Meanwhile Russert continues with this obvious splicing of a comment by President Bush to spin a question a certain way:

Uh Timmy? Here is what the President said:

Q And your advice to both of them? (ed-meaning Prime Minister Olmert and President Abu Mazen)

PRESIDENT BUSH: My advice is, support reasonable people and reject extremists. Understand that most people want to live in peace and harmony and security. It’s very important for the American people to understand that most Muslim mothers want their children to grow up in peace, and they’re interested in peace. And it’s in our interest to help liberty prevail in the Middle East, starting with Iraq.

And that’s why this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all. We’re going to help this government. And I’m able to say that it is — that we have a government that wants our help and is becoming more capable about taking the lead in the fight to protect their own country. The only way that Iraq is going to be able to succeed is when the Iraqis, led by a capable person, says, we’re tired of it, we don’t want violence, we want the peace that our 12 million people voted for. And it’s in the world’s interest that Iraq succeed.

You get how Timmy tried to spin that? He took one sentence and tries to spin it like Bush doesn’t believe in winning gracefully.

Now we have Timmy bashing Bush for blaming Al-Qaeda for all the terrorist trouble….I mean how dare he!:

Mr. Hadley did an excellent job of answering Timmy there, but all Timmy had to do was take the WHOLE statement from Gen. Maples. The clip Timmy played was:

Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence throughout Iraq

And then he tried to spin the President’s statement about Al-Qaeda being a major reason for all the headaches in Iraq as silly. The whole statement from Gen. Maples:

Attacks by terrorist groups account for only a fraction of insurgent violence throughout Iraq, yet the high-profile nature of these operations and the tactics they use have a disproportionate impact on the population and on perceptions of stability. Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), formerly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and currently headed by Abu Ayyub al-Masri, is the largest and most active of the Iraqi-based terrorist groups. AQI’s targeting strategies have not changed significantly in the wake of al-Zarqawi’s death on 7 June, and attacks against Iraqi government targets and Coalition forces continue apace. In addition, AQI is one of the most visible perpetrators of anti-Shia attacks in Iraq – a hallmark of its strategy since 2003 – and has capitalized on the current cycle of sectarian violence by increasing perceptions that its operations are defending Sunni interests. AQI also poses a threat outside Iraq, as it is the only terrorist group in the country with known aspirations for external attacks, including possibly against targets in Europe and the U.S. homeland. Because of his involvement with al-Qaida-linked terrorists since the early 1980s, Abu Ayyub may have increased ties to al-Qaida senior leaders; these could enhance AQI’s external attack capabilities. AQI operates with relative freedom in Iraq’s Sunni-dominated territories, and as long as this remains true, the group will pose a threat to Iraq’s internal stability and to Western interests abroad. Ansar al-Sunna, the second-most prominent terrorist group in Iraq, also poses a threat to Iraqi stability and has longstanding ties to AQI and external al-Qaida elements.

We should call Tim Russert’s show “The Spin Zone” now I think.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x