Taking AIM At Tim Russert

Accuracy In Media wonders how NBC can allow Tim Russert to cover the Libby case and, in effect, opine on his own credibility as a witness.

I'm guessing that ratings has something to do with it.  It's certainly not because NBC wants its reporters to explain their role in this.

Although having said that, if the alternative is explanations such as the one Andrea Mitchell attempted with Don Imus, silence is the better part of valor.  Or something.

Comments

[Jim E.]

New Waas story in National Journal.

Fitz's investigation about Rove depends on hearing more from Libby, which means this could last for years. Politically, this seems like a win for the White House if Fitz can't move until the conclusion of Libby's stuff. How close are Libby and Rove?

From my reading, however, Libby could really only turn on Rove if he was already going to turn on Cheney, so this is doubtful. My bet Rove is in the clear, if only because Libby is the good soldier. If Libby doesn't flip, I hope the trial doesn't start until late January 2009.

I also like this line from the article: "Sources close to Rove say that Libby very likely misled Rove when he told Rove that he had learned about Plame from journalists." Let the right-wing nuts on the comment threads descend upon Rove!

[p.lukasiak]

I also like this line from the article: "Sources close to Rove say that Libby very likely misled Rove when he told Rove that he had learned about Plame from journalists." Let the right-wing nuts on the comment threads descend upon Rove!

if what this suggests is true, Rove will be called to the stand in defense of Libby to testify about this:

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.

....which is something that Rove probably wants to avoid almost as much as an indictment itself.

[p.lukasiak]

I'm guessing that ratings has something to do with it. It's certainly not because NBC wants its reporters to explain their role in this.

perhaps its because Russert has explained his role to the satisfaction of his bosses, and the doubts expressed by obtuse and credulous partisans are give their appropriate weight (i.e. none).

[epphan]

PLuk: No fair attacking Tim Russert's weight...and no one is questioning whether he has explained it to the satisfaction of his bosses. Apparently he has. And that goes back to the original question...which is directed toward Russert's bosses.

[Jim E.]

"Russert has explained his role to the satisfaction of his bosses"

Well, that's not a particularly high, or relevant, standard if we're talking about good journalism. Russert's viewers (and the nation's citizens), not his bosses, are what matter.

Russert's been pretty weasely throughout this whole thing. The statement he and NBC hid behind for so long was so poorly written that it invited parsing and criticism and suspicion. At this point, however, I think Russert and (the repeatedly inarticulate) Andrea Mitchell *have* clarified their side of the story. Mitchell probably could re-clarify her part a bit more, though!

Given the relatively detailed indictment of Libby, and given what Russert has now said, I no longer think Russert deserves suspicion about all of this. He should not be covering the story, however. He never should have.

[p.lukasiak]

He should not be covering the story, however. He never should have.

sorry, but just because a politician lies under oath about a journailist does not mean that journalist should not be able to do his job.

You wind up punishing the journalist for the lies of the politician.

[topsecretk9]

Pluk

You just made JimE's point. That he and his employers response is so vague, one has no idea about Russert true involvement. Therefore he should not be covering the story he is heavily involved in.

Additionally, it's intersting you have so much respect for Russerts job. Funny I didn't hear you say the same about Judy.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' obtuse and credulous partisans '

What's the saying, 'People who live in glass houses thinking Bush was AWOL from the TANG shouldn't be throwing stones.'?

[topsecretk9]

TM-- Another chagrined moment

Slightly off topic, but to your challenge to use Lexis ala carte...we don't have to anymore, Brit did...

Former CIA officer and one time FOX contributor Larry Johnson is calling retired general and FOX military analyst Paul Vallely a "right wing [hack] making up facts,” after Vallely said former Ambassador Joseph Wilson told him his wife worked at the CIA as both waited to appear on FOX programs.

This as liberal Websites say they have proof Vallely is lying, saying research service LexisNexis shows Vallely and Wilson never appeared on FOX on the same day. But in fact, Vallely and Wilson appeared on the same day nine times in 2002, and on the same show twice — on September 8 and September 12, when both men appeared within 15 minutes of one another.

[Jim E.]

"one has no idea about Russert true involvement"

Actually, that's not what I wrote (and you attributed the statement to me). We actually have a pretty darn good idea what his involvement is now.

Even so, he shouldn't be covering the story. At a minimum, he should more clearly identify his own involvement in the matter. When he interviewed MAtt Cooper this summer, I don't think he ever mentioned a word about his own involvement. Before Libby was indicted, I think he asked the roundtable whether or not Libby and Rove appeared honest. WTF?

Oh crap, I just noticed TS9 addressed his statement to p.luk and I'm therefore not welcome to read or comment on it. It might be a private conversation. Uh oh, he's gonna start calling me names. . .

[topsecretk9]

Jim E

The only name I have ever called you was smart-butt. I don't why the heck are always so sexist and assume I am a man. I also don't know why you are always so defensive when I agree with you. I think I am consistent in giving you credit, because I usually think you are mostly fair minded.

I don't care if you comment. If you are referring to the LCJ I was merely pointing out that you were putting meaning to the post that I left pretty generic and you know it.

I don't think we know the extent of Russerts involvement, because if we did, we would have no problem with his covering the story.

[Jim E.]

You're not male?

[topsecretk9]

Oh and by the way, when I called you "smart-butt" I am STUNNED you didn't get the sarcasm.

[topsecretk9]

NO I am not male.

[Jim E.]

So I take it you retract this nonsense of yours: "Jim E is a factually challenged HACK ...busted."

[topsecretk9]

AND shock, you are my favorite lefty here, so there. I am done being nice.

[topsecretk9]

YES. Now erase your folder on your desktop this instant.

[TM]

This as liberal Websites say they have proof Vallely is lying, saying research service LexisNexis shows Vallely and Wilson never appeared on FOX on the same day.

Well, now, we didn't need Brit Hume for that - AJ Strata did that, as did I, in a comments thread, and I delivered some snide mockery here.

No correction at Crooks and Liars yet - well, its only been a few days. Who knows what standards, if any, they have over there.

[topsecretk9]

TM--

LCJ is following in Wilson's footsteps...aka - TMI Disease

"...In particular, I asked him about the statement attacking Fred Rustman -- one of Plame's former CIA supervisors who left the agency in 1990 -- who had said she was under "light cover." Johnson's statement said Rustman's claims are not true. When I asked if he had talked to Rustman or Plame about it, Johnson became agitated. He said, “I talked to several people, I’ve talked to multiple people…" When I pressed him on who, he said:

"Hey, I’m not getting into specifically which individuals I’ve talked to, some are still active duty.
“I’ve not talked to Rustman. I’ve talked to people that know and it’s absolutely certain that Rustman has not been in contact with her, has not stayed in contact with her and did not know her subsequent status when she turned, when she became a NOC....

...Johnson continued to be agitated and argued,"Your conclusion is wrong...I have had contact with other individuals, [tape garbled] other CIA officers who had contact with Fred." (emphasis added)...

....(Correction: there is one alternative possibility, that Mr. Johnson's story and defense of Wilson/Plame is baloney. Either is equally possible.) This story gets worse and worse. Stay tuned. .."

[kim]

Depending on Wilson and Johnson for your storyline is as bad as depending on MSM for Iraqi war coverage. Some reality is more real than really real.
=================================================

[p.lukasiak]

"...In particular, I asked him about the statement attacking Fred Rustman -- one of Plame's former CIA supervisors who left the agency in 1990

wow. someone who left the agency in 1990 says that Plame had told "family and friends" that she had light cover.

But there is no evidence that he remained in contact with Plame, and no one has found anyone who knew Plame outside the CIA who says they knew she was CIA. There is, in fact, nothing to support Rustman's allegations -- and significant evidence that disputes it.

Is Rustman claiming he knows Plame's family? Is Rustman claiming he has been a participant in Plame's social circle in the past 15 years? Has Rustman ever answered questions regarding the source of his supposed knowledge. Or is Rustman just repeating the "everybody knows" lie?

As to the claim that the CIA is somehow co-ordinating the "defense of Wilson", the CIA won't let Valerie Plame speak for herself. There are doubtless lots of people in the CIA who are angry that the White House outed a covert agent (and friend) -- and are trying to fight the smear and disinformation campaign put together by the White House.

But Porter Goss is in charge of the CIA, and he can declassify everything about Valerie Plame and her cover if it really was non-existent. He hasn't done so.

So, until Porter Goss declassifies everything about Valerie Plame, one has to assume that there is a reason for not doing so --- and that the wingnuts who say that "everyone knew" are ignoring the most important piece of evidence about Plame --- the fact that everything about her remains classified.

[topsecretk9]

wow. someone who left the agency in 1990 says that Plame had told "family and friends" that she had light cover.

Wow, thought concealing any cover light, dark, heavy or non-official applied to everyone, that why it was supposedly a crime. That he was HER supervisor as late as 1990...suggests that either RADICAL reforms inside the CIA that set up reassigning an outed by Aldrich Ames Agent to new covert assignment using the same cover Aldrich Ames outed as new policy ---or he is just saying what he knows to be true.

But in usual good foot-soldier form you do you best at TRYING to deflect what you know could be devastating,..

""Hey, I’m not getting into specifically which individuals I’ve talked to, some are still active duty."

That your brother in the covert protection program is the recipient of information form people INSIDE the CIA, which equals in gravity to the leaking and of one OUTING a COVERT CIA agent. Unless you want to argue which poses a grave risk to our national security, I am at the ready with the quotes.

You need to go back to the tribe and ask for better mouthpieces on this. LCJ does no favors for Wilson or himself.

[TM]

no one has found anyone who knew Plame outside the CIA who says they knew she was CIA

Martin Peretz, Andrea Mitchell (with a recantation), and Hugh Sidey claim to have known.

Vallely claims to have been told by Joe, presumably on Sept 9, 2002.

Cliff May claims to have been told.

They are all lying?

And secondly, no one has been found - well, who is looking?

[Neo]

November 11, 2005 -- New aspect of Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings exposure revealed. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Valerie Plame and her Brewster Jennings & Associates was intended to retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. WMR has reported in the past on this aspect of the scandal. In addition to identifying the involvement of individuals in the White House who were close to key players in nuclear proliferation, the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002. The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network.

The conspiracy nuts are at it again. Given that nobody seems to give a s..t about chemical WMD, I find this silly. It had to be something nuclear: a lump of highly enriched uranium, a cache of centrifuges, a nuclear device (they don't call them "bombs"). No nuclear .. no WMD .. period.

[Neo]

This report seems a bit more believable.