consider this possibility:
there has been lots of k street money floating around washington over the last five years.
tim russert alwasys seems to line up on the bush side of the fence, or sitting on it leaning bush.
so is it possible that russert has received a little remuneration for his good services to the bush cause?
i certainly don't know that.
but given what we are learning about the depth and width of the republican corruption of public institutions during bush's presidency, it would not surprise me that some television or print "journalsits" would have been "compensated" just like some congressmen and congresssional staff were.
perhaps it was money, or real property, or opportunity.
perhaps it was "negative" payoff, i.e., blackmail.
who knows.
but it certainly is a question worth asking and pursuing.
with respect to russert, it always seemed odd to me that he is described as coming right up to the point of an embarassment to the bush administration, but then not following through.
timidity? respect for the presidencey? desire for access? i suppose.
what i dont understand is why simple human perversity would not lead russert, particularly russert, to question the bush admin's actions from time to time.
at the very least, russert seems very disciplined in not asking embarassing questions.
And of course we're allowing Afganistan to become the worlds largest source of opium, letting it slide back into warlordism, and the taliban are resurgent. Kinda like the stock market, it took 4 years to get back to 2001.
I really think that Bu$hCo's Spygate goes very far. I think that he has something on everyone.
I believe that only those who are willing to risk smear campaigns for the good of the country will come forward. Some are. I think that eyes are being opened to just how bad things are and how much in danger we all are of totalitarianism.
I believe that more people will come forward regardless of their personal danger of embarrasment.
Posted by Anjha at January 10, 2006 09:05 AMSome props for my neighbors across the Hudson River.
New Jersey legislators voted a moritorium on the death penalty while a commission investigates the fairness, cost and effectiveness of New Jerseys death penalty system.
Bravo!
Lets hope the commissioners find that it makes sense both economically and morally to abandon the death penalty all together. They report in November.
Posted by snark at January 10, 2006 09:06 AMNo one wants to address where this economy would be if we HADN'T invaded Iraq. A 200-300 billion dollar infusion would surely be very helpful. I have a feeling though that Bushco would have diverted that 300 billion to their cronies regardless of the nature of the expenditure. If Halliburton wasn't building mess halls in Iraq Bush would have paid them the same money to build sand castles in the Kuwaiti desert. Now we're even roughing up journalists and stealing their tapes and writings in order to conceal the thievery.
Posted by steve duncan at January 10, 2006 09:11 AMAnjha, It's not only smear, it's also silencing techniques that are rampant. I don't know if you've had a chance to read about Sibel Edmonds. What an eye opening piece. The kind of piece we used to able to count on our MSM to pick up on.
Posted by bbtb at January 10, 2006 09:22 AMDoes anyone believe that a concern for sources was the real reason Russert resisted? It is more likely that Timmy was more concerned that he would lose access to the White House spin operation...
Really, it's just two ways of describing the same thing. It's clear that they aren't protecting their sources from retaliation; they're protecting their sources from justice.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 10, 2006 09:28 AMIt only took the Dow four and a half years to finally crawl back to where it was in Bush’s first six months in office, and yet the press wants you to think that the last time the Dow exceeded 11,000 it was less legitimately grounded in market fundamentals than now. These same media analysts want you to think that a market propped up on borrowed money from overseas and deficit spending is better than the market we had at the close of the Clinton Administration. Sure it is.
They also want you to think that the Dow wasted all these years "because of 9//1". 9/11 is blamed for everything. The Dow went down because of a lack of confidence in the economic leadership of the country, the Iraq war, and the accounting frauds that Bush was slow to react to.
Posted by bob h at January 10, 2006 10:36 AMThe Dow went scuba diving long after 9/11, as stated above.
The blanket excuse of 9/11 is such cynical, unAmerican bullshit that anyone who buys into it ought to be deported.
Posted by God Of War at January 10, 2006 10:44 AMGOW, That would solve our troll problem.
Posted by bbtb at January 10, 2006 10:52 AMIf future historians have to analyize why 20th century America was a working democracy and 21st century America was not they'll have to conclude "911 changed everything."
Posted by rlp at January 10, 2006 10:54 AMI'd think carefully about putting your life savings into the NYSE right now.
It's far more about game theory than economic theory. Economic understanding only befuddles ones chances for success at the game.
Posted by euzoius at January 10, 2006 11:04 AMIf future historians have to analyize why 20th century America was a working democracy and 21st century America was not they'll have to conclude "911 changed everything."
9/11 only changed everything because the response came from a callow, idiotic President guided by power-mad lunatics. I have no doubt that a hypothetical President Gore would have done things in the wake of 9/11 (assuming arguendo that his administration didn't stop it in advance) that I wouldn't like much. But there's no way in hell that things would have gotten this far out of hand.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 10, 2006 11:08 AMAs to the question of whether Russert is being paid to protect the Bush administration; OF COURSE HE IS! Russert is a corporate mouthpiece. He works for NBC/ General Electric/ General Dynamics/ The Republican Corporatocracy. He is paid to appear to be objective. Not to be objective. Having a rather obviously low level of intellectual curiousity is why he was chosen for the job. The media has set the bar so low that even Bush is taken seriously. Russert operates at the same level of intellect. He's perfect for the job.
Posted by Oaklander at January 10, 2006 11:21 AMI have no doubt that a hypothetical President Gore would have done things in the wake of 9/11 (assuming arguendo that his administration didn't stop it in advance) that I wouldn't like much. But there's no way in hell that things would have gotten this far out of hand.
Let's play Alternative History!
Assuming that Gore, after a drawn out legal challenge, won. The GOP would have been on the tube 24/7 screaming about an illegitimate President for months. 9/11 most likely would have happened. We would have invaded Afganistan, would have tried a national security reorganization ala Homeland Security, would not have invded Iraq - where would we be?
I think we'd be enmeshed in a hellish but minor guerilla war in Afganistan, homeland security would still be a screwed up mess because of agency resistance, our ports and borders would be about as pourous as they are now, and we'd be threatening a war with Iraq because of 'recently discovered intellegence' that linked Saddam Huisein to Al Queda. Why? Because Republicans would have either impeached Gore for national security failures or hammered Gore on national security in the 2004 election - agencies with vested intrest would have been slow to implement change & the Republican media would have been screaming fear 24/7. We'd be looking at Term One of George of Jeb right now.
We might have a better economy, a smaller debt, and perhaps some election reform though.
(yes, I'm in a rotten mood this afternoon)
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 10, 2006 11:40 AMWe'd be looking at Term One of George OR Jeb right now.
Although 'George of Jeb' has an fun ring to it for some reason.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 10, 2006 11:47 AMWish I'd been a fly on the wall over at Preston, Gates when they realized their connection with Abramoff - Mr. Bill Gates Sr. doesn't seem like the kinda guy who'd like his name attached. Small world.
Posted by mainsailset at January 10, 2006 11:54 AMIts hard to assume 9/11 with Gore, because one assumes that he would not have ignored Richard Clarke and the threat of Al Qaida.
The GOP, in any event, would have been heinously vicious, as is their nature.
Posted by God Of War at January 10, 2006 11:55 AMIt's all well and good for those in the political "know" and the pundits to Blog their disgust and dissent all over the Blogosphere, but what we need is for Mr $ Mrs. John Q. Public to get off their complacent asses and start e-mailing constantly to senators, congresspeople, the big news networks and especially their sponsors and otherwise make such a huge commotion that we would be impossible to ignore. I regularly scope who is sponsoring the news shows then brush up on my keyboarding skills with letters to Kellogg, Clorox, et al complaining about the media bias...also I E-mail CNN, MSNBC, et al and complain about the Russerts, O'Reillys, Blitzers...or applaud Lou Dobbs....It gives me a way to act, instead of just impotently bitching and if it doesn't get results, at least I feel I've had a voice. There has to be some way to get to them....
Posted by at January 10, 2006 12:12 PMThe only thing I see as being a plus for Gore as far as "could 9/11 have been prevented under a Gore administration?" is his involvement in/awareness of airport security issues. Unfortunately, had he made improving airport security his top priority in January 2001 any changes would likely not have been implimented in time to prevent 9/11. Although one could envision a scenerio where improved coordination of no fly listings and threat comunication between the FAA and the intelligence outfits could have resulted in the thwarting of perhaps one or two of the hijacked flights.
Thinking about things like alternate histories is quite interesting. Consider that a Gore win and the first few months of a continued Democratic administration in DC would have shaped news and media in different ways. We would have been talking about different issues. The entire mood of the country could have been different. Who knows how that could have effected the planning of the hijackers? Would they have had to conduct themselves in different ways? Move around in different ways? Be made more cautious by actions of a different administration? Or would they have tried to strike more quickly? The slightest variation in their planning could have easily resulted in the attacks occuring on a different date. A date with different weather. A date when different people were in different places. The hijackers could have chosen different flights with different aircraft types. Striking their targets in slightly different places with slightly different impacts. The attacks could have happened but maybe the towers would not have fallen? Perhaps all four planes would have found their targets and we would be witnessing the rebuilding of the White House right now.
It's rather interesting to ponder.
Posted by snark at January 10, 2006 12:24 PMHonestly, what reporting does Russert really do? Sure, his title is Washington bureau chief, but is he actively giving his reporters tips? If so, is he keeping sources from them? I mean -- all he really does is ask questions and hold up graphics of people's old quotes once a week. What sources was he afraid he'd be losing?
HOW CAN ANYONE REMARK ON BUSH MISSING BINLADEN AT TORA BORA. YOU PEOPLE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MILTARY CAMPAIGNS OTHER THAN HOW TO FAIL AT THEM.
Posted by RICHARD at January 10, 2006 12:49 PMAnjha and OrionATL, I agree. I think Bush has something on just about everyone, including the owners and heads of the new media. No one will ever convince me that Timmy isn't getting a little cash under the table for his going easy on the Bush Administration. It's not like it hasn't been done before.
Posted by Judith at January 10, 2006 12:52 PM
".... disgraced Abramoff from continuing to work with Norquist and Rove to smear Dorgan and other Democratic senators, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In fact, Abramoff may be violating his plea agreement by continuing to work behind the scenes with GOP operatives like Norquist and Rove to distort the record on Abramoff's lobbying and illegal funding activities for Republican congressional office holders."
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
AP has moved a story about an instance where DeLay failed to do Abramoff's bidding, but not for lack of trying
http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/01/hammer-couldnt-come-through-for-jack.html
Posted by Edward Copeland at January 10, 2006 12:57 PMRichard,
Your caps lock key seems to be engaged.
Just thought maybe you didn't notice.
Have a great day!
Posted by snark at January 10, 2006 12:57 PMHOW CAN ANYONE REMARK ON BUSH MISSING BINLADEN AT TORA BORA. -RICHARD
Exactly. Bush missed bin Laden at Tora Bora. Just like you say.
YOU PEOPLE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MILTARY CAMPAIGNS OTHER THAN HOW TO FAIL AT THEM. -RICHARD
Well which is it? Do we KNOW nothing about military campaigns? Or do we KNOW enough about military campaigns to KNOW how to fail at them. I mean, KNOWING how to fail implies that one would consciously choose to do things one would KNOW would lead to failure. Which in turn implies KNOWLEDGE of what one would do to avoid failure. How else could one KNOW to choose the path that would lead to failure?
Posted by muckcat at January 10, 2006 01:29 PMMuckcat, LOL your priceless.
Posted by Judith at January 10, 2006 01:32 PMRichard:
Rather than humiliate you on the main page for being a pathetically uninformed cultist, please read these after unlocking your caps and taking your medications:
The Pentagon now admits Bin Laden escaped.
The Christian Science Monitor documents it.
And finally, Richard, are you paying attention?
The Bush Administration admitted it back in 2002.
Now please tell me again how well the Democrats fail at military campaigns?
Posted by Steve Soto at January 10, 2006 01:42 PMOh, come on, Steve! Doesn't Richard at least belong in the Stupid Troll archive? We all need our fifteen minutes.
Posted by ann at January 10, 2006 01:48 PMSteve, Should this be moved to the Stupid Troll section? This rates right up there with Cyber sarge coments.
Posted by goose1 at January 10, 2006 01:49 PMann, It looks like great minds think alike.
Posted by goose1 at January 10, 2006 02:01 PMWell which is it? Do we KNOW nothing about military campaigns? Or do we KNOW enough about military campaigns to KNOW how to fail at them. I mean, KNOWING how to fail implies that one would consciously choose to do things one would KNOW would lead to failure. Which in turn implies KNOWLEDGE of what one would do to avoid failure. How else could one KNOW to choose the path that would lead to failure?
Posted by muckcat at January 10, 2006 01:29 PM
*******
Does Rumsfeld now post under the pseudonym of muckat?
If it was Gore who was actually placed in the WH after he did win the election (that part not speculative) then 9/11 would never have happened because there would have been no need for 'another Pearl Harbor.'
Posted by Anjha at January 10, 2006 04:14 PMI just made a dookie load of cash in the market. Hell yeah, I think it's good!
Posted by Fred at January 10, 2006 05:18 PM911 may or may not have happened anyway, but a President Gore would at least have read his daily briefings pre 911 rather than making smirking faces as they were being read to him.
Posted by rlp at January 10, 2006 05:19 PMMonica had more access to Clinton than did the CIA.
Posted by Fred at January 10, 2006 06:19 PMMonica had more access to Clinton than did the CIA.
And Fred has more access to Bush than Guckert.
Posted by phidipides at January 10, 2006 06:38 PMMonica had more access to Clinton than did the CIA.
You think maybe Tenet was interested in sucking Clintons cock?
Because I never heard anyone produce any proof that Clinton wasn't getting all the intelligence info he needed or wanted without having Tenet in his office everyday.
Posted by snark at January 10, 2006 07:40 PMTake a look at Fred's clever handiwork in the Alito thread above, where he uses Al Qaeda characters instead of his own name to make multiple posts from the same IP address.
A clever guy demonstrating what passes for smarts with the cultists and the GOP these days.
yawn...
Posted by Steve Soto at January 10, 2006 10:23 PM"It only took the Dow four and a half years to finally crawl back to where it was in Bush’s first six months in office..."
Bush's "tax cuts are the medicine for all ills" reminds me of the guy who goes to his doctor with a cold.
The doctor says, "I could give you an expensive medicine with lots of nasty side-effects, and you'll be well in six or seven days. Or you can go home, get lots of rest, take lots of liquids and aspirin, and you'll be okay in a week."\
Bush chose the pricey medicine, and wants a refill even after the cold is over.
Ed