The answer is yes, but does that really matter? Even if it was conceivable that Cheney made the statement in good faith, his statement was so far removed from reality as we knew it at the time, I would have hoped that the interviewer would at least say, "Nuclear weapons? Really?" I don't think that is asking too much.

Now here's an excellent contribution to the discussion from somebody who was there...

You were there right??

You couldn't possibly have such an opinion based on nothing, could you

I'm guessing you have absolutely no idea what the sausage machine that churns out network TV is like. But, please don't allow ignorance to give you pause, just spew forth as is your constitutionally protected right.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

The question begs whether it was the responsibility of Tim Russert to make a snap judgment that the statement was "so far removed from reality".

Are you sure your vision is not colored by the facts that have been forthcoming after the interview?

One should avoid ever being sure about such things, but yes, I recall my jaw hitting the floor when Russert let Cheney make that statement without challenging him. What facts could you possibly be referring to? Are you suggesting that Cheney's statement was ever plausible, for even a second?

EDIT: Just to be clear, what Cheney said is that they believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons, not that he was attempting to start a nuclear weapons program. If we didn't know it at the time, we now know that Cheney had zero basis for that statement. In fact, not even the most zealous Bush/Cheney propagandists inside or outside of the administration had made such a claim. So, take away the utter implausibility of the statement. Shouldn't Russert have wondered why we had never heard about this before then?

Cheney's statement was preposterous and Russert knew it (if he was listening to his guest and not to somebody talking in his ear piece about the upcoming commercial break).

I don't believe that you can state, with certainty, that Cheney's statement was preposterous at the time it was made. It might have raised an eyebrow but, as the sitting vice-president, he gets an immediate pass by the media until such a statement is investigated.

You absolutely cannot state that Russert "knew it". He might have had a pause in his own mind, but that's not sufficient to challenge the vice-president. Sorry, that's not his role as the interviewer.

I disagree on both counts, although I admit that it is all a matter of degree.

If Cheney had said, "We believe in fact that Saddam Hussein came from another planet to enslave the human race." Would you still say that I have no basis for saying that his statement was preposterous? Or that the interviewer should say, "Really?"

I am saying that Cheney's statement about nukes falls pretty close to that category. I was certain at the time that it was false. Maybe I got lucky that the facts ultimately supported me, but I don't think it was ever a close call. Nuclear weapons? Preposterous.

I think it is a matter of degree. Your conclusion of "preposterous" is not based upon any shred of fact. There was no investigation that you could possibly cite, at the time, that would support your conclusion of "preposterous". Sure, you may have had an inkling that such a country could never have proceeded on a path to nuclear weapons, but it wouldn't allow you to challenge a sitting vice-president.

I suppose Russert could have commented with "really?" if he was listening to Cheney. That would not have been a definitive challenge...........only a question.

You are incorrect. My conclusion is based on tons of facts. His statement was preposterous at the time he made it. He even admitted several months later that they had no reason to believe that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons. My guess is that he intended to say that they believed that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, but it just came out "nuclear weapons." His zeal got the best of him, I think. Even if he had limited his comment to a supposed nuclear weapons program, Russert still should have followed up.

I think all we can do is agree to disagree about it, because there is not enough time in the day to go back over all that stuff. Not allowed to challenge a vice president? This is America. We are almost duty bound to challenge our leaders.

And BTW, Cheney didn't say that Saddam would have proceeded on a path to nuclear weapons. I imagine Saddam would have done just that if we allowed it. Cheney's statement went way beyond that.That's all I ask. For the point I was trying to make in this thread, it doesn't matter whether Cheney's statement was obviously preposterous at the time he made it. If we are going to have interview shows like "Meet the Press" the interviewers should challenge the guests. Even if Cheney's statement was merely surprising, it warranted a followup question, IMHO.

Care to cite any? Was any investigation performed by the government on this specific topic whereby Russert could have had some data in his pocket? If true, then I agree with you. But, I sense that the "tons of facts" were available after the interview..........not before.


I believe your expectations of Tim Russert are a bit over the top in an interview with the vice-president. If you're going to challenge the vice-president, you had better be absolutely sure of your position. It's very hard to be sure of one's position as a private citizen. It's a certainty that the government knows considerably more. This is the basis for not challenging a sitting vice-president. It can be done, but not in a cavalier manner and certainly not in an interview where the facts are not in the purvey of the interviewer.

Not true. And no, I am not going to take the time to find citations from more than 9 years ago to support my point. Like I said, let's agree to disagree on that point, since it is not really the point of this thread anyway.

Hell, I know I'm right, so there!

I think it would be difficult for you to do so.

OK.............

However, the availability, or not, of such citations either absolves Russert...........or not.

reconstituted nuceular weapons.....sounds like a dirty bomb. Not that much of a stretch imho.

As far as how to tell if Cheney was lying....his lips were moving right?

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

were you there? the response from the network sounds like a manure-enhanced statement. Of course they would not admit if it were tailored to fit a story's agenda.

Having been in this business for over 35+ years, this was no mistake by the NBC dipstick...

He had enough time to EDIT the words out of the dispatcher's recording...and he did...by his own admission.

Using "time constraints" - even at the National Level, is pure un-adulterated B***S*!T anyway you want to explain it. How many bleeding-heart pieces have we seen where you get every "gurgle" or "...ah...ah...ah..." that some brain-dead spin-meister wants to puke out there as for the reason he/she/it/they/them acted in the way they did? They had more than enough time to allow the ex-Illinois Governor/Current-Inmate Rob Bag'O'Spit blubber his way through how-many interviews and yak-shows?

Get real...Network has enough time to air anything as long as it fits whoever's paying the piper...rats optional...

NBC fired the idiot...but don't worry...NBC has an excellent record of rebounding from some idiot's lunacy...take a look at the now-infamous 1992 version of the "NBC Investigates" episode of the "Chevy Exploder Pickup Truck" - where, after fine and minute detailing...it was found that the Chevy gas tank actually started smoking and exploding 5-frames before the vehicle was actually hit. That's approximately 1/6 of a second. Either that was faked or somehow, nature was reacting contrary to the laws of motion and explosion.

Now, if you're talking about a "live" interview, that might be different, but in this case, tape in hand, time to edit? I don't think so. AAMOF, I know so. All the networks got the dispatcher's tapes. An agenda was being put forth and thankfully, no one managed to start a riot over it...but now, if festers out there like the vermin in the New York sewers...

And, as usual, it's still being put up as Gospel by some, and ridiculed by the rest.

Sometimes, regardless the amount of handling and help, some folks still refuse to see the light or where it comes from...

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~