Like many here, a few weeks ago I watched Tim Russert's interrogation of Nancy Pelosi, and Nancy's fair response, with a mixture anger and disappointment. Tim grilled Nancy incessantly over whether the Democrats would (horrors) investigate Bush if they took over the House. I wrote a comment titled: "What Nancy should have said:"
Tim -- Do you think that there should be investigations by Congress?
Do you think $9 billion lost in Iraq should be investigated?
Do you think the use of Iraq intelligence should be investigated?
Do you think that warrantless wiretaps should be investigated?
Do you think the suspect passage of Medicare D should be investigated?
Do you think the outing of a secret agent should be investgated?
Democrats do.
I don't know if anything's impeachable because it hasn't yet been investigated. It may not be. But people in this country are disgusted with this government and want to know the truth for a change.
Today, I had a chance to ask Timmie one of those questions in person!
See the flip for the story.
I was standing at the "New Non-Fiction" table at Barnes & Noble paging through
FUBAR, the new Sam Seder book. Just as I was skimming the section on the liberal media myth, I looked up and saw a guy who looked very much like Tim Russert wandering around. After a double take, I confirmed that it was Tim, there to sign and plug his new bit of Dad treacle
Wisdom of Our Fathers. Just then my wife called on my cell phone. I told her Tim Russert was standing just a few feet away, and asked her whether I should tell him what I thought of him. Horrified, she said of course not.
But having written the above comment on the Pelosi interview, I could not let the moment pass. On Tim's way out, I introduced myself and told him I watched his program regularly. He was pleased. Then I said I saw his interview with Nancy Pelosi, and asked him why he was so concerned about potential investigations.
He said he was "curious" not "concerned," and it's his job to ask about these things.
Then I asked him one of the questions I wished Pelosi had asked: "Do you think the loss of $9 billion in Iraq should be investigated?"
He said it was not his job to have an opinion about that. His job is simply to play Devil's advocate to each side -- to ask the questions Dems might ask Reps and vice versa.
By this time, he was halfway out the door, and anyway, a two minute conversation is inadequate to point out what people like Somerby, Arianna and Driftglass point out each week in depressing detail: the ways in which he's a pussycat to Reps and an attack dog to Dems.
But even so, isn't it startling for the pre-eminent Sun. morning newsman to say that he has "no opinion" about whether $9 billion was lost in Iraq?
If he were interviewing Eichmann would he have "no opinion" about whether the Holocaust happened?
If he were interviewing Abramoff, would he have no opinion about whether bribery is a good thing?
In two minutes, I saw "up close and personal" the pernicious false "balance" of the media.