Meet The Press Last Night

For those who missed it...Saw two interviews: Rumsfeld and Graham. Both were scary in their own way...


Rumsfeld came off as really, really scrambling...Ducked several questions re: WMD, and looked riduculously semantic on others...

When asked point blank about the 'now infamous' statements on the Africa/nuke connection in the SOTU, Rumsfeld admitted it was wrong, but then quickly tried to make the issue about whether or not ; infamous' was the most accurate term to use to describe the phrase...The he tried to get literal, saying that the President's statement was 'technically correct' because they had actually been told that by the British.

Then when it was pointed out that he himself had, on several occassions, made reference to the claims as truthfull, he backpeddled by saying that he always referenced his claims to the President's words, ie saying " When I said it, I said " As the President told you...", and therefore, as the President actually had told us about the uranium, Rumsfeld claims that he was correct in his assessment. When it was pointed out that he cited the claims as factual, and as justification for the war, he changed the subject to how intelligence works...

Then when the interviewer pointed out the exact sequence of events...ie, war is raised, public doesn't support it, 9-11 is raised, public still doesn't buy it, nukes are raised, public gets scared and supports it...Rumsfeld claims that no one ever said that the Iraqis had nukes...when direct quotes from Cheney and Rice are shown to him saying just that, he changes the subject again, and says that he thinks that 'usually' they mentioned 'programs' not missiles...Then he went on again about intelligence being an inexact science...Interviewer points out that that inexact science was used as 'proof' of Saddam's activites, and that we were told we couldn't wait for the smoking gun, as it might be a mushroom cloud, he sort of admitted that that had been suggested...but then he went on to defend the move on the basis that the President et al had known that they were taking a chance on being 'premature' rather than risking being too late.

Then when he was confronted on the fact that the administration had been told that the uranium claims were very suspect over a month before the SOTU, he agreed that that was true, and rambled on about this not being an example of politicizing, as 'there were always two camps, ...this dept. said the uranium claims were solid, this dept. said they weren't, and those people never changer their positions.' as if he had made a point...completely ducked the point of the issue.

Then a very interesting question...Rumsfeld was asked this, I will try to be as literal as possible...

' If the President were to go to the American people now, or in a few months, and say that Iran has nuclear weapons...or that South Korea is ( can't remember exact term) doing something with their rods, do you actually expect the American people...do you expect the world to trust what he has to say?"

Rumsfeld came as close as I have seen him to backing down, aside from the initial " Yeah, we shouldn't have said anything about the uraniumn" earlier on...He said that he would understand it, that it would make sense for a person hearing those claims to 'want to make their own judgment'...and that essentially he knew that Bush et al knew that this , ie their credibility, has become an issue, but that he firlmy believed they would be proven correct.

Basically Rumsfeld tried his usual tactic of bulldozing through with making statements of fact to support his positions, and when caught out, backing off into personal opinion...or the even more standard admin pattern of ignoring the error and changing the subject.


I can't say much about Graham except, and I'm sorry if anyone here is a big fan, but he struck me as looney, and not all that bright. Of course the last might actually be now seen as a positive trait for the Presidency, but he was alos a wee bit strange...keeps an unbelievable record of minute details of everything he does in a day...exactly what he ate, what he waore, how long he shaved, etc...Strange. But he's an optimistic cuss, I'll give him that.

 

Chamberlain could tell them about the destructive power of 4 words...

 

Yeah...and Rummy's condescension is at issue because of his very cliam...I remember him being interviewed about the uranium claims, and he said " As the President said..." in a very..' were you not listening?' way, not a " I'm just catching you up pn what you've missed' kind of way...So to turn around and try and hide behind those words is silly...especially when, at the same time, saying that the President wasn't claiming fact, merely reporting to us something he'd heard around the diplomatic watercooler...

 

FOr those of you who did see it...did you notice a change in Rumsfeld? I am used to him coming off all smug and John Wayne...but at least he makes you think that he thinks he's in the right. Last night was the forst time when I got the impression that even he knew that he was full of it. Does anyone concur?

 

1) yeah...and to be frank, while I am in agreement with the questions they are asking, I also feel dismayed at the sort of pack mentality evident in all this. As if there are undercurrents re: percieved popularity of position..ie during war, it might be percieved as anti-American to ask uncomfortable questions...shades of Hanoi Jane...so we ask nothing and bang the drum...then after when it appears that things in Iraq aren't going well, which I feel is the real impetus for the other, always important questions finally being asked, then it's all bets are off and it's ok to pile on.

I think we need to be as wary of inaccuracies and group think if/when this tide fully tuns as we were, or some of us were, when the tide flowed the other way.

The thing countering all that, though, is that we have rarely if ever put ourselves in an Us vs. The World as much as over this issue, and their is a natural tendancy to want to avoid concluding that We were wrong, and They were right, so I'm not sure that the subjective mentality in blind support of the war will be as firm if it truns to questioning it.

2) Re: the Dems...As you know, I don't really go in for Rep. vs. Dem. arguments wholesale, and as yet I have little information upon which to base what individual candidates will do, so please don't take this as ducking the question so much as bowing out.