During an appearance on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday, former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw pointed out that before the invasion of Iraq, even "people who were critical of the war" thought that Saddam Hussein "had weapons of mass destruction," as he responded to criticism that the media were not aggressive enough about challenging President Bush before the Iraq invasion. And while commenting on racial issues, giving his view that "we need to have a dialogue in this country" about race, Brokaw lamented the problems posed by "political correctness" which means "you're in danger of being a racist if you go against the merits of some issues and just try to look at it objectively." Brokaw added: "Within the black culture, there's a fear about speaking out, about what some people see as wrong, because they say, don't go there, you know, it will only hurt our people." (Transcript follows)
After a discussion of Brokaw's views on the Vietnam War, during which Brokaw recounted that he was "enraged" upon hearing tapes of Lyndon Johnson expressing "deep doubts" about the war even while the former President "kept pouring people in" as "he was protecting his political ass," CNN host Howard Kurtz turned the subject to the Iraq War. Kurtz: "In terms of the coverage, do you see certain parallels here to Iraq? Most people would say, and I would agree, that the media did a pretty poor job during the run-up to the Iraq War in terms of the way that President Bush was selling it, and now, of course, the coverage in recent years has been more critical."
Brokaw defended the media's coverage of the run-up to the invasion, pointing out that most skeptics believed at the time that Iraq had WMD, and contending that there was little opposition to the war expressed within the Democratic Party at the time. Brokaw: "The one thing I would disagree with you about, a lot of what happened on the run-up was unknowable. People did believe he had weapons of mass destruction. People who were critical of the war and the idea of going to war did, in fact, think that he had weapons of mass destruction, which was one of the bases for-"
After conceding to Kurtz his view that "on the war plan [the media] should have been a lot more skeptical," Brokaw continued: "Yeah, but you have to remember the opposition voices were not that many in this town, for example, in Washington. There just weren't that many. We put Brent Scowcroft on 'Nightly News.' I did a two-way with him. And I was one of the few places where he would go where he would do that. We did have Senator Bob Byrd on the air and Ted Kennedy on the air, but it passed by a pretty considerable margin."
Regarding the current news of the diminishing violence in Iraq, Brokaw acknowledged that for the media, "it's time to take a look at it again," and that the media should "take notice of the fact that the attacks are down," but he also poured water on the positive news by contending that "these are small signs of some progress four years later," and that recent developments "won't solve the political issue about whether Iraq can handle its own destiny."
Later on, after Kurtz brought up the controversy over Don Imus making racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team, Brokaw recounted that he had hoped something positive would come out of the affair in the form of a "dialogue in this country" about race. He contended that in general there is too much "political correctness" and "danger of being [called] a racist" when expressing disagreement on a racial issue. Brokaw: "I think that we do need to have a dialogue in this country. We don't have language for dealing with race. Everybody hides behind political correctness or a certain mythology. No one wants to offend, no one wants to get at the facts of it. You're in danger of being a racist if you go against the merits of some issues and just try to look at it objectively. That goes on across the racial spectrum, by the way. Within the black culture, there's a fear about speaking out, about what some people see as wrong, because they say, don't go there, you know, it will only hurt our people. So I do, we used to talk about race with a lot more candor than we do now."
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Sunday November 25 "Reliable Sources" on CNN:
HOWARD KURTZ: Vietnam, one of your friends from the University of South Dakota went there, did not come back. You write that you were disillusioned with the deceptions of Johnson and Nixon. Talk a little bit about that.
TOM BROKAW: Well, Johnson tapes just enraged me when I read them later, the private conversations he was having very early on with Richard Russell.
KURTZ: His own doubts about the war that he was prosecuting.
BROKAW: His own deep doubts about the war. And the man that he really counted on in the Senate to be his military affairs expert, Richard Russell, said he just doesn't believe that this makes any sense at all, that he at one point says it will all be settled with missiles if it's settled at all. And, but Johnson keeps pouring people in. He was terrified, obviously, the political effect that it might have if the right would come after him. He even talks in one exchange about impeachment. He was protecting his political ass, excuse my language, but that's what he was doing while young people were dying over there.
BROKAW: Nixon made more of an effort to try to find peace in Vietnam. He did make several overtures to the north. But he kept pouring people in there as well because he believed he was the last person who should lose a war and that he thought it was important to stand up to the communists. He came into office if not actually saying, "I have a secret plan for making peace"-
KURTZ: Right.
BROKAW: -giving the impression that he could bring the war to an end.
KURTZ: In terms of the coverage, do you see certain parallels here to Iraq? Most people would say, and I would agree, that the media did a pretty poor job during the run-up to the Iraq War in terms of the way that President Bush was selling it, and now, of course, the coverage in recent years has been more critical.
BROKAW: Yeah, the one thing I would disagree with you about, a lot of what happened on the run-up was unknowable. People did believe he had weapons of mass destruction. People who were critical of the war and the idea of going to war did, in fact, think that he had weapons of mass destruction, which was one of the bases for-
KURTZ: But shouldn't journalists have been more skeptical toward the line the administration was selling, even if they couldn't disprove it-
BROKAW: I think on the war plan they should have been a lot more skeptical.
KURTZ: And given more space, more air time to opposition voices? There was a feeling-
BROKAW: Yeah, but you have to remember the opposition voices were not that many in this town, for example, in Washington. There just weren't that many. We put Brent Scowcroft on "Nightly News." I did a two-way with him. And I was one of the few places where he would go where he would do that. We did have Senator Bob Byrd on the air and Ted Kennedy on the air, but it passed by a pretty considerable margin.
KURTZ: Oh, within the Democratic Party there weren't that many anti-war voices.
BROKAW: Yeah, that's right.
KURTZ: There were some outside. In recent months, though, casualties are down in Iraq. Some would say that the surge is having some modest success. Yet conservatives say that's not getting enough coverage. Is that because of Iraq fatigue? Is that because only bad news is news?
BROKAW: No, I think it's time to take a look at it again. You know what, Howie? These are small signs of some progress four years later.
KURTZ: Sure.
BROKAW: And the Iraqi government still doesn't have it together. And after four years, if the Iraqis can't take care of themselves with all of the money that has been poured in there, all of the help that they've been given, that's a truer measurement, I think, of what's going on in Iraq. It does not mean that we ought not to take notice of the fact that the attacks are down, that the insurgency has been hurt. I had a briefing the other day about what's going on with IEDs. After billions of dollars, we have finally found a way to be more effective at protecting our troops from them and detonating them early. But it's taken a long time. That won't solve the political issue about whether Iraq can handle its own destiny.
...
KURTZ: Don Imus comes up in your book. He goes back on the air, on the radio, next week. You told him when he was going though his difficult time after the insult of the Rutgers women's basketball players and when CBS Radio dumped him and MSNBC dumped him as well that you hoped that what he was going through, painful as it was, would lead to an elevated racial dialogue in the country. What did he say to you?
BROKAW: He said, "Call me at the ranch when that happens," because he didn't expect it to happen, and he was right. It hasn't happened. And it's one of the things that I address directly in the book. I think that we do need to have a dialogue in this country. We don't have language for dealing with race. Everybody hides behind political correctness or a certain mythology. No one wants to offend, no one wants to get at the facts of it. You're in danger of being a racist if you go against the merits of some issues and just try to look at it objectively. That goes on across the racial spectrum, by the way. Within the black culture, there's a fear about speaking out, about what some people see as wrong, because they say, don't go there, you know, it will only hurt our people. So I do, we used to talk about race with a lot more candor than we do now.
KURTZ: Do you think that Imus can make a successful comeback? And would you go back on the show?
BROKAW: You know, what I've said is that, let's hear what he has to say. I think we owe him that. I believe in redemption. I think Don's a very smart guy. I know that that meeting that he had with the students from Rutgers, with the basketball players, was one of the most important moments in his life, a deeply emotional and moving time, I think, for both parties. So let's hear what he has to say.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




HOWARD KURTZ: Vietnam, one of your friends from the University of South Dakota went there, did not come back. You write that you were disillusioned with the deceptions of Johnson and Nixon. Talk a little bit about that.















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Somewhat refreshing to see a
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 03:35 ET by Warner Todd HustonSomewhat refreshing to see a major news guy sort of going against the politically correct grain. No doubt he's a leftist, but at least he sees some things in the stark light of reality.
It was funny, though, that Kurtz just mimicked the PC line. I wonder if he was surprised by Brokejaw's answers?
Yeah Warner....
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 04:14 ET by MrShy"KURTZ: But shouldn't journalists have been more
skeptical toward the line the administration was selling, even if they
couldn't disprove it-
BROKAW: I think on the war plan they should have been a lot more skeptical.
KURTZ: And given more space, more air time to opposition voices? There was a feeling-
BROKAW: Yeah, but you have to remember the opposition voices were not that many in this town...."
Nice try there, Kurtz, but..... reeeeeeeejected :)
"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
Puh-Lease!
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 16:01 ET by KeithYou people bought that junk? Perhaps you should listen to the interview he did with Laura Ingraham before you drink his Kool Aid! Tom Brokaw is a LYING, SEDITIOUS, LIBERAL who has managed to fool a good segment of the populace with his "old world" manners. But WHEN did this "civil discourse" on race EVER take place? He nostalgically looks back to WHEN? When blacks were property, freed slaves, on the back of the bus, was the discourse "civil" then? It certainly wasn't in the sixties which most people see as a time of racial "upheaval" so where's this fantasy "civil dialog". What Brokaw is REALLY selling is liberalism. He admonishes Laura about how there's no "dialogue with people with whom they disagree" on the RIGHT and as a throw away, claims to have lamented the same thing on the left during the sixties! Yeah RIGHT! Show me ONE QUOTE from anywhere in the world with Tom Brokaw criticizing the ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT as being too "one sided". He spent the whole interview trashing Limbaugh and trying to get Laura to agree that conservatives are one sided. Every example of liberal intolerance she provided was met with, "well, you have your view, I have mine". Which is liberal code which means "we'll never have a peaceful world until you drop everything you believe and get on my side". Puh-lease.
Tom Brokaw also wrote
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 16:05 ET by professor truth"Our Greatest Generation", a tribute to the honor and heroism of WWII vets. How does "lying, seditious, liberal" square with his book?
As usual, "Perfesser", you're being illogical and silly
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 16:32 ET by RJSay a man is usually a "nice guy", but gets drunk and beats his wife on holidays. Using your silly, shallow argument, does the one "square with" (i.e. negate) the other?
We need to have a dialogue
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 06:33 ET by motherbeltWe need to have a dialogue about race???? Oh, puhleeze. All we ever do is talk about race. Insisting we need to have a dialogue about race reminds me of something Pat Buchanan (I think) said; that homosexuality had gone from "the love that dare not speak its name" to the love that wouldn't shut up. Or the women who talk about "shattering the silence" about rape. Good grief!
there is too much "political correctness" and "danger of being [called]
a racist" when expressing disagreement on a racial issue. Brokaw: "I
think that we do need to have a dialogue in this country. We don't have
language for dealing with race. Everybody hides behind political
correctness or a certain mythology. No one wants to offend, no one
wants to get at the facts of it. You're in danger of being a racist if
you go against the merits of some issues and just try to look at it
objectively. (emphasis added)
And, um, who made it that way, Mr. Brokaw? Hint: they're not white, and they're not conservative leaders.
We "don't have language for dealing with race"? Yes we do, it's called plain old English; only no one is allowed to use it. No matter what gets said, if it comes from a white mouth and isn't what Jesse and Al want to hear, it's "racist." You can't even say that a 70% unwed birth rate hurts the black community without raising an uproar. Ann Coulter was right when she said you can't argue with liberals because they keep adding to the list of things you can't say.
As for Imus, I contend, as I have before, his defense should have been: Sorry, I was just trying to look like I'm with it (or whatever the current terminology is for "fitting in") by talking like one of the black rappers. Go talk to them. If black men don't respect their own black women, how can you get upset when someone else says something disrespectful?
What I love about the rape-obsessed feminists
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 07:13 ET by sarcasmoIs how they're so willfully-blind to the 2nd Amendment's role in preventing the rapes they seem obsessed with talking-about instead of effectively-preventing. And a pistol does the prevention WITHOUT calling-on a man to help in the physical strength department.
The feminist left practically defines "vapid." And they dislike debating the likes of me A LOT, so any conversation on this subject degenerates to name-calling almost immediately. It's a mirror-image of the favored tactic of certain debaters on the political right, come to think of it...
JMR
PS I don't think you meant to here, but you really can't tar all black men with the "they don't respect black women" brush. They're individuals, just like white guys, and I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by some of the behaviors of other white guys. Most of the buyers of rap CDs with offensive lyrics seem to be dimwitted young white kids, from what little I've seen/heard. The free marketplace took care of Anus (he's gettin' less now) just like the free marketplace took care of Howard Stern (to the tune of more than 1/2 BILLION dollar$) no FCC tax-money needed in either case, it's just that some folks here didn't happen to like the free market's verdicts. Tough luck, that's life.
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
2nd amendment
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 10:18 ET by pbanks7My first recollection of Laura Ingraham was actually on Imus. She was at some feminist concert/rally/fair and was hilarious.
What do you feel about a woman's right to choose? Unity, unity, unity... (Similar questions and responses, most likely involving violence against women and women's shelters, leading up to)... Do you feel a woman should be able to exercize her 2nd Amendment right to defend herself against rape? Uuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....(Priceless).
I got into a good brouhaha with one of my brothers' girlfriend once. She told me all families experience incest. I asked her to name for me which of my uncles she thought had raped one of his little girls. It did not go well. My brother had to leave. "Let's go, I'm not going to stand here and take this." You see, I have one of those weird families that can gather 80+ people together and we all get along (when she wasn't around - glad she's not!) I grew up thinking that was normal.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
I don't think you meant to
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 11:41 ET by motherbeltI don't think you meant to here, but you really can't tar all
black men with the "they don't respect black women" brush. They're
individuals, just like white guys, and I certainly wouldn't want to be
judged by some of the behaviors of other white guys. -sarcasmo
You're right, I should have specified "in the black rap and hip-hop culture", which is what I was talking about, indicating where Imus got the words he used.
MOTHERBELT WROTE **"You
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 16:40 ET by KeithMOTHERBELT WROTE **"You can't even say that a 70% unwed birth rate hurts the black community without raising an uproar."*** You can SAY it but the problem is that people without your beneficent world view use statistics just like that as a club with which to beat people over the head. Some people (not u of course) throw around those stats without mentioning the governments culpability IN those stats. Like welfare laws which say that a INNER CITY mother of three CANNOT have a MAN living in her home and still get the welfare! Funny, how you guys always miss that one..A similar restriction which is NOT placed on the white recipients of our country's largesse, those receiving farm subsidies! No requirement there that families be broken up. Perhaps some of the "dialog" you wish to have about race could include that. How about county officials searching WHITE HOMES without a WARRANT? You okay with that? When blacks say that they are "institutionally" discriminated against you recoil in horror but TODAY the Supreme Court REFUSED to review a case where city officials were SHOWING UP UN-ANNOUNCED and SEARCHING the homes of people on welfare! Even going into the closets and cabinets! When you read the articles about it they won't tell you WHY they're raiding homes! It's not to see if children are being cared for or anything like that because when Child Protective Services comes out they come WITH warrants! No, my friend the REASON they're checking these homes is to find out if there is a MAN living in the HOME and if there IS they will use that as a pretext to cut off benefits! Now some of the neo-nazis on this site will probably be fine with that but COME ON! You can't site a statistic which the government is directly involved with creating and act like it's only the fault of the savage black people acting up again~!
Skeptical of the evidence
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 09:26 ET by KC MulvilleIf you told me that the space shuttle has a "multi-conical valve" oriented improperly, I would just have to take your word for it. As a non-technical non-expert, I don't have the knowledge base to dispute you. In the same way, to dispute the pre-war evidence of WMDs would have required a knowledge base that no one had. No one disputed the evidence, because the only knowledge base in town had already concluded that Saddam had them. There was no alternative fact-source that could dispute it.
I find it hard to believe that the Dems now claim they were too blinded by this administration's persuasiveness (LOL!).
Especially after Mrs. Bill
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 10:24 ET by pbanks7Especially after Mrs. Bill Clinton and her husband said Sodom Insane had WMDs while they were still in the White House.
Talk about double-talk. Wait! GHW Bush was still manipulating the intelligence with Mossad and the three-hootered aliens.....
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
My favorite Brokaw comment
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 10:54 ET by Jonah JohansenWhen discussing Giuliani Brokaw mentioned a recent NYT op-ed piece by Frank Rich as having an influence on the publics view of Giuliani. The idea that a left wing partisan's attack in a left wing New York newspaper would influence Republican primary voters or caucus attended to vote against Giuliani is beyond absurd. What it does revealed is the degree to which the "Midwestern small town country boy" is immersed in the Manhattan Island left wing mind set. I believe it was another resident of this intellectual island, Pauline Kael the movie critic, who after Nixon won in a 48 state landslide against McGovern was reported to have remarked "I don't know how he won, no one I know voted for him" I suspect that no one Mr. Brokaw knows voted of George Bush.
Besides, there were WMD, and...
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 12:17 ET by mattmWMD were never the sole justification for the ousting of Madass Insane and the attempt to establish a people-run government there.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/30/un.gas/index.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
http://www.kdp.se/old/chemical.html
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
right - I think they were
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 12:25 ET by TruthMongerright - I think they were there WMD's - but so what if they weren't?
one of the reasons we went in there was to find out - and we found some - how would we know otherwise without the invasion?
same deal when the police raid a crack house
kudos to Bush for having the stones to fight terrorist crime
libs don't belong on the SWAT teams of life do they:)?
Hussein brought this all on himself when he expelled the do-nothing UN inspectors and refused to let them back in - pretty stupid actually - he should have left well-enough alone...
WMD ALL OVER Iraq
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 17:37 ET by jonathanandersonThere was WMD ALL OVER Iraq ...
http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/invasion-iraq-was-right-thing-do-14313
And anyway, what if we SUSPECTED Ted Bundy of having ONE, SINGLE handgun ... and then he didn't have it?
Would it be the right thing to do to bring him to justice and keep him from harming anyone ever again?!
Damn right it would.
those found WMD's were not the ones in question
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 17:41 ET by professor truththe WMD's was hyped up with the nuclear threat(or nukular if you are a newsbuster fan), no one of any credibility talked about finding WMD's. Santorum's claim was smacked down by lot's of different people. There were no (significant WMD's...no nukes)
We were not concerned with
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 17:50 ET by bassndudeWe were not concerned with nukes prof. We were concerned with Saddam letting out the sarin gas and the other nerve agents he used on the Iranians and his own people. Chemical weapons are WMDs by classification. Your precious UN even calles them WMDs. He had centrifuges in Iraq. The UN agrees with that. And going some what farther, he posessed some 12(?) tons of yellow cake. That was found.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Brokaw -Nixon kept pouring troops into Vietnam ??
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 14:00 ET by Gary HallMy bold.
US Troop levels in Vietnam (Nixon's term began in Jan. 1969):
1967 - 485,600
1968 - 536,100
1969 - 475,200 Nixon's first year.
1971 - 156,800
1972 - 24,200
1973 - 50
The death rate which had climbed up to 16, 592 in the year 1968, dropped by approx. 5,000 in 1969 and dropped another 5,500 in 1970.
PS - Brad. It would be real curious to see how Tom Brokaw covered the WMD parity between the D's and the R's back in 2002-2004. Did he have Bill Clinton on, making Clinton's case that he still thought that Saddam had the WMD's. Sec. Cohen? Gore? Albright? Sen. Levin (the only person I'm aware of who still thought in Nov. 2005 that Saddam had a nuclear bomb). And if Brokaw is so convinced of this, how come the entire left side of the isle (voters) seem not to know it?
(;~> gary
Beware
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 15:14 ET by w0tmBeware of Greeks bearing Gifts. Beware of Trojan horses. Beware of seemingly reasonable and calm reassuring words from those bent on destroying our free society.
Assuming the far-left wins in 2008, Brokaw will be at the front of the line putting a "reasonable and warm" face on the reintroduction of The Fairness Doctrine that will be the first step to silence others not in lock-step with a socialist America and a socialist world.
The end of even a semblance of respect for the First Amendment will quickly be followed by the demise of the Second Amendment. Then, finally, the Tenth Amendment will be changed to grant all rights to the federal government except for those few granted to the people. With that, our country will become the totalitarian state by those who will make the rules we will follow.
Since 1960, we had been on the fast track to servitude when the monopoly of the media and Big Government was temporarily broken by technology and unexpected societal changes. The change was not stopped - just delayed. It is now back on track and will proceed unimpeded after next year.
Brokaw is just one of the many smiling, reassuring faces masking the George Soros types of our world who will soon rule us all. All too soon we'll again have a few select one-note bearers of "1984 Truth" telling us "And That's The Way It Is" each day. And we will learn to again believe and accept it. The masses that are unable to think for themselves will, again, be watched over by the self-chosen elite who know better. To Tom Brokaw and others like him, the world will again be in proper order; as it was always meant to be.
WMD ALL OVER Iraq
Mon, 11/26/2007 - 17:26 ET by jonathanandersonThere was WMD ALL OVER Iraq ...
http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/invasion-iraq-was-right-thing-do-14313
And anyway, what if we SUSPECTED Ted Bundy of having ONE, SINGLE handgun ... and then he didn't have it.
Would it be the right thing to do to bring him to justice and keep him from harming anyone ever again?!
Damn right it would.