We realize Tim Russert only got his job at NBC because of Russert’s then boss Senator Patrick Moynihan’s friendship with the then head of NBC News. But Russert regularly goes beyond the call of duty to his DNC overlords.
Behold this lead into a question for GOP head, Ken Mehlman on today’s (November 13th) installment of Meet The Press: cannot be .
MR. RUSSERT: "On solid intelligence." And then 15 months later, the secretary of state came on this program and said this.
(Videotape, May 16, 2004):
SEC’Y POWELL: But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed, and I regret it.
MR. RUSSERT: "Deliberately misleading." That’s the secretary of state. So why can’t Democrats now say that the administration deliberately misled the American people?
Because, Mr. Russert, you are a liar.
The actual context of Powell’s remarks from the cited May 16, 2004 Meet The Press broadcast gives his words an entirely different meaning:
RUSSERT: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?
POWELL: I’m very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I’m deeply disappointed. But I’m also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.
It is clear that in his May 16th remarks Powell was referring to the CIA asset called "Curveball," who had been deliberately misleading. — Not the administration.
In fact in his original answer Powell insisted the administration honestly believed the information the CIA had made available to them and had acted in good faith. But Russert edited Powell’s response to make it sound exactly the opposite.
Doing so, Tim Russert has once again exposed himself to the world as the Democrat hack that he is. Of course this is not news to anyone who has ever watched him.