Tim Russert - Democrat Shill

Russert passes for a “tough” interviewer by adopting a confrontational pose rather than asking genuinely challenging questions. As much as any politician, Russert has constructed a persona for the benefit of the public, an identity meant to give him the authority that his actual work might not. Like most well-designed personas, it has a basis in truth but has been polished and honed to a fine sheen.

Tim Russert - Democrat Shill
| November 14, 2004 |

Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 7:29:25 AM by Peach

Tim Russert, Democrat Shill

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:

MR. RUSSERT: "On solid intelligence." And then 15 months later, the secretary of state came on this program and said this.


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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pardon of Scooter Libby
Lets not forget the Scooter Libby case and what MR Russert told the FBI.

This is crucial. For the record, I note two items. First, I note the FBI report of its original interview with Mr. Russert. To quote from that report, Mr. Russert told the FBI that "he could not completely rule out the possibility that he had such an exchange [as described by Mr. Libby]. Russert acknowledged that he speaks to many people on a daily basis and it is difficult to reconstruct some specific conversations, particularly ones which occurred several months ago."

Note that on the stand in the Scooter Libby trial, Mr Russert was able to reconstruct specific conversations he had with Scooter Libby after initially telling the FBI the opposite. [It seems he Mr Russert lied about Scooter Libby] The facts are obvious.

In the "Today" interview, Russert reiterated what he had said on the stand: he did not discuss the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson with Libby in a conversation they had in July 2003 and he said he did not at that time know about Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, who was outed subsequently as a CIA operative.

"I did not know she worked at the CIA. I did not know any of that until the following Monday when I saw all in (newspaper columnist) Robert Novak's column. ... We simply did not know it. I wish we had."

Russert did say he was "stunned" when he heard that Libby said he had learned Plame's identity from him, saying, "I said that just can't be. It's impossible." Russert held to that line during cross-examination. He also disclosed -- in a well-publicized statement -- that he considered his chats with sources all off-the-record unless put on the record, the opposite of the usual journalistic approach.


I then quote from the instructions provided by the judge to the jury: "A person who makes a statement based on a belief or opinion which he honestly held when the statement was made has not violated the statutes the defendant is charged with violating in this case merely because the statement turns out to be inaccurate, incorrect, or wrong. Making an honest statement that turns out to be inaccurate, incorrect or wrong because of mistake, confusion, or faulty memory, or even carelessness in one's recollection, does not rise to the level of criminal conduct."


I will only remember Mr Russert as a person who twisted the truth and one who interviwed by adopting a confrontational pose rather than asking genuinely challenging questions. Just another barking dog for the liberals promoting himself and them.

My condolesas to the family.

How To Lobby Your Members Of Congress

A Revolving Door

You've heard it before—it's not what you know, it's who you know. In our nation's capital, success comes with a combination of knowledge and personal connections.
Lobbyists make big bucks to lobby members of Congress and government officials on the issues their clients care about. But the money that industries, companies, unions and issue groups spend on lobbying is often just a drop in the bucket compared to what they can reap in return if their lobbyists are successful.

With this in mind you can see how important it is that the American citizen lobby congress. If we make our thoughts known to the elected they can be influenced more than the hired guns of corporations and special interests. If we don't lobby congress
they will. The results are evident. The green waco environmentalists have made congress cave into not drilling for oil and driving corn prices through the roof because of ethanol. We the people have not been lobbying congress but let corporations and the wacos take over. Just voting isn't enough. Granted some crazed liberals will not listen to anyone but the big money. Currenly the wacos are in control.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How To Lobby Your Members Of Congress:

Members of Congress rarely hear from their constituents on
most issues. Sometimes hearing from a handful of concerned citizens
will cause a Senator or Representative to pay attention to a
particular issue and encourage him or her to vote the right way.

In general the more personal your lobbying contact is, the
more effective it will be. While a personal discussion with a
Member of Congress is most effective, a meeting or telephone
conversation with one of his or her assistants is almost as good.
A personal letter is much more effective than a form letter or
postcard.

You do not need to be an expert on the issue to call or write
your Member of Congress' office. All you need to communicate is
that you want the Member to support or oppose a particular measure.
When you call a Member's office give your name and address and ask
whomever takes your call to let the Member of Congress know that
you favor or oppose something.

It is very important that you lobby both Members of Congress
who may support your views and those who may not. Lobbying can
change votes so it is critically important that you lobby those who
disagree with you. Lobbying supporters provides them with evidence
of support for their position and allows them to be more active in
support of that position.

If you don't know your Members of Congress, your county
courthouse voter registration office can give you their names and
addresses. You can contact Members of Congress in either their
local offices or in Washington. In Washington write or call:


The Honorable________________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3121

The Honorable_____________
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
202/224-3121

Fuel Conservation No Idle Matter at UPS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An idea that works for UPS. I mapped my new route to work with right turns only. It
would take 15 minutes longer. Maybe this could also work for the USPS? Lets make intersections with only right turns. This would go along with "global warming" and other green crazy stuff. Just think, we would turn right, then turn right, then turn right eventually we would get where we were going but only after going many miles out of the way. It all makes sense doesn't it? An idea for obama and mccain to ponder and pontificate about.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Conservation No Idle Matter at UPS


You wouldn't think of something as benign as avoiding a left-hand turn could conserve fuel, but Atlanta-based United Parcel Service (UPS) swears by it. In fact, the parcel carrier has technology in its systems that help map this out routes that minimize the number of left turns the driver has to make. According to spokesperson Steve Holmes, avoiding left turns at intersections reduces idling which in turn lowers fuel consumption. "It seems small, but when you multiply it across 88,0000 vehicles making nearly 15 million deliveries every day during the course of a year, it adds up."

And at stop lights, making a right turn at an intersection tends to be faster than at a left turn, since you have only to wait for an opportunity to turn in one lane of traffic. You also have the option of "right on red" in most jurisdictions, unless otherwise indicated by traffic signs. "So even if you didn't save fuel, you're going to move more quickly through a route."

"Because 98% of our packages are processed electronically by shippers, we know what's entering our system each day, what's still in our system each day, when each package is going to arrive at a center, when the package is scheduled for delivery -- including time of day -- and where it will be delivered," Holmes says.

What's more, Holmes says, UPS drivers are trained to always turn off their package cars when they stop for a delivery, never idling at the curb or in a driveway. "Even if the driver is out of the truck for a few seconds, the vehicle is always turned off."