home

Why is Russert Stonewalling on Matthews?

Crooks and Liars raises some good questions about Tim Russert's refusal to say whether Chris Matthews was the MSNBC host Libby called him to rant about back in July, 2003. Matthews had no such compunction about acknowledging it, according to Michael Smerconish, who interviewed Matthews about it. It seems Russert may not have called Matthews right away to tell him, but he sure heard about it from him later. I pointed out the most likely show Libby was complaining about the day of Libby's indictment.

Matthews' comments to Smerconish:

"Well, let me just tell you this, without getting into that, because I know the answer generally to your question, is that, because all of this involves testimony that Russert is probably going to have to make, and let me just tell you this, that those people in the White House, especially Libby and the vice president, working as a team, "connected as a root," to use Libby's favorite phrase, basically pulled off an alley-oop play to get us into war in Iraq by feeding to the New York Times stories about nuclear potential in the hands of Saddam Hussein, to get it into the Sunday paper, and then deploying the vice president on "Meet the Press" and other administration officials like Condi Rice on the other Sunday talk shows in a kinda alley-oop play.

"So they put the ball in the air, and then on Sunday mornings, these guys put it in the basket, and then all of a sudden we're at war over Iraq because a lot of Americans in the middle politically say, 'I don't know how we're getting into that mess or why we're getting in it, but I guess we have to protect ourselves against a mushroom cloud,' that is Condi's phrase.

"So, having pulled this masterful move of moving the undecided middle into the war, they then became very sensitive to the charge by Joseph Wilson that they had done the very thing, pushed the nuclear button and then covered up any threat to that nuclear button, and Wilson was that threat, and then, going volcanic against anybody including me, who dared to say, 'Wait a minute, there is a pattern here of how we got into the war, and how they promoted the nuclear case and how they protected the nuclear case against Wilson.'

"They didn't like me doing that. I know that a number of administration officials were screaming at my network at all levels about me raising this issue, the very points I've just made. They don't like hearing it, Libby is in trouble now because he doesn't like hearing it, the vice president is very much a part of this, and the answer to your question is that you are on the right trail, Michael."

< PFAW Releases Anti-Alito Ad | Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lack of Iraq-al Qaida Connection >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Why is Russert Stonewalling on Matthews? (none / 0) (#1)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    I'm glad that Matthews is finally willing to say this stuff...but it's just another example of an inside the beltway pundit acknowledging the truth long after it's helpful to do so.

    Re: Why is Russert Stonewalling on Matthews? (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    I love it when the MSM pundits turn on each other. Chum on Chum, if you will.