SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Tim Russert, by all accounts I've heard, including from people on the progressive side who knew him well, was a decent guy.
The news of his death came as a shock to me, as it did to everyone: He was a fixture for those of us who are obsessed with politics. And to be stricken of a heart attack at 58 is a fate that no one should have to suffer.
I feel bad for his family, and for his colleagues.
For many years, I looked forward to watching him on Meet the Press.
But I stopped after September 11.
As the praise for Russert has overflowed, I just want to register, even at the risk of showing bad manners, a discordant note.
I stopped watching him regularly after September 11 because he became a cheerleader for war.
He festooned himself with red, white, and blue, and in one of the first programs after the attack, he appallingly said that the Bush Administration would have to prepare the American public for a "disproportionate" response.
Such a response is, by definition, immoral under just war theory.
And he was essentially inviting Bush and Cheney to kill many times more than the 3,000 people who died on September 11.
He also did not explore with Cheney the Vice President's comment to him that the United States would need to go to "the dark side." Some early skepticism about the torture and kidnapping that was to come might have done the country good.
A year and a half later, right before the Iraq War, Russert let Cheney get away with an outrageous comment that was pure propaganda.
It was March 16, 2003, less than a week before Bush and Cheney started bombing.
Russert: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.
[Note the pronoun "we."]
Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Russert didn't challenge him on that bald-faced lie.
When Cheney came back on, almost two years later, Russert played the videotape. But rather than aggressively going after Cheney, Russert soft-pedaled.
Russert: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
Cheney: Yeah, I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show "weapons capability." We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.
For Russert, who rightfully earned a reputation as a tough questioner, to go easy on Cheney, well, this was not his finest habit.
I bring all this up, even at this delicate moment, to point out simply that even great mainstream journalists sometimes bow to patriotism and to power, and when they do, our democracy, and the cause of peace and justice, suffers.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
(c) 2008 The Progressive
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Tim Russert, by all accounts I've heard, including from people on the progressive side who knew him well, was a decent guy.
The news of his death came as a shock to me, as it did to everyone: He was a fixture for those of us who are obsessed with politics. And to be stricken of a heart attack at 58 is a fate that no one should have to suffer.
I feel bad for his family, and for his colleagues.
For many years, I looked forward to watching him on Meet the Press.
But I stopped after September 11.
As the praise for Russert has overflowed, I just want to register, even at the risk of showing bad manners, a discordant note.
I stopped watching him regularly after September 11 because he became a cheerleader for war.
He festooned himself with red, white, and blue, and in one of the first programs after the attack, he appallingly said that the Bush Administration would have to prepare the American public for a "disproportionate" response.
Such a response is, by definition, immoral under just war theory.
And he was essentially inviting Bush and Cheney to kill many times more than the 3,000 people who died on September 11.
He also did not explore with Cheney the Vice President's comment to him that the United States would need to go to "the dark side." Some early skepticism about the torture and kidnapping that was to come might have done the country good.
A year and a half later, right before the Iraq War, Russert let Cheney get away with an outrageous comment that was pure propaganda.
It was March 16, 2003, less than a week before Bush and Cheney started bombing.
Russert: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.
[Note the pronoun "we."]
Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Russert didn't challenge him on that bald-faced lie.
When Cheney came back on, almost two years later, Russert played the videotape. But rather than aggressively going after Cheney, Russert soft-pedaled.
Russert: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
Cheney: Yeah, I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show "weapons capability." We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.
For Russert, who rightfully earned a reputation as a tough questioner, to go easy on Cheney, well, this was not his finest habit.
I bring all this up, even at this delicate moment, to point out simply that even great mainstream journalists sometimes bow to patriotism and to power, and when they do, our democracy, and the cause of peace and justice, suffers.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
(c) 2008 The Progressive
Tim Russert, by all accounts I've heard, including from people on the progressive side who knew him well, was a decent guy.
The news of his death came as a shock to me, as it did to everyone: He was a fixture for those of us who are obsessed with politics. And to be stricken of a heart attack at 58 is a fate that no one should have to suffer.
I feel bad for his family, and for his colleagues.
For many years, I looked forward to watching him on Meet the Press.
But I stopped after September 11.
As the praise for Russert has overflowed, I just want to register, even at the risk of showing bad manners, a discordant note.
I stopped watching him regularly after September 11 because he became a cheerleader for war.
He festooned himself with red, white, and blue, and in one of the first programs after the attack, he appallingly said that the Bush Administration would have to prepare the American public for a "disproportionate" response.
Such a response is, by definition, immoral under just war theory.
And he was essentially inviting Bush and Cheney to kill many times more than the 3,000 people who died on September 11.
He also did not explore with Cheney the Vice President's comment to him that the United States would need to go to "the dark side." Some early skepticism about the torture and kidnapping that was to come might have done the country good.
A year and a half later, right before the Iraq War, Russert let Cheney get away with an outrageous comment that was pure propaganda.
It was March 16, 2003, less than a week before Bush and Cheney started bombing.
Russert: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.
[Note the pronoun "we."]
Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Russert didn't challenge him on that bald-faced lie.
When Cheney came back on, almost two years later, Russert played the videotape. But rather than aggressively going after Cheney, Russert soft-pedaled.
Russert: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
Cheney: Yeah, I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show "weapons capability." We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.
For Russert, who rightfully earned a reputation as a tough questioner, to go easy on Cheney, well, this was not his finest habit.
I bring all this up, even at this delicate moment, to point out simply that even great mainstream journalists sometimes bow to patriotism and to power, and when they do, our democracy, and the cause of peace and justice, suffers.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
(c) 2008 The Progressive