NBC News Washington Bureau chief and 'Meet the Press' host Tim Russert has died of an apparent heart attack at the age of 58. Russert was in his office working on an interview when he died.
Interrupting its regularly scheduled programming, NBC announced the death and follow-up with comments by Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and others.
Here is more on the story:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/13/reports-tim-russert-dead-after-heart-attack/
Showing posts with label Tim Russert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Russert. Show all posts
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Whining Hildabeast
From the Drudge Report, CNN, and the Hillary Clinton campaign:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: 'No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me'...
Pulling 'a Russert?' You mean, actually ask the candidate pertinent questions that get to the heart of her character, personality, views, and voting record? Why, how dare they!
If Blitzer goes easy on Hillary during Thursday night's Democratic debate, then he is just as big a schmuck as the Hildabeast.
This should demonstrate for the entire country what a whining bitch Hillary is for demanding that the news media 'go easy' on her.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: 'No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me'...
Pulling 'a Russert?' You mean, actually ask the candidate pertinent questions that get to the heart of her character, personality, views, and voting record? Why, how dare they!
If Blitzer goes easy on Hillary during Thursday night's Democratic debate, then he is just as big a schmuck as the Hildabeast.
This should demonstrate for the entire country what a whining bitch Hillary is for demanding that the news media 'go easy' on her.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Valerie Plame's Sour Grapes
Charlotte, NC (TLS). In a melodramatic display suitable for a daytime Oscar, Congressional Democrats staged quite a show on Friday as they provided Valerie Plame with a platform from which to exhibit a bad case of sour grapes. Plame essentially accused everyone in the Bush Administration of deliberately blowing her 'cover,' accusing officials of 'outing' her in retaliation for her husband's opposition to the Iraq War.
The obvious problem with Plame's performance today, apart from the obvious overkill and melodramatic exaggeration, is that she is pointing the finger at the wrong persons.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's sham of a case against Scooter Libby revealed the real source of the leak--one Richard Armitage, who so far has not only escaped any blame for the 'outing' of Plame but who is never mentioned as one who may have broken federal law (this is because Fitzgerald knows Armitage broke no law in naming Plame as a CIA agent).
This begs the question, then, if the original source of the leak broke no law, then why was Scooter Libby prosecuted? Why are Democrats claiming the Bush Administration broke the law? Why are they after Cheney's head?
Plame's accusations are incredible given that everyone in Washington knew who she was and what she did, meaning of course that there was nothing inherently 'covert' about her work, although she has a penchant for touting it as such. But if one is looking for an original smoking gun--the first one to 'leak' information that everyone knew anyway--then that smoking gun is Richard Armitage.
It is curious that Armitage's name was never mentioned in Plame's lengthy soliloquy and subsequent questioning by the Congressional panel on Friday.
What is NOT surprising is that Plame was forced to admit, under heavy questioning, that she had absolutely no evidence to support her charge that Administration officials were aware that her work in the CIA was considered 'classified' information.
That Administration officials would NOT know that Plame's work was considered classified is certainly credible, given that Armitage knew all about it, along with Scooter Libby, and members of the mainstream media, such as Tim Russert, and columnist Robert Novak.
So, the question becomes, if it was common knowledge all over Washington that Plame worked for the CIA, then how could anyone be guilty of 'outing' her in retaliation? Officials within the Administration were merely repeating what they had heard others talk about openly, and thus assumed that the nature of Plame's work was NOT classified.
Let me put it this way. If Plame's work for the CIA was considered top secret and classified, then it was the most poorly-kept secret in the history of covert operations.
Merely repeating what everyone else in the Beltway already knew is not 'outing' someone.
Thus, as far as we can tell, Plame is merely verbalizing her sour grapes and cannot be considered a credible witness. And Congressional Democrats are playing this up for all it's worth in hopes of scoring some political points at the President's expense.
The obvious problem with Plame's performance today, apart from the obvious overkill and melodramatic exaggeration, is that she is pointing the finger at the wrong persons.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's sham of a case against Scooter Libby revealed the real source of the leak--one Richard Armitage, who so far has not only escaped any blame for the 'outing' of Plame but who is never mentioned as one who may have broken federal law (this is because Fitzgerald knows Armitage broke no law in naming Plame as a CIA agent).
This begs the question, then, if the original source of the leak broke no law, then why was Scooter Libby prosecuted? Why are Democrats claiming the Bush Administration broke the law? Why are they after Cheney's head?
Plame's accusations are incredible given that everyone in Washington knew who she was and what she did, meaning of course that there was nothing inherently 'covert' about her work, although she has a penchant for touting it as such. But if one is looking for an original smoking gun--the first one to 'leak' information that everyone knew anyway--then that smoking gun is Richard Armitage.
It is curious that Armitage's name was never mentioned in Plame's lengthy soliloquy and subsequent questioning by the Congressional panel on Friday.
What is NOT surprising is that Plame was forced to admit, under heavy questioning, that she had absolutely no evidence to support her charge that Administration officials were aware that her work in the CIA was considered 'classified' information.
That Administration officials would NOT know that Plame's work was considered classified is certainly credible, given that Armitage knew all about it, along with Scooter Libby, and members of the mainstream media, such as Tim Russert, and columnist Robert Novak.
So, the question becomes, if it was common knowledge all over Washington that Plame worked for the CIA, then how could anyone be guilty of 'outing' her in retaliation? Officials within the Administration were merely repeating what they had heard others talk about openly, and thus assumed that the nature of Plame's work was NOT classified.
Let me put it this way. If Plame's work for the CIA was considered top secret and classified, then it was the most poorly-kept secret in the history of covert operations.
Merely repeating what everyone else in the Beltway already knew is not 'outing' someone.
Thus, as far as we can tell, Plame is merely verbalizing her sour grapes and cannot be considered a credible witness. And Congressional Democrats are playing this up for all it's worth in hopes of scoring some political points at the President's expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)