Did Tim Russert really just ask if John Edwards speaking to Musharraf after the Bhutto assassination was part of an effort to give Musharraf "cover" of some kind? I believe he did. It would have been pretty sweet if Edwards had broken down Perry Mason-style and 'fessed up to the fact that he and Pervez conspired to kill her. But no dice. Alternatively, Edwards could have gone with the old "Tim, you've asked a lot of dumb questions in your day, but this really takes the cake."
« On The Republican Side | Main | Debate Recap »
Cover?
15 Jan 2008 10:53 pm
Comments (13)
he asked if it was "appropriate for (Edwards) to talk to Musharraf at that time - perhaps give him cover - at a time when (Musharraf) needed legitimacy..."?
And then Timmah's head turned into a horse-drawn carriage.
Edwards' answer was really, really good though.
I think andrew sullivan's take on the debate is worse.
Although, in his defense, Andrew might be drunk:
9.10 pm: Did Robert L. Johnson actually say he was "out of bounds" in bringing up Obama's past drug use? That's what Clinton just said. Did she just make that up?
(Update: if you read Johnson's press release, you can see that Clinton was lying to maintain good relations with Johnson. She lied when she said that ayone who did such a thing would be disowned. She hasn't disowned someone who both smeared Obama, then lied about it, then refused to back away from it. So that's two lies. If it were her opponent, you can be sure she'd be taking notes. I'm holding her to the same standards she applies to others.)
9.20 pm: Clinton again said that she doesn't want to inject the gender issue into this race. Again, this is easily disproved by any number of statements she has made over the last several months. She's not as bad as her husband, but she reflexively makes stuff up.
9.30 pm: Just like Bush, she cannot talk about her own weaknesses. In her eyes, her weakness is being too aggressive for change! And then she pivots to exploit Obama's own confession of his personal disorganization. The more you see her, the more calculating she is.
9.50 pm. Clinton manages to pivot the sub-prime mess to pander to blacks, Asians and Hispanics. But, hey, she doesn't want to inject race into this race. Her tone is a little hectoring as well.
10.03 pm: Clinton uses an opportunity to ask a question to give a speech burnishing her anti-war credentials. Pure old politics. But it works! And she's a pro.
10.57 pm. Clinton says she decided to run for president a year ago on New Years. She says this with a perfectly straight face. You have to understand that she can tell lies almost as well as her husband. And if you don't know or cannot know the actual truth, there's no way to tell. She's that good.
Verging on misogyny.
The best moderated Democratic debate was followed by this one, the worst moderated one. The questions the first 1/2 hour were unsubstantial and geared to inflame conflict. The other 1.5 hours were up and down. Up: Brian Williams talking. Down: Tim Russert talking.
Can't Charlie Gibson mug Russert before the debate, put on a brown toupee and do some identity theft for the good of the country? Next morning:
RUSSERT: "Ugh..wha...what happened?"
AIDE: "Sir, you were fabulous last night. Your reputation is restored."
RUSSERT: "But I wasn't the moderator. The last thing I remember is...yes, yes I was fabulous. Thank you, nameless aide."
Is Russert going to ask Dick Cheney next time he's on his show whether Cheney told Musharraf that the US would ignore anything that happened to Bhutto if the US got permission to put Special Forces in Pakistan?
While Musharraf is making noises for public consumption about no "unilateral" US incursions into Pakistan, the real deal appears to have been done - vastly expanding US Special Forces presence in Pakistan under the guise of "training" (that old saw.)
There's also the suspicion that Bhutto was about to reveal certain secrets to US Congressmen which would have been highly embarrassing to Bush and Musharraf, suggesting that Cheney wouldn't have minded her going down just for that reason.
Musharraf, like most dictators, is a complete idiot if he thinks assassinating Bhutto in exchange for this deal is actually going to help him retain power.
Both the Taliban and bin Laden have a higher popularity in Pakistan than Bush does. The more Musharraf cuddles up to Bush, the sooner he's going to fall.
No, Matt. Russert didn't ask if Edwards's call was part of an intentional effort to give Musharraf cover. The sense of his question was whether Edwards's call was ill-advised, whatever its intentions, in that it might have in fact provided Musharraf with cover. I guess the idea is that in the shaky conditions right after the assassination, Musharraf would have been desperate for tokens of foreign support and international legitimacy, and that publicly reported conversations with important American political leaders, particularly a leader from the American party known to be more critical of the Musharraf regime, would have been just the sort of token he was looking for.
I thought Edwards's answer was OK, although its hard to escape the feeling that the only real purpose of Edwards's call was to give himself a little symbol of gravitas and global importance in the post-assassination period, when all the candidates were struggling to look like statesmen and get press attention
Personally, I never fully trusted Edwards or his hairdo. This clinches it. Thank you Tim.
I heard Musharraf called Edwards to see what the next President of the US thought he should do.
I am as baffled by Russert's moronicness as the next guy, but I thought this was a good question. Edwards has no business calling Musharaff who should have been left hanging.
Also, I thought Russert did show some good questioning with Hillary when he got her to first stand by Bob Johnson and then disavow him.
reminds me of glenn beck's question to keith ellison about "prove to me you're not working with the enemy" ...
I agree with Dan Kervick above. "the call" to Musharraf was just plain silly grandstanding. I'm sure it was the most Presidential phone call he's ever made and all, but it was a silly, see-through ploy to me.
In Matt's piece in the Washington Monthly about Tim Russert, he discusses Russert's interview tactic of confronting guests with past statements and positions that are in conflict with present statements and positions.
I agree that this can be extremely irritating as it often sidetracks the conversation from meaningful policy discussion. It seems to me that this issue is not as cut and dry as Matt makes it out to be. For example, it seems reasonable to ask Ron Paul about racist statements written in some of his past news letters (whether they were written by him or not)and how they square with his current positions. I guess my question to Matt would be, what should be the criteria for determining when this interview tactic is acceptable and when is it not acceptable?
Comments closed January 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, at least then Edwards would have had a vastly more intentional and finely conceived foreign policy towards Pakistan than Preznit Dumb*** has.
Posted by El Cid | January 15, 2008 11:03 PM