Sad news.

NBC must be really sad at this point... do they have any other political analysts of his caliber in the ranks?

I second Jeff. No need for that--not the time.

Tim Russert was truely a legend in what he did. An expert political analyst I will remember him for. He will be missed by many. May he rest in peace.

A true tragedy.

Russert frequently displayed a level of journalist excellence unmatched by most. I still remember watching him make John Kerry squirm by asking about the fact that Kerry and Bush were both in Skull and Bones. Nobody else had the guts to ask about that or even bring it up.

Tim Russert will truly be missed.

Gregory? Ugh. Can you roll over in your grave before you're in it? The guy was a back up dancer for Karl Rove's rap performance.

I prefer my news on the radio, without the visual distractions, unless the images are indispensable. So, I rarely saw Mr. Russert except when watching election-night coverage. I don't know his reputation particularly, but it is perhaps noteworthy that Russert took a pounding in the pro-Clinton blogosphere during the primaries. Why?

Torrid joke, didn't your parents ever teach you that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?

I hope when you go, that Kari doesn't tell anyone that your blue oregon posts are a pox on Oregon politics.

My prayers go out to the family of a great father, American, and journalist.

David Gregory would be god awful, is there a smarmier guy out there?

The fact is that no one, I mean absolutely no one in NBC's stable (or anyone elses for that matter) is fit to fill Mr. Russert's shoes (it just can't be done), he was the closest thing we had to an objective journalist these days and my Sundays will be worse for his loss.

I'm just sick over it.

I agree with torridjoe--Chuck Todd, but leave it to the network to pick David Gregory.

Condolences to the Russert Family. This might be the appropriate time, since this is a political blog after all, to recall one of the best moments of Tim Russert's tenure at MTP. On September 10, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the still unsatisfactorily resolved attack on the WTC towers and the Pentagon, the nation was in a completely new reality.

Here's a brief part of the interchange between Russert and guest VP Dick Cheney:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/2/

[COPY]

MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Vice President, the primary rationale giving—given for the war in Iraq was Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. You—on August of 2002, this is what you told the VFW. Let’s just watch it.

(Videotape, August 26, 2002):

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

(End of videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: In fact, there is grave doubt, because they did not exist along the lines that you described, the president described, and others described. Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes, Tim, because what the reports also showed, while he did not have stockpiles—clearly the intelligence that said he did was wrong.... <continues>

[END COPY]

In hindsight, it's easy to praise Mr. Russert for his courage in confronting VP Cheney in September, 2006. Russert may have helped to bring about the Democratic successes that November, by simply pointing out facts that were inconvenient to the Administration.

What is less obvious is why we should praise Mr. Russert for his rather more timid questioning of the Administration's mendacity in the 2002-3 time period.

So, as with much of the mainstream media, there certainly is reason to praise Mr. Russert for his efforts, but there is reason why that praise must be faint and informed if our Republic is to survive the corporate onslaught to our "press" and our government that we are currently enduring.

<hr/>

Some commenters here have been suggesting replacement hosts for MTP. Here's a couple of ideas...

How about Phil Donahue? It would only be fitting, since while Russert dithered about going to war with Iraq, Donahue got the story right in early 2003 and therefore got fired by NBC. There would be poetic justice in such a move.

Or how about admitting that NBC is deeply in bed with the CIA, the Administration and GE's corporate and military-industrial cronies? I'm going to suggest to Jeffrey Immelt that Carl Bernstein would be a perfect host for MTP. He already knows where all the skeletons are arranged in the closet. http://tinyurl.com/4nqgjg

Scott Jorgensen:

Russert frequently displayed a level of journalist excellence unmatched by most. I still remember watching him make John Kerry squirm by asking about the fact that Kerry and Bush were both in Skull and Bones. Nobody else had the guts to ask about that or even bring it up.

Bob T:

No one got a free ride when Russert was doing the interview (like the way Obama had journalists having "tingly feelings" running up their legs over him), but we really need interviewers who will call many of these politicians what they are -- crooks. Of course, do that once and no more crooks will show up. End of show.

Bob T

Right On Carla!

I did not agree with every question Russert ever asked.

However, we can all hope that when we are gone, that many close friends and co-workers will say such nice things about us as Tim's friends have.

Turns out among his good deeds were that he was godfather to 2 children (one from each family) of 2 other journalists who were friends. When the brother of one of his godsons had brain surgery, he started sending that young man a baseball cap every time he went to a city where he could buy a different one.

Sometimes we get caught up in the nastiness of politics and forget what really matters.

Ray Duray:

How about Phil Donahue? It would only be fitting, since while Russert dithered about going to war with Iraq, Donahue got the story right in early 2003 and therefore got fired by NBC. There would be poetic justice in such a move.

Bob T:

"Dithered"?

Wait! -- You're saying that it'd be better to have a host with a firm agenda. I thought objectivity was important. On the other hand, being objective, or at least faking it, leads one to gloss over wrongs.

Bob Tiernan

darrelplant:

What is the decent interval to wait before remembering that someone who died wasn't really all they're cracked up to be? Would I have to wait for a week or two to mention that Fidel Castro had done some really ugly things if he was the one who had died?

Bob T:

Actually, too many progressives wouldn't even mention anything like that after 25 years go by. If the goal is squashed free enterprise, no private property, etc then a dictatorship to maintain that goal is fine. So don't criticize the guy who one KBOO caller referred to as "Fido" (full sentence was "Fido's a good guy").

Bob Tiernan

Russert was Cheney's go to guy, not the friggin Pope.

He played lead snare drum in their march to the illegal, immoral invasion of an innocent country.

NBC should have done the dignified thing: give Russert a nice nod in the last 1-2 minutes of their news programs, and dedicate this sunday's show to him. Beyond that, it was a disgusting display. MSNBC has been covering this death 24/7, ignoring the real news such as midwest flooding, the fact that we finally got habeus back, and more. I consider Russert a traitor who enabled them to sell the country on an illegal and immoral invasion. He's a tool. Had they just given him the usual nod, I would have kept quiet, but this is disgusting. We have a little Katrina going on and they are having a sex fest. Just awful.

So no, this is not the Pope or the President. It was a guy who helped lie us into a war. No, I won't wait a couple of days if they are going to feed me this crap.

Ray Duray:

...the fifth anniversary of the still unsatisfactorily resolved attack on the WTC towers and the Pentagon...

Bob T:

Oh-oh! Now just what is "unsatisfactorily resolved" about this? Just wondering, mind you. Is there still a chance that you believe it was radio-operated airlines controlled by the CIA? Or Mossad agents had tricked some Muslims into doing this?

Bob Tiernan

Ray Duray:

In hindsight, it's easy to praise Mr. Russert for his courage in confronting VP Cheney in September, 2006. Russert may have helped to bring about the Democratic successes that November, by simply pointing out facts that were inconvenient to the Administration.

Bob T:

Hmmmm....what about the long-held belief (conspiracy theory) that NBC was owned by GE which would never let the news or news shows harm Repub chances. Oh well. I'm always prepared to accept facts that puncture these ridiculous stories.

Bob Tiernan

Darrelplant:

What is the decent interval to wait before remembering that someone who died wasn't really all they're cracked up to be? Would I have to wait for a week or two to mention that Fidel Castro had done some really ugly things if he was the one who had died?

Bob T:

Heck, why wait for Castro to die. I've been trashing that despot for decades.

Bob Tiernan

Backbeat:

NBC should have done the dignified thing: give Russert a nice nod in the last 1-2 minutes of their news programs, and dedicate this sunday's show to him. Beyond that, it was a disgusting display. MSNBC has been covering this death 24/7, ignoring the real news such as midwest flooding, the fact that we finally got habeus back, etc

Bob T:

I agree 100%! He's one of their own so they make it more news than it really is. Reminds me of when Dan Rather thought it was news that there was a pending strike at CBS, and asked us to have "courage".

Anyway, the point about hearing less about actual news so that the network(s) could feed us something else also reminds me of the brief top-of-the-hour news on the radio stations when I am informed that this or that film made X-number of millions over the weekend when I really wanted to hear more about the flooding somewhere in the country, or which crooked politician had just gotten a $10 million pork project for a beer can museum in his district.

Bob Tiernan

I'm going to use the "urgency of now" rule on this. I loved Tim Russert as a person based on his many appearances on Imus in the Morning. The guy was hilarious and had a huge personality and sense of humor. The family stuff was genuine and his father, Big Russ, is a true inspiration. I ache when I think of them telling him this news. It is so unfair.

  I also cringe when I read how this great person's death somehow catapults the  work of the 4th estate into a more vaunted position than it deserves. There was no decency period in using this tragedy to pat themselves on the back. Tim was held up as an example of their relentless drive for the truth. We heard he was tough but fair and in many instances he undoubtedly was. But when they gush over the little white board with, "Florida, Florida, Florida" on it, let's not forget that Tim Russert never actually got to the truth about Florida and he certainly didn't during the run-up to Iraq. That's when we really needed him to be tough - at least as tough as Knight Ridder was on the case for war. 
  So RIP Tim Russert. I loved the man - he was a giant. But shame on the corporate media for any attempts to capitalize on this to enhance their own shabby image. There will never be an interval of decency long enough for them to try that.
  I'd like to see Greg Palast replace Tim Russert. Then we'd get to the truth a lot more. But I know that's not going to happen because of the corporate ownership structure of the U.S. media, and I don't blame Tim Russert for that. In that sense he was just a wonderful, enthusiastic, thoughtful, entertaining, extremely well-paid pawn in the game, and I'll miss him a lot. 
  I think his corporate bosses used his genuine love of this country against him. That sincere, idealistic view of America was endearing but it definitely turned Tim into too much of a cheerleader for the craven powers that be. "What a country" is a great sentiment, unless you're so busy admiring how a kid from Buffalo got this far, to notice what has happened to America lately. Maybe that's it: Tim was simply too decent and nice to begin to grasp how twisted and devious our current leadership is.

So enough with how Tim "held their feet to the fire." I wish he had - but they would have gotten someone else if he had really tried that. if anything he got too close to Cheney and company and they burned him. The fact that what he did is now being sold to us as proof that the media is on the case, and not just a PR wing of government, is the biggest shame of all. Who are they kidding with that? Thanks for letting me vent.

I didn't mean for the comment to be bold. Will somebody please turn that off? Thanks.

Right on Carla!

But then, doesn't this go back to the debate we had here earlier in the year? About diplomatic language vs. acerbic language.

There are some of us who believe in such things as diplomatic language. Those of us who have lost someone we admired wouldn't repeat some of the snarky things we said in that person's lifetime after they are gone. It is a matter of manners, or if you will, values.

People sometimes do stupid things in their lifetimes. They can also do splendid things (like remembering to call a disabled relative of one of their friends and ask "how are you doing?", or making sure the young staff at work are able to succeed in their careers). Russert is being remembered for doing such things.

There are those who will never forget the stupid things.

But some of us live by what one of my old profs used to say, "If God grades on a curve, I think I'll make it".

If someone doesn't like that attitude, not my problem.

What a canard LT raises--as if correctly identifying the very real ways in which Russert played a part in multiple nefarious administration schemes in plain language is somehow "acerbic." Darrel didn't swear, didn't exaggarate, didn't insult.

Failing to either disclose your personal role in a major news story, or recusing yourself from reporting on it--and doing so for months on end as people sat in jail and others faced no sanction--is a journalistic crime of the first order. The only likely higher offense is fabricating a story or meaningful parts of one. Russert was a skilled interviewer, and selectively liked to play gotcha, but as others detailed was also a consumate pal of politicians and was often focused on horse race and peripheral issues.

The idea that one should wait a couple days before talking about a dead person is itself a touch cynical. What sense to falsely over-eulogize someone--particularly a public figure who most commenters will have never met--until such time as decorum determines that it's OK to go back to being honest again?

There is the sadness of one's passing, and the empathy for family members--of course. You can have that for almost anyone. But I think we're pretty safe that the Russerts aren't big BlueO readers, and so a moratorium on seeing the whole of a person for some acceptable period, before allowing for the recognition of flaws, seems like artifice.

It is quite something to see a bunch of blue commenters letting the media off the hook like this. Russert was a key drummer for Iraq. He admitted that unlike real journalists, his job was to keep his sources no matter what, and this was more important than revealing the truth.

Had they given him a simple, dignified eulogy, I would have kept my mouth shut. Am I the only one wondering what has happened with the midwest floods? Did bush do a pathetic flyover? Is FEMA there? How can MSNBC act like the passing of one of their buddies is more important than this news? Astounding.

In one sense death has given a victory to those who objected to Tim Russert's role in the media. Perhaps, they might consider the moral of Winston Churchill's history of the Second World War - In War: Resolution; In Defeat: Defiance; In Victory: Magnanimity; In Peace: Goodwill.

It is quite something to see a bunch of blue commenters letting the media off the hook like this.

Hopefully, most "blue commenters" have enough sense to realize that almost all journalists and pundits in the mainstream print and television media have their first loyalties to themselves and second to the corporations that give them their thirty pieces of silver for their dutiful services and that eulogies when they pass on should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

MSNBC has been covering this death 24/7, ignoring the real news such as midwest flooding, the fact that we finally got habeus back, and more.

And for the last week so-called progressives have been talking about relatively nickel-and-dime topics on Blue Oregon with practically nothing said about Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. This is a web site for "progressive Oregonians"? I'll ask again, "What does 'progressive Oregonians' mean?"

Isn't Dennis Kucinich that fellow who saw UFOs? Why would anyone trust him more than our dear President Bush? Not only that, but Kucinich is a vegan, so you know he hates America.

Anyway, impeachment's off the table. Nancy Pelosi, who has never seen anything fly she could not identify, said so. And if Nancy doesn't think impeachment is necessary, well then, I guess the administration really hasn't done anything seriously wrong. Right?

Bob T: Actually, too many progressives wouldn't even mention anything [really critical] like that [about Castro] ....25 years [after his death].

darrelplant:

That's just sheer garbage.

Bob T:

No it's not. They've had an embarrassing long-time love affair with this tyrant. A tyrant is a tyrant even if he provides so-called national health care and all that.

The same is being now for Hugo Chavez. He's not a Castro yet because he's slowly consolidating power, and we don't know where he'll stop -- didja read about his state intelligence service revamp last week? He does 100% more power-grabbing than Bush II has even dreamed of doing, but he shakes his fist at the U.S. so he gets a pass. If only Ferdinand Marcos had thought of that! Anyway, Castro actually imprisoned political opponents (the ones Che didn't "execute", I guess), and did so all these years, to name one thing, and snuffed out any opposition press, to name another. Those two examples alone should have been enough for the left to abandon him. I guess not. There I go, confusing "left" with "liberal" again.

Bob Tiernan

Bob T.:

A tyrant is a tyrant even if he provides so-called national health care and all that.

Bob, you live in a world of black-and-white dichotomy that dismisses the differences between dictators like Castro and Chavez who govern in the interest of their people with the kind of kleptocratic despot that the US so often supports with diplomatic cover and copious military and technological aid. Castro and Chavez are villains to the US government and media BECAUSE they put the interests of their people above those of multinational corporations and US geopolitical aims.

Lest you conclude I am a tyrantophile, I support the respect of individual rights in Cuba and Venezuela as strongly as I oppose US imperialistic meddling in those nations.

And if Nancy doesn't think impeachment is necessary, well then, I guess the administration really hasn't done anything seriously wrong. Right?

Given Nancy's performance to date she has proved two things: (1) She isn't quite as bad as Dennis Hastert, and (2) A woman in power is not necessarily an improvement in morality and ethics. She is much prettier than Tip O'Neill but apparently just as capable at playing dirty and cynical politics as he was.

In November vote the Democrats in. They are clearly the lesser evil. Right?

Folks, 1) this is a tribute topic----but what is really important is to argue about impeachment? Channeling all that energy into 2008 campaigns might be a better use of that passion.

2) Punishment for impeachment is removal from office. No one in this country would look at Speaker Pelosi supporting impeachment as supporting herself as President?

3) W and company will be out of office next January. A well run impeachment inquiry requires considerable time and at least 220 votes in the House--had new Speaker Pelosi said impeachment was on the table when she was sworn in, would there have been 220 votes supporting impeachment? Or doesn't that matter because by golly "progressives" are angry and they want impeachment discussed!?

4) Why wouldn't Congressional hearings gathering evidence be better than full blown impeachment? Would it be OK to have the country split apart as it was in the mid-1990s and in 1974 because at least we would be discussing impeachment and nothing else matters?

Is the goal to punish Bush & Co this year, or is the goal to elect Obama and 60 US Senators while keeping a majority in the House?

And how would acting on the impeachment articles change this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061600872.html?hpid=topnews

Judge Backs White House on Missing Emails

By William Branigin Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, June 16, 2008; 2:16 PM

A federal judge today dismissed a watchdog group's lawsuit seeking records on missing White House e-mails, ruling that the agency holding the records -- the White House's Office of Administration -- is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

In a 39-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said she reached that conclusion even though the office had previously considered itself an agency subject to FOIA and had provided records requested under the law from 1980 until August 2007. She sided with the office's argument that it does not meet a key requirement for a federal agency to be subject to FOIA, writing that the Office of Administration (OA) does not exercise "the type of substantial independent authority that the D.C. Circuit has found sufficient to make an EOP [Executive Office of the President] component an agency under the FOIA."

LT, until the above I had a fair amount of respect for much of what you have written, but "but what is really important is to argue about impeachment? Channeling all that energy into 2008 campaigns might be a better use of that passion." is pathetic.

What's the point in voting for the Democrats if they have as much contempt for the Constitution as McCain, Smith and the rest of the Republicans? If the stakes weren't so high, I might just say, "What's the point in trying to decide which is the lesser evil if they both don't give a shit about the Constitution?"

Bush and his administration have committed major crimes, not quite as bad as Hitler and Saddam Hussein, but getting up there. Or did you miss the news about the war in Iraq and its costs in lives and billions of dollars that could have been spent on meeting the needs of the people? Answer? No. I've been too busy working on Joe Sixpack to be our new dog-catcher.

After the Second World War ended and the Nuremberg trials were under way, would you have said, "Channeling all that energy into something else might be a better use of that passion."? After all, those six million Jews are all dead and these trials won't bring them back. If some woman in your neighborhood gets raped, would you tell the police it's over and done with and you guys would be better "Channeling all that energy into something else."?

In memoriam of a real journalist

If you really want to DO something about impeachment, rather than just arguing on a blog, here is something you can do. A Yahoo Group I belong to just sent this from Cong. Wexler.

There is an email address to send a letter to the editor to his local paper.

That is, if you want to actually do something rather than just get angry that not everyone shares your views.

Subject: Wexler Attacked for Impeachment Support - Help Respond!

Last Thursday the largest newspaper in my congressional district - the South Florida Sun-Sentinel - published an editorial lambasting my enthusiastic support for immediately holding impeachment hearings for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Numerous letters to the editor have also criticized my support for this movement.

Below, you'll find the original Sun-Sentinel editorial, followed by my response, which was printed yesterday.

I assure you that I will not back down from this fight – no matter the consequences or political cost. The only thing that maters is that we deliver accountability for the Bush Cheney Administration and defend our government and our constitution.

If you would like to write a letter to the Sun Sentinel, you can email [email protected].

Thank you for your continued support.

Robert Wexler

LT,

Every one of your arguments above is either silly or highly dismissive of the importance of government adhering to Constitutional limitations.

Impeachment hearings are likely the only process that can override the stonewalling of the administration. The message is simple: testify and release information, or you will be removed from office.

The belief that electing a Democratic president is more important than preserving constitutional government is naive, petty, and dangerous. The presidency is an office created by the Constitution, and it has no legitimacy outside of the Constitution. Or we just playing at politics here to pass the time?

I fear that the real reason Democratic leadership in Congress oppose impeachment is their own culpability in lying to the people and subverting constitutional governance and international treaty. If true, I have no more desire to protect them than I do to protect Bush and Cheney.

The oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Is there something in those clauses that you do not understand, or do you simply not care whether or not we have constitutional government?

There is an email address to send a letter to the editor to his local paper.

You're a day late as far I'm concerned, LT. I let the Sun-Sentinel have it yesterday.

Regarding Kucinich and impeachment: Dennis voted along with all the other DP "liberals" to move his own articles of impeachment into committee to die alongside his Cheney articles, so you Republicans have nothing to fear.

A related event not spoken about on BO is the principled stand by Ron Paul (who I do not support) to refuse to endorse the vicious hegemonist John McCain. Kucinich should announce that he will, like Paul, convene an alternative convention for progressive Democrats if he wants to prove his campaign was not just another attempt to keep progressives in the party prior to support of another corporatist/hegemonist like Kerry or Gore.

Those who think that support for justice, peace, and constitutional democracy are evidence of "purity partisanship" deserve the kind of government we have, but the rest of us do not.

Kevin,

I certainly do not want to see President McCain. Neither do I want a President Obama [and whoever comes after him] who can overrule Congress with signing statements, lie to wage preventative war, dismiss the Geneva conventions as quaint, abridge privacy rights without due process, and use government agencies to subvert science and law.

And really, if the nation can spend so much time, energy, and money on an occupation with no good purpose, and still support vigorous presidential campaigns, can we not spend time, energy, and money to restore the Constitution that gives legitimacy to whomever is elected?

As to Russert, he was better prepared than most of the TV talking heads, and he occasionally asked a tough question, but he was careful to remain within the "bounds of the expressible", as Chomsky describes the limitation of public discourse. If he had lived long enough to retire from the corporate media, he might even have said something as bold and truthful as did Dan Rather at the recent National Conference for Media Reform. This seems a different Dan Rather from the one who said to David Letterman, while still working for CBS in 2001:

George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.

It may be unfair to expect reporters to say things outside the corporate line supported by their employers, but that presupposes the understanding that we cannot expect the news media to fulfill the function seen by the founding Fathers for the Fourth Estate.

It seems to me that this is one of those times where, considering the alternative, electing a Democratic president is an imperative.

And it is like all the other times when the Democrats didn't feel it necessary to give the people a real choice. Someone not as bad as the Republican candidate will do.

Over at Think Progress an item on Bush's travel plans might be pause for thought. While everyone else is thinking this past trip to Europe was his last as president, he let slip some thought that he might be thinking about sticking around longer than planned as president. Get a war going in Iran and it will be too dangerous to change the commander-in-chief while three wars are active. As LT said above, "Channeling all that energy into 2008 campaigns might be a better use of that passion" could be changed to "Instead of channeling all that energy into the 2008 campaigns it might be better spent waging war."

The proper length of time having passed, here's a couple of realistic criticisms of the style and the lack of honest content provided by Tim Russert:

From the Trots: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/russ-j16.shtml

From the editor of "The Progressive": http://tinyurl.com/5ujt9g

It is instructive that we have been introduced on this thread to I.F. Stone. I was a subscriber to I.F. Stone's Weekly during the Viet Nam War. Between the Weekly and Ramparts Magazine I got just about all the real news I needed to understand the utter moral depravity and unctuous servility of the Washington press corps, including the then-current host of Meet The Press. Tim Russert broke no new ground with his efforts, merely replacing a panel format with a one-on-one format during most newsmaker interviews. Differences in style make no difference in content. Tim Russert's job was to support the interests of corporate America and the corporation's hired men in government. He did this task with aplomb and enough verisimilitude to conform to Stephen Colbert's concept of "truthiness".

In the end, I'm grateful to Jeff Cohen for the timeliness of his reprise of I.F. Stone's memory. http://tinyurl.com/5rzbsj

As one all-too-famous glad-handing politician might have put it to Russert: "Sir, you are no Izzy Stone."

[For the youngsters among us, here's a starting point on how real journalism is done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.F._Stone ]

Bob T:

A tyrant is a tyrant even if he provides so-called national health care and all that.

Tom Civiletti:

Bob, you live in a world of black-and-white dichotomy that dismisses the differences between dictators like Castro and Chavez who govern in the interest of their people....

Bob T:

Here we go! You mean like actually controlling information (news, media etc) that Castro had done for almost 50 years, and squashing dissent (really doing that -- not the imagined way you think Bush has done). Gosh, Tom, to see you defend that piece of sh*t really disappoints me. Who the hell are you to say that the people of Cuba needed to have their individual and even groups freedoms (assembly) squashed in order to preserve a single vision?

Squashing dissent and prohibiting real freedom of speech is just that, "interests of the people" or not. You've just told me a lot about the state of the left in the early 21st Century.

Bob Tiernan

Lest you conclude I am a tyrantophile, I support the respect of individual rights in Cuba and Venezuela as strongly as I oppose US imperialistic meddling in those nations.