Meet The Press: Brokaw's "Fairness" Facts Pulled Out Of Thin Air To Make McCain Look Better

[media id=6470] [media id=6471] (h/t Heather) We've shown before that since his naming as Tim Russert's interim replacement how completely one-side

icon Download icon Download (h/t Heather)

We've shown before that since his naming as Tim Russert's interim replacement how completely one-sided Tom Brokaw has been in terms of Republican framing. But this truly takes the cake. After letting McCain spokesman (and Official WATB) Steve Schmidt let loose with a bunch of lies (more on that later) against Obama that campaign manager David Axelrod easily shows for the crap it is, Tom Brokaw in the interest of fairness cites an NBC/WSJ poll that says that more Americans think McCain is "best equipped" to be Commander in Chief.

AXELROD: What has happened is, as Sen. Obama predicted from the beginning, that we got distracted in Iraq and now Osama bin Laden, who is the person who attacked the United States, killed 3,000 American citizens is now resurgent. He is stronger and that is the result of the misbegotten decisions of John McCain and he stubbornly wants to continue, even as the Iraqis won't take responsibility, sitting on $79 billion of their own surplus, while we spend $10 billion a month. It doesn't make sense. We can't take more of the same, Steve.

BROKAW: In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note and that is that we continue to poll on who is best equipped to be Commander in Chief, John McCain continues to lead in that category, despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC/WSJ poll.

See, here's the problem, Tom. I have the latest NBC/WSJ poll (.pdf) taken September 19-22. Guess what? THOSE NUMBERS AREN'T IN THERE. Pulled out of thin air, or an orifice of your choice. In fact, in the MSNBC.com political coverage of this poll, the headline read: Obama Up 2 in NBC/WSJ Poll. So where exactly are these numbers, Tom? If you go to Gallup, the lead is even stronger (50 to 42%), which is pretty close to the numbers you attributed to McCain.

So Tom Brokaw -- in the interest of fairness to whom exactly, I'm unclear, since he is deliberately MISinforming the public -- tries to mitigate Axelrod's deft defense of Obama's judgment by lying and saying that most people believe McCain is still better equipped to be Commander in Chief. You can leave a comment at the Meet The Press Comment Form on Brokaw's campaigning on behalf of McCain.


↓ Story continues below ↓

And by the way, Schmidt's assertion that McCain called for Rumsfeld's resignation? Big fat, stinking lie. From the Obama campaign:

2008: McCain spokesman admits he never called for the resignation of Rumsfeld. "A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers." [Washington Post, 2/16/08]

2006: McCain Refused to Join Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation, Said He Would Work With Rumsfeld. "But the president has the right and earned the right as the president of the United States to appoint his team--and he has confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. I will continue to work with Secretary Rumsfeld as much as I can as long as he is secretary of Defense. We have to, because we need to win this war." [East Valley Tribune, 4/15/2006]

2004: McCain Refused To Call For Secretary Rumsfeld's Resignation. McCain would not call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, saying that the President "can have the team that he wants around him." McCain said that he respected Bush's decision to keep Rumsfeld around. McCain said, "I respect the president. The president of the United States was re-elected by a majority of the American people, and I respect his right. And I will work with the president obviously and with the secretary of defense." [MSNBC.com, 12/15/04; CNN.com, 12/5/04]

2001: McCain Echoed Rumsfeld on Case for War. During a November 2001 episode of ABC's Nightline Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA Director James Woolsey and Senator John McCain all made the case for invading Iraq, using the same misleading rhetoric. Rumsfeld said, "there is no question but that there has been a good deal of interaction between the terrorists in the Philippines and the al-Qaeda and people in Iraq." Woolsey agreed, saying "there's good evidence that [Iraq] has been involved in terrorist acts against the United States since--and quite possibly--September 11th and even possibly the anthrax." Given a chance to oppose Rumsfeld's strategy at the start, McCain echoed the Administration line: "There has been significant involvement on the part of the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein in the acts of terror that have been committed in the past." [Nightline, 11/28/01]

Lying liars and the media people who enable them.

Full transcript:

BROKAW: I'm going to end on two notes here, if I can, very quickly. We have a crowded agenda this morning. Let's go back to this business of winning in Iraq if we can. In fact, a number of people in the Republican side have said we're winning, but in an interview with the BBC, Gen. David Petraeus said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory" about Iraq.

This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade, it's not war with a simple slogan.

So isn't it misleading in many ways for Sen. McCain to say we are winning, we'll come home when we have declared victory?

SCHMIDT: Well, absolutely not. Here's what victory means in Iraq: it means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its borders and it means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its people that moves forward on its path towards democracy. This country was losing this war. Sen. McCain stood up to the Bush administration, called for the firing of Don Rumsfeld with his political career to advocate a strategy almost by himself that has led us to the edge of victory there. Sen. Obama opposed that strategy. In that debate, you heard not one time from Sen. Obama the words (sic) victory. We must win this war. This country doesn't have a choice. Sen. Obama's judgment on issues of security to this country, whether it is in Iraq or calling Iran a tiny threat or saying that...

AXELROD: Tom...

SCHMIDT: ...he would sit down unconditionally with the Iranian President, without preconditions make the world more dangerous. It is a fundamental consideration for the American people.

AXELROD: It is...it is...it is ludicrous to assert after four years of mistake after mistake after mistake, when he didn't challenge Mr. Rumsfeld, when he didn't challenge the Bush policy, when he cheerleaded for it to then say that he was a critic of ...[crosstalk]...just a, just a, just a second, just a second, Steve...

SCHMIDT: He did challenge Secretary Rumsfeld...

AXELROD: ...I let you speak, let me finish.

SCHMIDT: Not true...

AXELROD: What has happened is, as Sen. Obama predicted from the beginning, that we got distracted in Iraq and now Osama bin Laden, who is the person who attacked the United States, killed 3,000 American citizens is now resurgent. He is stronger and that is the result of the misbegotten decisions of John McCain and he stubbornly wants to continue, even as the Iraqis won't take responsibility, sitting on $79 billion of their own surplus, while we spend $10 billion a month. It doesn't make sense. We can't take more of the same, Steve.

BROKAW: In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note and that is that we continue to poll on who is best equipped to be Commander in Chief, John McCain continues to lead in that category, despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC/WSJ poll.

About Nicole Belle

Nicole Belle's picture
Mom, Wife, Media Critic/Political Analyst, Blogger, Austen Fanatic, Unapologetic Liberal NicoleBelle@crooksandliars.com

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.