Poor Stephen Hadley. Poor Colin Powell. One idiotic memo. One humbling public appearance. And bingo, half of their obituary is already written: "But he will always be remembered for an excruciatingly humiliating episode..."

They can run all they want. They can never hide from that obit.

Have a nice day Mr Hadley and Mr Powell!

Hey, if Tim Russert didn't kiss the butts of his guests --and agree to not expose their deceit -- then how would he ever get guests on Meet the Press? Welcome to US journalism.

Any one recall Tim Russert having Richard Perle on Meet the Press in the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq? Tim Russert pointed out that Senator Bob Graham, Nancy Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein had all publicly stated that they had seen no evidence that Hussein was an imminent threat to the USA. At which point, Richard Perle interjected that they "had not seen all of the intelligence".

So WHY didn't Tim Russert ask Richard Perle AT THAT POINT to explain to American viewers exactly WHAT intelligence had not been seen by the above three members of COngress --given that all three were on the Senate or House Intel Oversight Committees and were entitled to have access to all intel? In the past, I've had 4 SCI clearances and I judged at that time that Richard Perle was deliberately lying through his teeth. Tim Russert must have realized it as well. So why didn't he expose Perle?

Instead, Tim Russert continues to get rich off our public airways while 3000 of our sons die in Iraq.

Hadley's logic and words had such gaping holes.  He delivered it all with a half smile that further undermined his attempt at gravitas and veritas.

I like the interviewing style Russert uses. Lay out each point mostly using the interviewee's own words. Let the interviewee answer the question, elude or deliverately mislead. Then let that answer, or not, speak for itself. Move on to the next topic to hit as many topics as possible in the short time available.

I agree with Todd. Mr. Russert presented Mr. Hadley with two sources that indicated that Al Quaeda is not the source of the violence and forced him to explain why the President continues to make those comments. Mr. Hadley was left to say that it was true because the terrorists were attacking the Shia and the Sunni and goading them into responding as an announced strategy by the now deceased Mr. Zarkowi. That was lame on several counts. The scariest part is that it seems to point to deep levels of delusion at the top of US policy making. I thought Russert's questioning and the response made that very clear.

The Russert/Hadley tapdance is available for viewing in its entirety here, and it is well worth watching for what it reveals about Hadley and by implication the other Bush honchos. Remember the banality of evil concept as applied to Nazi Germany? Watching Hadley I got the sense that what we are seeing at the top level of the Bush Administration is the banality of arrogrance, and the banality of mendacity. Mendacity and arrogance have become so routine that practitioners such as Hadley have become almost bored as they engage in their dark arts. And it finally seems to have gotten to Russert, who in the past has allowed the Bush spokesfolks to blather on without any challenge.

Er...I think Curveball's existence was still a state secret at the time Russert "squared-off" with the Prince of Darkness.

Neoboho

Oh, Please. One, the intel committees have access to "state secrets".

Two, I think even Tim Russert would have started grinning if Perle had been forced to admit that we were going to war based on a Chalabi source that had been given the code name "Curveball" by the CIA.

Don't you think the CIA has procedures to evaluate the truthfulness of sources? Have you ever taken a polygraph test? Especially with the knowledge that if the charts didn't look right, the electrodes might be placed somewhere else?

I see what you intended now. My apologies.