....and has said that he listens to Rush every day on the limo ride to work.

FWIW.

TAKE ME TO YOUR MORAL LEADER! Brian Williams once said he loves Rush. Last Thursday evening, he proved it:
MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2007

TAKE ME TO YOUR MORAL LEADER: Brian Williams, expensively dressed, started things off at Thursday’s debate with a question for Candidate Clinton. Despite his excellent sense of humor, we’ve sometimes found the handsome anchor to be a bit of a public lightweight (links below). But his first question Thursday was basically fair—and it was highly topical:

WILLIAMS (4/26/07): Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?
You could argue that Williams had over-simplified Reid’s statement; according to his fuller remarks and his later clarification, Reid thinks the war is lost unless we incorporate attempts for a political settlement. But really, this first question wasn’t half-bad. And that should be our first, clear sign that this isn’t the question Williams asked.

What did Williams actually ask? What follows is the text of his full first question. It includes an astonishing swipe at Reid that is straight from the world of conservative talk—a gratuitous remark that typified much of Williams’ work this evening:


WILLIAMS (actual opening question): Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would wipe his boots with Senator Reid. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?


Good God! Nothing too “loaded” about that question! And no, we really aren’t making this up; in his first question on Thursday night, Williams quoted a letter-writer—accusing Reid of treasonous conduct! Sadly, foolish, poisonous letters like this are now an integral part of our discourse. Amazingly enough, this cry of “treason” became a part of the first question at Thursday’s debate!

Yep! Instead of simply asking his question—Do you agree with what Harry Reid said?—Williams constructed a lurid framework. Reid is “treasonous,” a letter had said. Patton would “wipe his boots” on him.

What a remarkable question that was! Aside from his treason, Mrs. Lincoln, how do you like your leader?

* * * *

Sadly, that name-calling letter was Straight Outta Limbaugh. But then, so were a lot of questions Williams asked Thursday night. (For the transcript of the debate, just click here.) For example, how about the elementary fairness of Williams’ second question:
WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, "dumb," close quote. Why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?


There again, not a horrible question by Williams—and therefore, not the question he asked. Here is Williams’ actual question. Could Hannity have framed it any better?


WILLIAMS (actual second question): Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, "dumb," close quote. How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much? And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?


Good God—what a perfect hack! Back in the fall of 2002, long before the war began, Obama said he opposed the idea, the wisdom of which was then being debated. “I don’t oppose war in all circumstances,” he said. “But what I do oppose is a dumb war.” When he spoke, no American soldier had lost his life; the wisdom of going to Iraq was still being debated. But so what? Five years later, Williams constructed a classic, dishonest “gotcha” moment; he made it sound like Obama had been parading around saying things that disrespected the loss of American lives. This sort of garbage-can framing can be seen each night—performed by Sean Hannity. And you could see it Thursday night too—in Williams’ second question.

Yes, the degraded soul of pseudo-con talk was present in that pitiful “question.” But then, how about this astounding question to Edwards, concerning that recent Supreme Court decision:
WILLIAMS: Our most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicated a majority of Americans approved of last week's Supreme Court decision to make so-called partial birth or late-term abortions illegal.

Most of the people on this stage put out statements and criticized the ruling. A lot of American families find this just a hideous topic for a discussion.

Is this a case, do you think, of the Supreme Court and the public with opinions in one place, and yet a lot of elected officials [i.e., Democrats] in another?
Good God! Unfortunately, that question has so many glaring problems it’s hard to get them all straightened out.

First, of course, Williams’ use of the term “partial-birth abortion” was a political choice. That’s the language of conservative pols, not of medical people. Beyond that, Williams’ conflation of “partial-birth” and “late-term” abortion was one of the many conceptual blunders the handsome hunk would author this evening. So-called “partial-birth abortion” is only one form of “late-term abortion;” the terms are not interchangeable. Yes, it’s a fairly minor point. But in the course of the debate, Williams would make many small blunders like this, as we will point out below.

But the most remarkable part of this question to Edwards was the section where Williams informed the world that “a lot of American families find this just a hideous topic for a discussion.” With this statement, Williams put his thumb firmly on the scale, producing an absurdly “loaded” question. Almost surely, his statement was technically accurate; the vagueness of the phrase “a lot” is very useful in spinning such matters. But once again, Williams had his thumb firmly on the scale as he offered this highly-charged aside. In this question, the word “hideous” played the same sort of role that “treasonous” had played earlier on. It served to put an obvious political slant on an otherwise valid question.

“American families” found this thing “hideous!” Edwards had criticized the Court’s decision—and here was Williams, plainly saying that this put him, and his fellow Democrats, severely at odds with these families. After all, “a majority of Americans” approved the Court’s decision, Williams said at the start of his question. But uh-oh! There too, he was tilting his presentation. In fact, he was making a claim about that new NBC poll that is just untrue.

In fact, it isn’t clear from that NBC poll that “a majority of Americans” agree with the Court’s new ruling. In its poll, NBC asked about the ruling in two different ways. And as NBC’s results clearly show, when pollsters mentioned the lack of “an exception for the health of the mother,” the public favored the Court’s ruling by a very slender plurality; 47 percent favored the ruling, 43 percent opposed it. (For poll results, click here.) Indeed, only 50 percent favor the ruling when results from NBC’s two questions are combined. But so what? Williams built an aggressive framework around his question, putting Edwards on the defensive. In his next question, he repeated his framework, asking for Obama’s “reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding.”

“American families” think this whole thing is “hideous!” Aside from that, Mr. Edwards, how do you like your opposition to this new, highly popular ruling?

* * * *

Let’s summarize. A letter-writer thought Reid was treasonous. And American families think Edwards is hideous. But then, Williams constantly built his questions around heavily loaded conservative frameworks. And his local co-moderator, WIS-TV’s David Stanton, seemed to be feeling the spirit too. Try to believe that he asked this groaner. No, we’re not making this up:


STANTON (4/26/07): Senator Clinton, if you were currently the president, would you defy the majority of American citizens and offer a form of amnesty for illegal aliens?


Good God—what perfect crap! You could hardly form a more “loaded” question about this topic; if Rush himself had been the moderator, he might have shrunk from this grossly unbalanced (and misleading) formulation. But Williams and his eager pal framed their questions like this all evening. Here was one of Williams’ gooniest—the question which closed the debate:
WILLIAMS: Senator Biden, a question for you. A friend of mine who's in the leadership of the Democratic Party says that if the party goes down a third straight time, what will happen is what he defined as modern-day extinction of the Democratic Party.

Putting yourself aside, perhaps, is there a winner on this stage tonight, and does your party have what it takes to reverse this trend and win the White House?


Assuring us that he was quoting a major Democrat, Williams pictured the party’s extinction—a perfect way to end the evening! But then, this was kid stuff compared to the earlier question in which he quoted Rudolph Giuliani, then assumed a fact not in evidence:

WILLIAMS: Senator, Rudolph Giuliani, a friend of yours from back home, said this week: Quote, "the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

Another quote: "America will be safer with a Republican president."

How do you think, Senator, that it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9/11 world has taken on so?
Because Rudy says something, we assume that it’s true? Williams seemed to assert that the public thinks of Republicans as their protectors against terrorism. (To state the obvious, this is a very central Republican talking-point.) Indeed, in his next question, to Senator Dodd, he asserted this premise again:


WILLIAMS: Senator Dodd, same question. How has this label been attached to the Democratic Party, that the Republicans will protect America best?
How has this label been attached to the Dems? Simple! In part, through the work of people like Williams! At THE HOWLER, we don’t blame Senators Clinton and Dodd because they weren’t prepared with the relevant data. (Neither one challenged Williams’ premise.)

But current data don’t support the premise Williams asserted. For example, in the most recent poll reported here on this subject, ABC News and the Washington Post asked respondents the following question: “Who do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism: Bush or the Democrats in Congress?” 39 percent favored Bush—but 52 percent favored Dems! But so what? Williams had weeks to prepare his questions. But here again, he asserted a highly tendentious conservative framework—a frame that was Straight Outta Rush.

Which leads us up to our basic question: Has anyone ever asked so many loaded questions in a presidential debate? Williams is a low-key, mannerly fellow, so it seems he can get away with this conduct; he can offer asides about treason in his first question, and liberals and Democrats don’t seem to notice. But routinely, Williams’ questions Thursday night made him sound like a tool of conservative interests. For example, he smuggled in a remarkable claim when he played gotcha with Obama:


WILLIAMS: You’ve promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals.

Aren’t you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?


Say what? In the course of asking Obama about the Rezko matter, Williams suggested that “many” of the other candidates had engaged in some undefined but “questionable” “kind of politics!” As we’ve said, Williams is so smooth and bland that you barely notice him making such claims. But in this question, he smeared the other seven candidates. And he managed to keep this up throughout the course of the evening.

His weirdly conservative frameworks were endless. Example: When Gore testified before the Senate about global warming, a string of Republican senators pushed the interests of the nuclear industry. We thought of that episode when we saw Williams ask another weirdly framed question:


WILLIAMS: Senator Gravel, your two terms in the Senate representing Alaska have sat on top of, of course, a huge reserve of oil. With the French system as the model, is the United States, in your view, woefully behind in its use of nuclear energy?
There’s nothing wrong with asking these candidates what they think about nuclear energy—quite the contrary. But this question was framed exactly the way the nuclear industry would have done. As presented, the question seems to suggest the answer being sought. Again, this was a classic loaded question—tilted the “conservative” way.

Finally, consider the following question for Clinton. Williams seems to have used only one poll to establish the fact he asserts at the start. Then, he assumes another fact not in evidence—a fact designed to embarrass:


WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, recent national polls indicate the majority of the general public has an unfavorable view of you, right now, at this point in time.

Why do you think Republicans are looking forward to running against you with so much zeal?


There’s no better way to waste everyone’s time than by asking questions like this at debates—questions about candidates’ standing in polls. (Later, Williams wasted time by asking Kucinich a similar question.) But in this question, Williams seems to be citing a single poll—the latest Gallup survey—in making his claim about Clinton’s unfavorables. And then, he assumes a fact not in evidence. Is it true? Are Republicans “looking forward to running against Clinton with so much zeal?” Williams can’t possibly know the answer. But it provided one more awkward framework. The always dreamy, handsome hunk kept this up all night.

* * * *

Many of Williams’ (and Stanton’s) questions bore unmistakable conservative frameworks. But beyond that, a surprising number of Williams’ questions were just flat-out dumb. We’ve noted the gentleman’s lightweight tendencies in the past, all the way back to 1999 (links below). But on Thursday, Williams seem determined to prove it all night long. In some instances, his odd questions seemed to baffle the candidates—sometimes provoking audience laughter at the hopefuls’ expense.

How poorly formed were some of his questions? The following question, to Biden, was a tad puzzling. But the question which followed was just flat-out dumb:


WILLIAMS: Senator Biden, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, what three nations, other than Iraq, represent, to you, the biggest threat to the United States?


In this question, Williams seemed to assert that Iraq “represents a big threat” to the United States. If meant seriously, that’s a slightly tendentious claim, and fairly odd as a matter of logic. (Technically, Iraq is an American ally.) But the question which followed was just plain stupid. But so what? Williams asked it:
WILLIAMS: Senator Gravel, same question: Other than Iraq, the three most important enemies to the United States?


Thinking he was asking the “same question,” Williams uttered a cosmic howler; he seemed to assert that Iraq was an “important enemy” of the United States. Has Williams heard that Saddam was overthrown? As noted, Iraq is currently a United States ally; we bring its leaders to the White House and offer them our fulsome praise. But so what? Given weeks to form his questions, Williams ended up making this odd presentation. Heroically, the candidates kept giving the answers they wanted in response to Williams’ odd questions. But the oddness of the gentleman’s reasoning and expression never seemed to flag.

Throughout the evening, candidates worked their way around Williams’ tendentious and puzzling questions. But for the record, several other questions included illogical or unexplained elements. A news junky would understand the reference to Putin in the following question, for instance. But other viewers wouldn’t know what Williams meant, because he didn’t explain his reference:


WILLIAMS: Governor Richardson, with your forays into diplomacy, four nominations for Nobel Peace Prizes, when you consider that President Bush said he once looked into the soul of Putin, how would you do things differently with Russia
?
It would have been easy to state that question clearly. For example, Williams could have said this:

WILLIAMS, REVISED QUESTION: Governor Richardson, President Bush once affirmed his faith in Vladimir Putin’s soul—in his good intentions as Russian president. But Russia continues to become less and less democratic. Would you do things differently with Russia? If so, what approach would you take?


Essentially, that’s the question which Richardson answered. In our suggested revision, we’ve also dropped Williams’ gratuitous puffing of Richardson, which may reflect that fact that the tax-cutting governor is many Republicans’ favorite Dem candidate.

That in mind, let’s return to Williams’ free-floating incoherence, which was on display all evening. How many people really knew what he meant when he posed this puzzler?


WILLIAMS: Second "show of hands" question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?


You could take that question in various ways—Kucinich raised his hand and answered—but it was remarkably incoherent, given the august setting. But incoherence was Williams’ friend all evening. When he got to the “elephants in the room” section (translation: “Things we hope you’ll find embarrassing”), he shared his concern about Edwards’ haircut. But his question omitted elementary facts about the recent, fatuous flap. No, everyone doesn’t follow this stuff. Almost surely, many viewers had no idea what Williams was talking about:


WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, you've spoken with great passion and energy and eloquence about the issue of povert y in the United States, your "two Americas" theme. And yet I want to read you a quote from the political journalist Roger Simon:

“Many people miss the point about the haircuts. The point is not the cost. John Edwards is a very rich man and could afford even a $4000 haircut. But why did he pay for his haircuts out of campaign funds?" Senator?

But surely, many viewers “missed the point” of Williams’ question—as he asked about a mini-flap he made no attempt to explain.

A few times, Williams’ hazy questions produced laughter from the audience—laughter at the expense of the candidates. For example, he drew a laugh at Richardson’s expense after a poorly-phrased question which asked the candidates to name a “model” Supreme Court Justice. (Williams wanted a model from the current Court, a desire he hadn’t expressed.) And clearly, Williams did actual harm with some of his hazy questions. Consider the following question to Edwards. Our query: Is this a type of question you’ve ever heard asked? Do English speakers talk like this? To us, this question seemed quite odd. It seemed to puzzle Edwards too:


WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, who do you consider to be your moral leader?


Huh? After what may have been a puzzled pause, Edwards began by saying this: “I don't think I could identify one person that I consider to be my moral leader.” Indeed, we’d been puzzled by the question ourselves; we don’t think we’ve ever “considered” some person to be “our moral leader,” nor have we ever heard a question phrased that particular way. You could probably ask some form of this question in a way which would be understandable. But Williams seemed to have gotten his language for this question from Mars: Take me to your moral leader, he seemed to be asking the candidate. But uh-oh! Over the course of the next few days, we heard talk-radio hosts trashing Edwards for the deeply troubling delay in his answer. Needless to say, this delay—perhaps caused by Williams’ oddly-phrased question—had let these deeply worried hosts see the problem Edwards has in addressing questions about moral values. Their frameworks come to us Straight Outta Limbaugh—and straight outta Williams’ odd lingo.

Take me to your moral leader? To our ear, this question came from Mars. But then, another question seemed to be written in a dialect we might describe as “Near English.” And this one produced the most-discussed Q-and-A’s of the entire debate:


WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?


“How would you change the U.S. military stance overseas?” Are we sure this debate was conducted in English? Everyone basically knew what Williams meant, and they answered the question accordingly. But uh-oh! This was a hypothetical question with several specific bells and whistles; it seemed to emerge from a 24 writing session. As noted, the candidates labored to answer it anyway—with later respondents gaining the advantage of having more time to consider the question’s twists and turns. In our view, this wasn’t a very good question either; its useless details may have struck Williams’ staff as brilliant, but such details actually tended to cloud the elementary issues involved in this matter. But the responses to this needlessly-complex question have produced some astoundingly banal (and dishonest) punditry. We will move ahead to that pitiful punditry in tomorrow’s post.



http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh043007.shtml

and can you defend those questions?

we sure could use the Daily Howler these days.

earlier. I remember seeing Williams on a late night show, many years ago, and he said he was a Republican. I ran across this thread while looking for that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6304713#6304978

of that debate.......... just do a search. It showed his true leanings


That being said the important thing about this story is not him especially but it opens up the important dialogue and reporting about the lies of the Iraq war not only the media's contribution to its gung hu support but now the ADMINISTRATIONS WAR CRIMES and lies also come up to public scrutiny.

Manning had an article written in the NY times in June on the problem of the media's embedding themselves with the military in Iraq and why he felt why she had to do what she did.

The Fog Machine of War
Chelsea Manning on the U.S. Military and Media Freedom

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinion/sunday/chelsea-manning-the-us-militarys-campaign-against-media-freedom.html


The Liberal blogger DIGBY also had a good take on the Brian affair and the media pimping the war. Also discusses Brian's pimping the war in Iraq.

'Brian Williams' RPG "Mistake" In Iraq Was A Wartime Gift '

http://digbysblog.blogspot.dk/2015/02/brian-williams-rpg-mistake-in-iraq-was.html


I see this Brian affair as a chance to bring up bigger issues
if we want to see the bigger picture and have him help connect the dots to wake up the populace.

His own opinions do not matter. He says what GE wants us to hear.

who are totally full of shit and like most talking heads kind of lost when the camera stops .

I think he is a very professional ass hole who stands for nothing but is pleasant

out when Bush was in office. At least, that's what Frank Luntz said. It was because his 'ideological bias' was 'undetectable' or something on those lines.

He's a lying sack o'poo-poo. Both parties have those.

the latest scandal about his lies reinforces that impression.

Or even neutral.

Brokaw and Russert sure weren't and Williams has credited Brokaw with recommending that Williams get the anchor slot.

But, the important thing to me here is not whether a rightist lied or a leftist lied. It's whether a nightly news anchor of a major television network lied. And we don't have to read tea leaves or speculate about that.

what are the odds he's conservative/Republican...1-5? 1-10? Pretty much a sure thing.

I'd even say the majority are not conservative.

Never met him though.

I asked because I was at some one's house last night doing some work for today and they had on Sean Hannity (I never listen to that shit) but Hannity was trashing him like he was Williams was a Democrat and I have never felt William's was liberal in any way.

....I distinctly recall on the horrible evening of the 2000 election. As Bush was battling to be supreme over Gore, Brian Williams referred to the Bush campaign as "us". Clearly identifying with Bush. I have never forgotten that blip.

say many google links.

Possibly one reason why he is now being thrown to the wolves.

He admits to listening to Rush because he knows how much Rush influences the loonies. It is a good thing when a reporter wants to feel out the pulse of the nation, IMO.

Frankly, if Brokaw and the other Bush family friendly NBC biggies want him out, I'm quite happy to throw my support Brian's way.