It all started when Russert asked him about the now-infamous Q&A session in Iraq. Just like other media outlets, as I discussed here, Rumsfeld response to a question about armor for tanks was taken out of context by Russert.
After Russert showed "selected" clips of Rumsfeld's response, here's what transpired:
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Yeah, but wait a minute. Let me get into this a little bit.
MR. RUSSERT: Sure.
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: That was unfair and it was selectively taking out two sentences from a long exchange--there it is--that took place. And when you suggested that that's how I answered that question, that is factually wrong.
MR. RUSSERT: No, we...
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: That is not how I answered that question.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Mr. Secretary, it clearly represents the exchange and...
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: It does not.
MR. RUSSERT: All right. What is missing?
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: You want to hear the exchange? There is it. It's right here. I'll read it to you.
MR. RUSSERT: I just...
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: If you're going to quote pieces of it, I'll give you the exchange.
Now, that answer is totally different from picking out two lines. And I think it's an unfair representation and it's exactly what some of the newspapers around the country did. Now, let's go back to Susan Collins' comment, Senator Collins...
The Pentagon chief predicted that by mid-February "there will not be a vehicle moving around in Iraq outside of a protected compound with American soldiers in it that does not have an appropriate level of armor."
But Russert replied: "Which is a pretty dramatic change, because Newsweek had said that, of the 19,000 Humvees in the Iraqi theater, according to the Army's latest numbers, only a quarter were fully armored. So the fact is that Specialist Wilson's question in front of his troops in which he was cheered was helpful in getting people to truly focus and respond to this. Fair?"
To which Rumsfeld responded: "Well, you saw my answer."
Rumsfeld's full response sure changes things, doesn't it? How would Wilson's answer "change things" when this had already been in the works for months? Rather, Mitchell wanted to make it seem that Wilson's question from the start made that much difference in things, when it really didn't (or at least there's no evidence that it had from Rumsfeld's interview with Russert).MR. RUSSERT: Which is a pretty dramatic change, because Newsweek had said that, of the 19,000 Humvees in the Iraqi theater, according to the Army's latest numbers, only a quarter were fully armored. So the fact is that Specialist Wilson's question in front of his troops in which he was cheered was helpful in getting people to truly focus and respond to this. Fair?
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: I didn't criticize his question. I thanked him for his question.
MR. RUSSERT: No, but is that a fair statement?
SEC'Y RUMSFELD: Well, you saw my answer. We'd already been focusing on it hard. I mean, I answered it by saying we had teams of people in Washington working on it, General Whitcomb was working on it.
I'm not advocating journalists provide entire passages quoting people or writings, but I don't think it's asking too much for them to quote them in the proper context, even if it means taking up a LITTLE more space in the newspapers and in the broadcasts. I think accuracy should always trump being "piffy", as Bill O'Reilly would say.
