pure bs speculation: DO NOT LEND ANY CREDENCE TO WHAT IS BELOW

I had a long entry lost to cyberspace.

Bush and Russert on Meet the Press this weekend. There has been a lot of speculation about what Russert will ask Bush, but history is any guide, Russert will be sticking to the Beltway Brat Pack's Script.

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post lets us know the gravitas of the interview in no less than three separate articles.

It's pretty funny that the second and third links to Kurtz's musings are VERBATIM until he 'borrows' material from other sources. That's what I call resourceful!

There is one paragraph that I find amusing:

The president has stepped up his television presence over the past year or so, granting interviews to ABC's Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters, NBC's Tom Brokaw and CNBC's Ron Insana. But at a time when he has dipped in the polls and is on the defensive over the failure to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, "Meet the Press" and its audience of 5 million represents a roll of the dice.

Well sure, even ONE unscripted interview is a major step for president Bush. A roll of the dice? Hardly. Even if Russert really pitches tough, an hour of Sunday television isn't likely to move the goalposts one way or the other. Nothing short of an announcement that bin Laden has been captured is likely to 'move the sticks'(continuing the sports analogies)

Diane Sawyer has been the toughest on Bush thus far. I think it only matters to pundits and late night television hosts what Bush says or doesn't say on Sunday.

Note: I did thoroughly enjoy this bit of the Sawyer/Bush exchange:

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still ?

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

DIANE SAWYER: Well ?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de ? dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.

After that sterling performance, I have to wonder about the wisdom of Bush appearing on a program where it is typical that the host uses statements and video of his guests to illustrate the difference between their rhetoric and reality.

Oh well, maybe Russert will slow pitch Mr. Bush.

I think it all boils down to this. Given all of the revelations of late about WMD, the greater Iraq issue, Plame, stonewalling the 9/11 commission, and whether Iraq really was a 'side road' in War On Terror™, Bush can only do himself harm if Russert does a journalistically responsible job.

Fun Google link Let's hope we get some real color to that issue.

That's my speculation for today. Bush can only hurt himself barring some Earth moving revelation.