Meet the press sunday september 16 2012

Meet the Press - Wikipedia

meet the press sunday september 16 2012

WASHINGTON DC, SEPT. 16, .. TAPPER: And, Christiane, just looking forward, the United Nations General Assembly meets this week and there's a lot of tension right . So I hope very fervently that they will continue to push this hard . Click on a link below for information on Meet the Press shows. December Dannel Malloy, Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Bennett, David Brooks . i ( HDTV) (–present). Original release, November 6, ( ) – present. External links. Website. Meet the Press is a weekly American television news/interview program broadcast on NBC. . He took over as moderator of Meet the Press on December 8, , and remained with the program until his.

Its name was changed to Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and, at his suggestion, went to an hour-long format in The show also shifted to a greater focus on in-depth interviews with high-profile guests, where Russert was known especially for his extensive preparatory research and cross-examining style. One approach he developed was to find old quotes or video clips that were inconsistent with guests' more recent statements, present them on-air to his guests and then ask them to clarify their positions.

With Russert as host the show became increasingly popular, receiving more than four million viewers per week, and it was recognized as one of the most important sources of political news. Time magazine named Russert one of the most influential people in the world inand Russert often moderated political campaign debates.

John ChancellorRussert's NBC colleague, is credited with using red and blue to represent the states on a US map for the presidential electionbut at that time Republican states were blue, and Democratic states were red. How the colors got reversed is not entirely clear. Russert testified previously, and again in United States v.

Lewis Libbythat he would neither testify whether he spoke with Libby nor would he describe the conversation. Russert testified again in the trial on February 7, If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission. Times wrote that, "Like former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Russert was one of the high-level Washington journalists who came out of the Libby trial looking worse than shabby.

'12 Meet the Press transcripts, resources, video

All the litigation was for the sake of image and because the journalistic conventions required it. It's our best format. I don't think the public was, at that time, particularly receptive to hearing it," Russert says. Those in favor were so dominant.

We don't make up the facts. We cover the facts as they were. Folkenflik went on to write: Russert's remarks would suggest a form of journalism that does not raise the insolent question from outside polite political discourse—so, if an administration's political foes aren't making an opposing case, it's unlikely to get made.

In the words of one of my former editors, journalists can read the polls just like anybody else. My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them. Now to this looming nuclear threat from Iran from the Israeli perspective. There were new tensions between the Obama administration in Israel this week. Earlier, I spoke with the prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu about where things stand and whether he is trying to influence the outcome of our presidential campaign.

Good to be with you, David. You spoke about that this week, and this question of whether Israel has to take matters into its own hands. And you launched pretty pointed criticism at the United States. I want to play a portion of what you said. The world tells Israel, wait. And I say, wait for what? Prime Minister, I want to understand very clearly what your views are. Is it your view that the Obama administration is either unwilling or unable to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?

Now first of all, President Obama and the U. And I think that that remains our position. And for me, the issue is-- as the prime minister of a country that is threatened with annihilation by a regime that is racing a brutal regime in Tehran that is racing to develop nuclear bombs for that and, obviously, we-- we cannot delegate the job of stopping Iran if all else fails to someone else.

That was the main point that I was saying there. It was directed at the general international community. You know, the danger of acting is much greater than not acting. And I always say the danger of not acting in time is much greater because Iran with nuclear weapons would mean that the kind of fanaticism that you see storming your embassies would have a nuclear weapon. You were upset with this administration.

And so my question still stands. Is it your view that this administration is either unwilling or unable to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? Conversely, when there was no American red line set before the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and maybe that war could have been avoided.

And I can tell you David that Iran has been placed with some clear red lines on a few matters and they have avoided crossing them. That was the point that I was making.

meet the press sunday september 16 2012

As a prime minister of Israel, has Iran crossed your red line? Well, the way I would say it David is they are in the red zone. That seems to be a newer development from your way of thinking that they are now in a red zone. Is Israel closer to taking action into its own hands? We always reserve the right to act.

But I think that if we are able to coordinate together a common position, we increase the chances that neither one of us will have to act.

9/11 Meet The Press With Dick Cheney NBC September 16, 2001 10:45am - 11:00am

Your criticism, your calling on President Obama to set this red line, comes in the middle of a heated presidential campaign. You understand the American political system very well. Would he take a harder line against Iran than President Obama in your judgment? But as the prime minister of Israel, knowing that this country committed to our destruction is getting closer to the goal of having weapons of mass destruction then I speak out.

I just talked to him the other day. We are in close consultations. Well, but it may not be a partisan issue. You have known Mitt Romney a long time. The reality is-- tell me if you disagree that Governor Romney just in an interview this week said that his position is very much the same as President Obama. They are both committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Not just as an impartial observer, as the prime minister of Israel, do you agree with that that both the president and his challenger have the same view with regard to preventing Iran from going nuclear?

I have no doubt that they are equally committed to preventing that. We are united on this across the board. There are those in your country and in the United States who believe that a containment strategy would actually work?

I think Iran is very different. They put their zealotry above their survival.

'This Week' Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice - ABC News

They have suicide bombers all over the place. But Iran is guided by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism. You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons? Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East-- stabilize the Middle East.

I-- I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity. We have to stop them. That is not the American policy. It would be wrong. It would be a grave, grave mistake. Prime Minister, one more question on the American election. You have been accused this week by pundits in this country of trying to interfere in this presidential election, siding with Governor Mitt Romney. It was, it is, and will be and will continue to be. In fact, we cherish the bipartisan support of Democrats and Republicans alike.

This is critical for us. There are tens of millions of Americans who are watching that speech, who hear that rhetoric, who hear that charge, who may not understand the complexities of this issue. You are the leader of the Jewish people. You say this is not a partisan issue.

You get billions of dollars from direct foreign investment from this country, hundreds of millions of dollars from Americans, Jews and Christians alike from this country.

It seems to me for you to remain silent on whether this administration has thrown Israel under the bus is tantamount to agreeing with the sentiment. So where do you come down on that specific charge against President Obama? My position is that we-- we have strong cooperation. So President Obama has not thrown Israel under the bus? I think the important question is where does the-- the only bus that is really important is the Iranian nuclear bus.

This anti-American and indeed anti-Israeli rage throughout the Middle East attacking our embassy, killing a United States ambassador as you well know. What has been unleashed and what can United States and its allies specifically do to contain it? Well, look, I-- I-- I think people focus on the spark. They view that as an intolerable crime. And we have to understand that. We have to deal with it.

And we have to be the close support because in-- in this vast expanse of land, you can understand why they are so-- so antagonistic to us because for them we are you and you are us. Finally, prime minister, did you feel snubbed not getting a face-to-face meeting with President Obama in New York during the upcoming U. Would you like to have that face-to-face encounter? Would it be helpful to your relationship at this point? I come to New York and he leaves New York. But we continue in close consultations.

We have urgent business, Israel and America, to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Prime minister, thank you very much for your time. Thank you, to all of you. Coming up next, our political roundtable on the political impact of this turmoil in the Middle East. Is it a case of weakness on the part of this administration?

Did Governor Romney go too far in that criticism? Coming up our political roundtable. Was this week that 3: What is his response to the turmoil in the Middle East say about his readiness to be president? Our roundtable weighs in up next after this brief break. Congress, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison.

Welcome to all of you. These are very difficult times for this country and for the Middle East. Why is this happening? Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, launched a very serious attack that indeed Governor Romney amplified on. And she wrote in the Wall Street Journal--I want to show it to our viewers and get discussion about it here. In too many parts of the world, she writes, America is no longer viewed as a reliable ally or an enemy to be feared… Nor do our adversaries any longer fear us.

Ask the mobs in Cairo who attacked our embassy or the Libyan mobs who killed our diplomats at the U. Ask the Iranians who make unhindered daily progress towards obtaining a nuclear weapon. Well, I mean, a couple of quick points. You-- you-- you have a complete upheaval in the Middle East. So-- so to blame the president for-- for an attack on-- on these embassies, I think, is a bit much.

Is that the Republican view? Is that what the view of President Romney would be? Well, my view is it was a large component of it. It's been apologetic, and it's been misguided. He was given a glide path in Iraq. And yet he pulled the troops out, brags about the fact that troops are out, gives a definite date for getting out in Afghanistan.

And the fact that you would have the prime minister of Israel on this show explaining his relationship with the president of the United States at a time of such turmoil in the Middle East, we have never had a situation like this where there has been such a disconnect between the U. Well, to-- to be fair, the prime minister of Israel did not describe that as a stub-- snub in that interview.

The president has been consistent. And he's had progress in the policy wins in the Middle East. I mean, this is a seriously deeply rooted phenomenon, the Arab Spring that is going to be unfolding for a long time.

And the last thing we need is to start making quick emo-- emotionally-charged decisions. We need consistent steady leadership like the president has shown. But there is a policy component, Andrea and Bob, to this. The New York Times writes about it in an analysis piece this morning. I want to put a portion of that on the screen because it does provide some context here. The upheaval over an anti-Islam video has suddenly become Mr. Did he do enough during the Arab Spring to help the transition to democracy from autocracy?

Has he drawn a hard enough line against Islamic extremists? Did his administration fail to address security concerns? So, Republicans as well as Democrats have had difficulty, Congressman, in the past with Israel. I think there can be a legitimate criticism that this president has not handled the Israeli-Palestinian issue well, but the Arab Spring has been a much greater, much broader troubling issue that arguably not any American president could handle very effectively.

That is not the argument. That is not the policy argument that-- that Mitt Romney has made. That is the criticism… REP. But silence is often a good choice. Peggy Noonan said that as well. What about waiting until you know more? I mean, what about Reagan? Reagan said, you know, when we have a crisis like this, we should all come together as Americans and not sort of-- divide up politically and try to seek a-- a point.

You know, sometimes wait… REP. That was in-- that was a-- that was a sad moment. President Obama waited three days after the underwear bomber before he made a statement, and then he came out and said, this was a sole individual… GREGORY: All right, let me get Bob to weigh in.

The extremists in the Middle East who are causing all of this trouble are extremists. And no Republican, no Democratic president is going to be able to control them. Ten people are going to come together and take over an embassy, shoot someone and so forth. Is this about the United States or is it about them? Hundred-- in the last week, hundreds of Syrian Muslims have been killed by the Syrian regime. We-- we have to start talking about the American street too, because this is going to have consequences for these governments that we support.

This is a good time to realize that the so-called Arab street is not one monolithic thing. You have some people in, say, Libya, for example, who are pro-- holding up signs, apologizing for what happened to Chris Stevens.

We have some of them. You have some radicals who want to push back. Some con-- some of-- some loyalists from the old regime, some extremists, who want to exploit the situation, and you have people who want a Democratic society. But-- but how do we appeal to the wrong people in the Middle East by somehow exalting this whole-- this whole idea of the video being the cause of the-- of the riot?

It's not a cause.

  • 'This Week' Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice
  • Tim Russert
  • Coming Soon

But for us to be saying somehow putting that on the equivalence of the American policy or to say that our policy in this country can be determined by a fanatical Christian minister in the South or radical Islamist mobs in the Middle East, then I think, the president can do more.

I-- I agree with that. But, Congressman, is it responsible for Mitt Romney to say that a President Romney could have stopped this from happening? Why Unintelligible with President Morsi? The president did not mention that. But when the president called-- but when the president called, Morsi listened. But for the single cross talk said nothing about it… REP. No, everyone is being critical of Mitt Romney. President Obama made his statement, he did not even mention the failure of leadership in Egypt.

I think that it is easy for the administration to try to point to the film. There is a much broader issue, as Jeffrey and-- and Bob has-- have been pointing to. The world is changing and it is changing too rapidly for any American leadership to figure out what to do. There is going to be a big argument over foreign aid, you know that. And whether or not that is even a sensible argument is another question. They have a big problem with Morsi. Morsi needs economic aid.

meet the press sunday september 16 2012

He wants to give a speech here in 10 days.