Hopefully your mind wasn’t wandering while I was talking with Marco.
Because—how shall I put this?—he probably already knew everything I said to him.
But you, very likely, didn’t.
Do you know how many times you interrupted him in that interview segment?
Nine times, dude.
You sounded like the school marm interrogating a frightened nine year old child, determined to extract a confession that he had, indeed, written those horrible words on the bathroom wall and…
Enough about me.
This interview, despite what your fellow journalists are telling you, was not your finest hour.
Good interviewers don’t interrupt. They ask questions and listen to the answers.
Good interviewers look for understanding, not forced conformity to The Narrative.
Besides, as you’ve found out now, this time The Narrative is false.
Not only that, but your insistence that Rubio was inconsistent is also false.
Look at the questions:
- “Was it a mistake to go to war in Iraq?”
- “If you look at the Iraq war, after finding out there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you, if you knew that, have been in favor of the Iraqi invasion?”
Those are two different questions, calling for two different answers.
Somehow that reality was so far beyond your analytical abilities at the moment—or so filtered by your biases—you weren’t even open enough to let Rubio explain himself.
Here’s the deal:
You’re the broadcast professional.
How many more hours have you spent before the cameras than Marco Rubio?
You have home court advantage.
And fewer excuses.
You should have asked him what he meant in these two exchanges.
Ask him to explain the two different answers.
Then asked him what lessons can be drawn for today.
Instead of making him dance to your narrative.
Weapons of mass distraction
Why, as Iraq and the rest of the surrounding region are falling apart, do you and your fellow journalists focus at that one point in time when the Congress authorized Bush to invade?
Why do you not focus on the years that Saddam was building weaponry—and then we were shocked at how far he had come?
Why do you not focus on those years when Saddam used gas on his own people?
Why do you not focus on the Surge?
Why do you not focus on the dereliction of duty our president showed in abandoning Iraq when it was on the verge of stability—but only if we committed to staying there?
Your analysis and forced-lessons-learned are doing nothing except taking attention away from what needs to be done now.
You have a lot of talent.
Next time you have the privilege of interviewing a candidate for president of the United States, I’d like it if you made better use of it.