A clinic for Tim Russert

Back in the pre Iraq war days, even pro-war people like Thomas Friedman wished that we had Tony Blair instead of Dubya to sell the war. One reason British politicians operate at a much higher level of verbal skills is because they have to deal with a much more aggressive media. There is no clearer example of the take-no-prisoners approach of British poltical interviewing than this transcript of an interview with John Reid, one of Tony's chief axemen, with the tenacious John Humphrys of BBC Radio Four's Today Program. It's a long transcript so lets pull out some highlights. The background is the much higher level of controversy (than the US) in the British mainstream media about the faulty intelligence on Saddam's WMDs. Reid had claimed in an interview with the London Times that some in the intelligence services were leaking to the media to make it look like it was all the fault of the politicians; he was particularly incensed about the implication that Downing Street had cooked up a claim that Saddam could have an atomic bomb ready to go in 45 minutes. The basic standoff in this interview is Reid demanding to know the BBC's source for the latter claim, and Humphrys demanding to know Reid's basis for claiming the spooks sabotaged the polticians. As usual, read the whole thing to get a sense of a good interviewer sticking to his point, and knowing his own sources -- a chump like Tim Russert would bail on any issue (except Monica Lewinsky) after two questions.

....
Reid: John, that is a lovely sleight of hand.

Humphrys: Well that's what you have been doing for the last eight minutes, if I may say so.

Reid: Well, you can say anything you like. It doesn't make it correct. It is a sleight of hand because this is the question at issue...We were accused of dishonesty, John...We were accused of forcing the security services to produce information in a public document in an attempt to dupe the people of this country by putting in false information.
....
Humphrys: Well, I'd love you to answer a couple of questions that I have got lined up for you this morning, if that is possible. Can I do that?

Reid: Of course you can.

JH: Let me ask you the first one then again and that is who do you think are these rogue elements within the intelligence services who are using this row over weapons of mass destruction to undermine the Government? Who are they?

Reid: Well, first of all they are anonymous, their position is not known, they have uncorroborated evidence. Up until this morning they were small in number.
...
Humphrys: Let's stay, let's stay, let's stay, may I stay ... because you want to move on again now and I am trying to hold you to this if I may, just to be a bit clear about this, because it seems to a lot of people that if there are these rogue elements within the intelligence services who clearly are doing quite a lot of damage to the Government if they are to look at the coverage of the newspapers and on the BBC and other news services over the past few weeks, clearly doing a lot of damage.

This is a very serious matter. What are you going to do about it?

Reid: Obviously, the first thing we have to do about it is try and convince people like yourself and the public that we are not guilty of the allegations. That they are unfounded, that they are uncorroborated and that they should be very wary of anything that comes not only from individual, isolated sources but which stands in complete contrast to what is being said by the whole of the rest of the intelligence services up to and including the leadership.
....
Humphrys: That would be fine, perhaps, if it was the odd disaffected intelligence officer, some junior figure somewhere or other who was dripping a bit of poison into somebody's ears...

Reid: They are anonymous. It could be a man in the pub.

Humphrys I rather think that people like {investigative reporter] Andrew Gilligan can distinguish between an intelligence officer and a man in the pub but there we are...

Reid: He did not actually say he was an intelligence officer. He said he was an official connected with the process of compiling the dossier. I mean, he could have been a printer.

Humphrys: Look, look, this is the point isn't it? ... There are very senior people in the intelligence services who have talked to journalists off the record certainly and for entirely obvious reasons.

Reid: I have not seen a shred of evidence...

Humphrys: Can I just finish the point I was trying to make?

Reid: Yes, but on that premise I do not accept it because there is not a shred of evidence...

Humphrys: You have not heard what I have to say...

Reid: You have already said there are very senior people in the intelligence services speaking to journalists in this fashion. I am contesting that. Let me see the evidence.

Humphrys: Well, let me tell you I myself have spoken to, ah, one or two senior people in the intelligence services who have said things that suggest that the Government has exaggerated, did exaggerate, the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

This is not something that has been got up by a few disaffected spooks for you seem yourself unable to explain.

Reid: Well, this is a new revelation to me, John. I don't know who you have spoken to.

All I can tell you is I have regularly spoken not only to the most senior - in plural - but the most senior at regular intervals in our intelligence services up to and including yesterday. And I can tell you they absolutely refute what is being said because not only is it an attack on the Prime Minister and politicians, it is an attack on the integrity of they themselves.