Stahl Disappoints in Greenspan Interview

This is a bit dated, but for a frustrating spectacle of puff piece journalism, watch Leslie Stahl’s interview with Alan Greenspan (or read the transcript). Over the twenty or so minutes, Stahl devotes more time to Greenspan’s love of the bathtub than she does to his 2001 Congressional testimony that basically endorsed the 2001 Bush tax cuts as fiscally sound (on the specious grounds that Congress had to do something to prevent the government budget surplus from getting too large). She spends more time joking with Andrea Mitchell (Greenspan’s wife) about Greenspan’s adorable nerdiness – mostly in regarding his appetite for sundry obscure economic data (e.g. the price of Canadian versus U.S. timber) – than she does exploring Greenspan’s dubious and narrowly economic rationale for supporting the Iraq war. In his memoir, Greenspan recounts telling President Bush that he had to invade Iraq to prevent Saddam from taking over the Straits of Hormaz and disrupting world oil shipments.

On the Iraq point, Stahl could have challenged Greenspan’s rationale in several obvious ways:
a) What was the evidence that Saddam was actually planning to do commandeer the Straits of Hormaz
b) Even if there was such evidence, were there not means short of war to deter Saddam from acting?
c) Why do the potential harms from Greenspan’s nightmare scenario justify the sacrifice of thousands of American and Iraqi lives?
d) Hasn’t the invasion done its own damage to world oil supplies?

Greenspan’s twisted history aside, my aim here is primarily to show that Leslie Stahl is a lightweight. Whether speaking with liberal or conservative figures, she consistently drifts toward the trivial. It’s disheartening to have to rely on such an unserious journalist to interview our most important public figures But such figures manage to survive (thrive!) in American journalism. One factual mistake - a la Dan Rather - you're out. Steady production of boring, largely uninformative fluff - you're golden.