White House angry over NBC edit of Bush response to question about Iran comment in speech

It is preposterous to think that a member of the fifth estate should have a real conversation with the President. It is appalling to think of the consequences if the American people really could engage--even by proxy--in meaningful dialogue with their leaders. Bush's speechifying throughout his "interview" saved us from the disaster that would ensue if we really knew what our leaders thought.

Engel asked a question. Courageously, Bush didn't answer it. Even though the sentences which were deleted from Bush's response do not in any way address the question, NBC should forthwith apologize for depriving the American people of the beauty of the Presidential bloat.

why don't they just stop letting NBC reporters in?

OK. Sarcasm aside, I don't see the White House's point.

The President was asked a question which he chose not to answer and the remarks which were deleted from his response do not constitute a mischaracterization of that response.

People may "need to read the speech" and Engel (is that the "you" that Bush was talking about? was it NBC? the media?) may not have gotten it "exactly right". Yes, the President did say we need to take the words of people seriously.

But then, shouldn't we also take the words of Obama seriously? And if so, what are we to make of Bush's whining allusion to a Senator who in 1939 said that all of that nasty Poland business could have been averted if only he could have talked to Hitler? What are we to make of the comment that sneers at the notion that peace can be forwarded by "ingenious arguments"?

This was the question that Engel was asking and this was the question that the President did not answer. He did, however, withhold any notice that he was not talking about Obama--if in fact he was not.

When does a war between factions and citizens within a country become a civil war?

I'm surprised at this reaction. During the first term when his door was wide open and every major news service had filtered news 24/7 and the Whitehouse loved it.

They'd make a lieing statement and the news media ran with it. Never checked out the facts. Just ran the story as fact.

Remember WMD?

"he ( Bush ) gets no ( respect )"

No, not from the liberal media. From the terrorists, yeah.

Bush stooped to a new low by playing partisan politics on the floor of the Israeli Knesset. His jabs at Obama should have been at home. And this comment, “And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously,” is a complete fabrication. This was never said. (Take the time to read this all the way through, tediously technical that it is: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm) Bush, it would seem, believes what he reads at face value, kinda like “Slam Dunk!” And here is what one NSA whistleblower has to say about the sources they rely on. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3311549 Not altogether that credible. To put it mildly. So, NBC, however you take them, probably did OK by editing out the Shrub.

Grouchy - Oh, for cryin' out loud, everyone knows Mahmoud "I'm in a jihad" Ahmadinejad said Iran would wipe Israel off the map.

www.iht/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php

everyone knows...Ahmadinejad said Iran would wipe Israel off the map.

Nope, they only think they know. Big difference. Most people get their information from the same deceitful sources. Indeed, "we need to take the words of people seriously.” We must understand the words that were spoken by Ahmadinejad. It seems too many do not!

Oh dear, the White House is upset over editing.

Is this the same White House that has long been editing top scientists' reports to downplay the danger of climate change?

Seems like editing is bad only when it paints the White House in a bad light.

And if you think the White House was dissed at NBC, just wait until they read the editorial in today's New York Times. Some more "editing" may be requested. "May 20, 2008 Editorial: Mr. Bush’s Travels

President Bush’s visit to the Middle East last week offered a graphic primer on his failed policies — and the many dangers his successor will face.

The Peace Process: In Israel, President Bush spoke again about his vision of a two-state solution with Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in peace. But after ignoring the conflict for seven years, the negotiations he opened in Annapolis last November have made little apparent progress. And Mr. Bush did not use the trip to press either side to make even minimum concessions.

The Israelis need to halt all settlement activity. The Palestinians need to do more to end attacks on Israel. The United States needs to be ready to press compromise proposals, something Mr. Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, show little interest in doing.

After a three-day stay in Jerusalem, Mr. Bush met the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in Egypt — not Ramallah — a fact that was duly and angrily noted by Palestinians. The next president will have to make a much stronger, and earlier, commitment to the peace process, appoint a more skilled and creative team of advisers and resolve to be a more sensitive and honest broker than Mr. Bush.

Saudi Arabia: Two months after Vice President Dick Cheney went to Saudi Arabia to plead for increased oil production, President Bush was there making the same pitch. The Saudis were only slightly more accommodating, agreeing to a modest increase that will do nothing to lower prices at American gas pumps or America’s dependence on imported oil. Such special pleading is unseemly. The next president is going to have to do a lot more to reduce America’s consumption of fossil fuels, and its dependence on the Saudis.

Lebanon: While Mr. Bush traveled the region, Lebanon’s pro-Western government was losing ever more ground to Hezbollah. Mr. Bush offered little help to the prime minister, Fouad Siniora — once a poster boy for Mr. Bush’s claimed rising tide of democracy — beyond promising to speed delivery of American military aid and urging Arab leaders to rally to Mr. Siniora’s side.

Mr. Bush is still stubbornly refusing to talk with either of Hezbollah’s backers — Iran and Syria — and accused all those who urge direct negotiations of appeasement, a barely veiled attack on Senator Barack Obama.

Mr. Bush has strengthened the region’s radicals with his failed Iraq war. And his refusal to talk has also made it easier for Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions. The next president is going to need a better approach.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan: In Egypt, President Bush also met with leaders of the three countries that will present his successor with the greatest challenges: planning and executing an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and helping nuclear-armed Pakistan defeat those same extremists while not unraveling. He made no progress on any of these dangerous fronts.

Americans need to hear from the presidential candidates — now — about how they plan to reverse this disastrous legacy."

Grouchy, the above editorial simply tells highlights what the vast majority of us have known all along - that President Bush has been an incompetant disaster for the U.S.

But amazingly, this editorial will likely come as a bat-out-of-hell shock to the Republicans on this board. :-)

The sooner America get a real president who is willing to put America first rather than bolstering terrorist states, working to bankrupt the U.S. economy, fuelling terrorism worldwide and denying the very real threat of climate change, the better.

I'm guessing Al Quaeda will offer Bush & Cheney high-ranking positions after next January 9th - the U.S. president and his serial draft-dodging sidekick have done so much good for AQ, it will come as no surprise...

And let's not forget that if Engel had really wanted to be unkind, he would have asked follow-up questions. Unless, of course, it was not permitted.

Let's get to this. According to Newt Gangreenich, Bush was not pointing out to Obama, but more to the masses who feel we should not follow the experience of the past...

Now, this little trivial issue has taken over the air waves and every five mins showing up on our TV...

But, this can actually work more against Obama than what many here think... If they keep talking about the past, and minimizing their talks to North Korea, Libya, etc..., it could turn out to have a negative effect on Obama and Hillary can use it.

Well now the White house know how the world feel when they have been editing the truth throughout history. Cant trust the white house or the news. What a joke. Glad i'm not from that part of the world

skipthesong,

I'd have to disagree with you there.

In the first place, I don't think it is possible to follow experience. I think it is possible to be guided by it and if that is what you mean, then we would agree on that point. However, each experience is unique and we cannot simply apply cut-and-paste solutions.

Secondly, I don't think there are any masses who feel that we should not be guided by experience. I vociferously disagree with the approach that Bush has taken, but it is not because I think we should not be guided by experience. It is more that history shows me something different than it appears to show Bush. I think that people who disagree with Bush have a different take on what experience actually shows.

Finally, I don't think he was pointing to masses at all. He was pointing to a time of world conflict, he was pointing to a US Senator who believed that we should talk to our enemies, and he was scoffing at the notion that dialogue with dictators could be productive. I think we would have to be ill-informed not to notice that this is a time of world conflict and that there is a tremendously popular US Senator who believes that we should talk to our enemies and that such talks can be productive.

Engel asked Bush quite unequivocally whether he had been pointing to Obama. Bush answered neither yes nor no. He gave a weasel answer and is now arguing that his weaselishness misdirection has been misrepresented. I for one am mildly incensed at the cheekiness of a man who in 7 some years has not demonstrated much competence.

Sez,

"I for one am mildly incensed at the cheekiness of a man who in 7 some years has not demonstrated much competence."

More like he has demonstrated total incompetance. Bush wasn't fit to run a drive in burger joint, let alone be president.

It's strange that despite his failed tenure, the few remaining angry supporters become incensed when you mention the 20% bit.

There was a time when the media reported the news now they are nothing more than propaganda arms for either party.

If the media was equally distributed then it would be less a problem. People would get a fair share of information/disinformation and can decide on what to believe and what not to believe.

For now, the majority of the media is shilling for the Democrats. Advantage Democrats.

If the media was equally distributed then it would be less a problem. People would get a fair share of information/disinformation and can decide on what to believe and what not to believe.

The problem today is that too many Americans opt to get all their information from sources which cater to their own biases. This is particularly evident in the blog era. As a result, they simply need to nod as they read (or listen) and their critical thinking skills atrophy. Citizens have some responsibility to be informed, rather than simply becoming parrots, and that requires obtaining information from a variety of viewpoints.

Actually the press has been about as partisan as can be imagined ever since Gutenburg invented movable type. The idea of a free press is believeable, the idea of a fair press is a fabrication brought on by the media to try to bolster their sales. In fact on local issues I have found the press to be more interested in a splashy story than in helping disseminate information and try to achieve social harmony. Let the press get into any issue - union negotiations, the selection of a new college president, what color to paint a bridge - and their goal isn't to help arrive at a reasonable solution. The goal is to create controversy and sell papers or boost ratings or whatever.

Any politician should understand this and taylor their responses accordingly. What makes Bush appear so incompetent (as he seems to be) is his inability to speak clearly and in short, succinct phrases. This leaves him wide open to this type of thing.

Of course that's not to say that the media would never stoop to editing a quote to stir the pot or to promote a certain political agenda!

I guess they spend a lot of time on damage control.