I was shocked - shocked, mind you! that I didn’t read this story on Honjii’s Harangues. Really. Honjii seems to celebrate criticizing President Bush.
See, NBC New’s Richard Engel interviewed President Bush. NBC aired the interview as taped, and then edited to present the parts they felt most important to their viewers. But that isn’t the end of the story. The following is an excerpt from a letter from Counselor to the President Ed Gillespie to NBC News President Steve Capus:
In the interview, Engel asked the President: “You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?”
OK, the counselor outlined the question that was asked.
The President responded: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.”
This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the “appeasement” line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not “negotiating with Iran,” (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Um. I guess the counselor is concerned that when President Bush disassembled the question that was asked, and pointed out the errors in the question, without actually stating clearly, “You misquoted me,” we are supposed to figure that this is a good response.
Let’s see. NBC News is in the entertainment business. If their coverage isn’t popular with their viewers, they lose their jobs. They base their work on facts, on analysis of world events, and on presenting the parts that they consider important for the day. So they ask about an angry rebuttal from the Obama campaign that the comment cited was a slur on Obama. That makes two good reasons that I see to ask the question.
Now, you know and I know that politicians lie and deceive. In this case, President Bush ducked the question completely. 1) He presented something vaguely related that he wanted to say. 2) He attacked the interviewer in an attempt to avoid being called on ducking the question - was the comment intended to disparage Obama or the foreign affairs philosophy that Obama appears to champion. 3) President Bush deliberately refrained from mentioning anything about Obama or Obama’s statements regarding appeasement. I find this ‘mild’ deception irritating, but almost expected.
Then the Counselor for the President expresses outrage that NBC News muddled the President’s reply. Um, with the President’s approval rating, just how likely are either of his supporters to be confused by how NBC News handled this interview? Does the President feel concerned about the message that everyone but those two supporters carry from the NBC News coverage (other than the part about ducking the question that was asked, using nit picking of the details to distract and deceive people that he was answering the question that was asked.)? It probably doesn’t matter at this point, but the letter from the Counselor to the President doesn’t actually state that President Bush is bothered, or is aware of the letter. It is signed:
Ed Gillespie
Counselor to the President
Back to the interview. OK, Richard Engle is no dummy - he knows that President Bush blew off his question. Out of courtesy to the President he follows the President’s lead into this new topic (which was a distraction, remember, to keep President Bush from answering about whether his remark was a comment about Barack Obama). Again, according to Mr. Gillespie, Counselor to the President (Umm, I guess he means the President of the United States, maybe Mr. Gillespie is also counselor to the president of Barack Obamas reelection campaign, and wants to keep the question of pie-in-the-sky foreign policy buried under garden fertilizer. The good Mr. Gillespie doesn’t say.).
Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, “Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?”
The President replied, “You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate – and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them.”
This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.
Once again, President Bush wanted to make his new bite about wanting to negotiate with Iran, that is Iran’s fault that the US is acting against them. (Umm, isn’t that something abusers and bullies do? “See, you made me hit you.” Sorry, just a thought.) And, like before, he ducked the question that was asked, with a distracting “and there is a lot of speculation”. All expected, all as usual for politics - state what you want to state, bend questions to state what you want to state, don’t worry about normal conversation traditions of respect. Like, be responsible and respectful enough to answer the question that was asked.
I know people that are angry about President Bush, people that hate him. I feel that President Bush is our president. He isn’t as bad as some have been, not as good as I would like, and doing a fair job. I can understand his low approval ratings. Unlike other presidents, President Bush lacks the ability to communicate and still be trusted and respected. It isn’t clear that he trusts or respects many people, anyway, so I guess that works out - to a low approval rating.
I just find this particular sequence of double-talk of Counselor for the President, quibbling over Presidential double-talk and press courtesy that let President Bush run out his own rope, interesting.
Please read Mr. Gillespie’s letter. NBC News published it (see the link above). NBC News also published their response. I find NBC News president Steve Capus - see, here they actually confirm which president’s office Steve Capus is representing (pay attention, Mr. Counselor for the President!) - Mr Capus is brief, clear, and sticks to the point. (Mr. Gillespie drifts into demanding NBC News’ stated opinion two years ago that Iraq was embroiled in a civil war, etc.) Rather than quibbling about the Counselor for the President’s quibbling about President Bush’s quibbling about Richard Engel’s question, Steve Capus states that he found the coverage, including the full Presidential response, adequate and professional.
I don’t feel like I got lost in this piece. That makes a nice change, from some days. I hope you followed the trail as well. Maybe we could talk the NBC News president and the Counselor for the President’s presumed president into trading jobs. I think that would be a great thing to try.