Why Ed Gillespie Doesn't Have A Leg To Stand On

Ed Gillespie is mad as hell and he's not gonna take it anymore! Evidently he's been storing up all sorts of affronts against the Bush administration committed by NBC News, like when you finally explode at your roommate for forgetting the put the milk back in the fridge when really you're also yelling at leaving dirty dishes in the sink or using your toothbrush or, um, being too loud. There's only one problem: He's pretty much wrong on every count.

Grievance #1: The Interview

NBC's Richard Engel conducted an interview with President Bush for "NBC Nightly News." Like pretty much every other interview ever conducted in history, that interview was edited for time, space and relevance. Thanks to the internet, the full interview is available online but that doesn't change the fact that on the air, a newscast only has about 22 minutes to work with. The interview clocked in at 15:20. Ergo, some had to be cut.

Here's what was broadcast:

ENGEL: 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?

BUSH: You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously.

Here's what Bush said that wasn't broadcast:

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 if you don't take them seriously, then it hearkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf 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.

Here's what Ed Gillespie said: "NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it."

Here's what I say: NBC's selective editing of the President's response clearly indicated his disagreement with that statement ("My policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has" means "I was saying this long before Obama, hence I was not referring to him"). The edited part about the "need to take the words of people seriously" does seem to be adequately conveyed by "[when] a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously." It should be noted that Engel did not ask about Hitler, he asked about Iran; that said, the reasonably educated viewer could probably have made the leap with Bush from "Iran wants to destroy Israel" to the implied historical context. The rest of the statement could also be easily filed under "wanting to destroy Israel." (It's an easy go-to category for the middle east.)

In fact, contrary to Gillespie's assertion, anyone watching the edited interview would see President Bush pushing back against Engel in every question. Had Iran been empowered by disarray in Iraq? "I'm not so sure I agree with that." What of recurring tours of duty? Is there an exit strategy? "We're returning troops on success." How can Iraq be a success when on the ground it looks so bleak? "That's a little different from the surveys I've seen and a little different from the actual Iraqis I've talked to, but you're entitled to your opinion."

Story continues below

advertisement

No, Ed Gillespie, that's not a complete transcript. But I've reviewed the whole and adjudged it to be a fair and accurate representation. That's called editorial judgment — and it's what NBC used to air the edited piece. Sure, you can challenge it, but in my estimation, this challenge doesn't make it on the merits.

Grievance #2: Iraqi Civil War

After blustering about a "media-manufactured storyline" (um, who mentioned Hitler exactly?), Gillespie doubles-down on his weak argument and picks another fight, going back to...November 2006. Suddenly Gillespie wants to talk about whether or not Iraq is in a civil war. Bloggers, media critics, people banging your head against the wall at home — do not be drawn into this nonsense. There are no do-overs and retroactive corrections here, unless the administration would like to announce one of their own on the same topic, about which they obfuscated and spun so extensively that the mere act of putting a name on the appalling carnage happening in Iraq became more of an issue than what was actually going on.

But if I am going to trust a source on this point, then damned if I wouldn't trust Engel — who has BEEN THERE throughout the whole damn thing. Engel tells Bush that on the ground in Iraq it looks bleak; Bush, who saw surveys and talked to "actual Iraqis" during what were no doubt brief and tightly-orchestrated visits says "you're entitled to your opinion?" Really? Was he entitled to his opinion in April 2005, about which he wrote this in his new book, War Journal: My Five Years In Iraq, on page 203:

A senior U.S. diplomat said tensions had been building in Ma'dein as Shiits started to move into traditionally Sunni neighborhoods. "But I don't see signs of a civil war," he said.

I certainly did. There were fourteen car bombs, forty-two roadside bombs, and twenty-two shootings in Baghdad the same week...U.S. military officials said there were now seventy attacks a day.

This was more than a year before the administration got up in arms over what to call the carnage. Reading on in Engel's book reveals a catalog of killings, like the group of men who were laid on a concrete slab and decapitated with a chainsaw, the grocer's daughter who was kidnapped, raped and had her throat cut, the sectarian executions, a toddler killed, stuffed with rice, cooked and left on his family's doorstep, bodies found bound and blindfolded with holes drilled into their bodies, bodies piled three deep in morgue refrigerators that didn't get cold enough to stave off the maggots.

Yes. It certainly puts roommate complaints in perspective, doesn't it?

So: As for conditions on the ground in Iraq, I would tend to take Richard Engel's considered opinion over that of either Bush or Gillespie, frankly, on whether Iraq remains in civil war or if ethnic cleansing and population displacement were sufficient to change the status to "volatile, violence-ridden country of roaming, warring insurgents."

Grievance #3: Recession?

Oy. Gillespie. You're really picking this fight? Brian Williams said the GDP numbers for Q1 2007 "just stopped short of the official declaration of a recession." Emphasis added to underscore how close to a recession that number implies the country is. In light of all the other factors put forth (and updated consistently) on NBC Nightly News by Erin Burnett and other experts, all of whom have agreed that various hallmarks of recession are clearly evidenced in the current economy, I think I'll take NBC's word on this one, too.

Or we could just take Bush's: "You know, the average person doesn't really care what we call it," said Bush on April 29th. "Recession, slowdown -- whatever you want to call it." Sort of like civil war.

Upshot: NBC: 1, Ed Gillespie: 0
To paraphrase a certain red-faced letter-writing someone, "Mr. Gillespie, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "spin" pushed by the White House." Seriously, dude, you don't have a leg to stand on here.

P.S. Yes, I read your whole letter.

Letter From White House To NBC News [The Page]
Statement From NBC [HP Media]

Engel's Interview: Edited [MSNBC]
Engel's Interview with Bush: Full [MSNBC]

Comments

[Bluedog12]

Rachel it"s got so bad for the Administration and their toadies that Ed Gillespie is front and center. Taking him on is like kicking a puppy. Boy have they fallen far. I wonder though if Ed will still go on Meet The Press with ol" gerbil cheeks?

[EricArthurBlair]

Yes, we reallly do need to take note of what people say, like the time (11 August 1984) Reagan said that he'd signed legislation to outlaw the Soviet Union and would start bombing in five minutes.

[distant mirror]

Actually Rachel... Engel restated what Bush said in the speech, but the question was if Bush was referring to Senator Obama. I don't think the President ever answered that question...at least not directly.

[freshnotbitter]

CNN has given Wolf Blitzkrieg 3 hours a day from 4 to 7 followed by wild card Lou Dobbs for an hour.

FOX is FOX, they are in the tank for the administration.

That leaves just MSNBC to challenge the administration. Let's hope they don't back down. When General Electric is your last hope you understand how you might have come to a situation where the country is bankrupt while the King is out looking for new wars to fight.

[KingHuff]

16 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. The day after his sad performance in Israel , GWB was in Saudi Arabia sucking up to the unelected leaders of this nation begging for more oil. Would this be called " oh-please-ment "?

[hopeless277]

I'm sure NBC will issue an abject apology. GE needs it's warbucks to prop up the Bush Admin.

[incontempt]

This is just diversionary, look at all my "wisdom" over here...no no over here.....over here. NBC did just fine, infact I would like to thank them for not falling completely for this media manipulation, fox has the standard for that.

[dogstar7]

It's hard for me to describe in civil terms the bile that rose in my throat seeing a photo-graphic of Gillespie's letter, with the Seal of the President attached and the title

[Goddatunda]

The trolls on this thread are even more way off than usual.

Nice post Rachel.

[jdenham]

Looks like Gillespie was trying to change the story from what Bush said, to a story about how bias NBC was to Bush. The Republican spin machine in high gear. Looking at the full interview NBC did Bush a favor by not airing the full interview. Bush looked and sounded confused trying to avoid answering the hard questions. But I always have a hard time trying to understand what Bush is saying.

[Henk]

Exactly, the unedited version is rambling bullshit. I wish they would play all of his interviews in their entirety and do it without explaining what he "really" meant. He'd be polling in the single digits.

[Titonwan]

I don't know why anyone would trust your opinion about the day of the week, much less anything to do with politics. You the big Hillary wonkette, have been dead wrong on about every issue. I'll chalk it up to your young age and inexperience with the Clinton's. Which means you need to STFU. I think in your support gender by any means, is exactly what we DON'T need. If Mary Queen of Scots was running, so would your foolish mouth. You picked the wrong horse and now it's ankles are about to snap.

[foghornleghorny]

Hater - and off topic as well. You put in your 2 cents, now just go away.

[bsc]

Wow. Try staying on topic.

[cheforacle]

Whoa... I also have disagreed with what I believed were pieces that were overly pro-Clinton or anti-Obama. But in Rachel's defense, this is a good piece that fits well within what I consider to be the proper role for certain blog sites: fact-check disputes between the media and the administration. She does a service to the public by juxtaposing the aired portions with the full text. And some of her personal commentary is right on point.

We have to get over the tendency to believe that, because we disagreed with a particular writer once or three times before, that everything they thereafter say is wrong or incorrect. Also she has every right to say what she wants to say as long as Huff Po continues to let her use the forum. You get to give your opinion, Titowan; so should Rachel Sklar. Compared to many Clinton supporters, Rachel has seemed to minimize (though not completely remove) her anti-Obama attacks. But that is besides the point. She has the right to speak. Judge each piece on its own merits.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If Gillespie wants to bring added attention to the Idiot-in-Chief's refusal to answer Engel's question - so be it. All of us with two or more functioning brain cells KNOW Bush was referring to Obama. Bush is a pathological liar and a mean spirited individual who will say and do anything to achieve his goals. The hatchet job Bush initiated on POW John McCain in 2000 for being anti-veteran and fathering a Black baby (all lies) was beneath contempt but a classic Bush/Rove political tactic. Triple amputee and war hero Senator Max Cleland has received the same treatment.

[blackmouth]

Bush only has yes men and women around him, remember the do nothing congress of '06, they failed to do their job of oversight and let this moron go out of control to destroy Iraq and this country. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

[rbdc]

Has the political calendar, in fact, changed? The general election no longer in November, the national conventions no longer over the summer, the primary season not almost over? All that would certainly be news to me, and I'm sure to many others. What does seem to have changed is that the American President now thinks it okay to despoil a foreign ally's birthday celebration by tramping over there and in a highly visible and unseemly (not to mention repugnant and Repugnican way), bring our American politics before their legislative body. Shame!

[ibivi]

War is a horrific thing. I was reading this article when suddenly I'm reading about atrocities. The Bush administration has been very effective in censoring/keeping them from the public. It is very jarring to read before 9 am. This needs to stop now. We're beginning to see resistance from soldiers who refuse to go Iraq. Good for them. There has been too much carnage.

[Rachel Sklar - Huffpost Blogger]

You know, I didn't mean to write something so graphic. I started out mocking Gillespie a bit, and the headline was a play on "And ANOTHER thing..!" but then I flipped open Engel's book to find out his thoughts on civil war, and I literally could not flip a page without reading something appalling. There is more in there, way more. And so suddenly the tone changed. I thought about editing, changing the tone somewhere to match, but then I thought, well, this is what happens when you actually look at what's gone on, what's going on. I knew it was jarring but it jarred me and I guess I thought that santizing it would be, well, sanitizing it. The barbarism depicted in that book is off the charts.

[Counterglow]

You shouldn't feel guilty about failing to protect our tender sensibilities from the horrors that are being perpetrated in Iraq. The administration has been doing that, and it has led to a level of tolerance for Bush's bumbling and deceit that no decent person would endure if they knew what was really going on.

I'm sure I'll have nightmares about some of the things you wrote, but I would certainly never make the mistake of blaming the messenger. In a just world, Cheney, Bush, Rove and the rest of the neo-con chicken hawks would be rotting in jail for the rest of their foul lives. You bear no responsibility for clearly illustrating the depths of their stupidity and evil.