LA Times, Wash. Post suggested Bush discussed Iraq policy with former officials for one hour; NY Times reported actual discussion lasted "5 to 10 minutes"
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post reported that President Bush's meeting with a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state and defense to discuss Iraq war policy lasted one hour. By contrast, The New York Times reported that the actual discussion lasted only 5 to 10 minutes, and the rest of the time was devoted to an "upbeat" briefing on the war.
Two major newspapers -- the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post -- reported on January 6 that President Bush met the previous day with a bipartisan group of 13 former secretaries of state and defense to discuss Iraq war policy at the White House for one hour. But neither newspaper's coverage of the meeting noted, as the The New York Times did, that most of the time was devoted to a briefing on the war -- described by The New York Times as "upbeat" -- by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, with only 5 to 10 minutes of actual discussion among Bush and his guests.
The Los Angeles Times article by staff writer James Gerstenzang described the meeting as having "lasted about an hour" and quoted Bush as saying that it had given him "a chance to listen to [the former secretaries'] concerns, their suggestions about the way forward." But the paper did not note the length of the briefing by Casey and Khalilzad, leaving readers with the false impression that Bush devoted the full hour to discussion.
An article in The Washington Post by staff writer Jim VandeHei also described the meeting as lasting an hour but did not indicate how much time Bush apparently allowed for discussion. VandeHei wrote that White House officials "believed they accomplished their twin goals of portraying a more solicitous president and underscoring the broad bipartisan agreement that a speedy withdrawal from Iraq would be unwise and potentially devastating to U.S. interests."
In contrast, staff writer David E. Sanger of The New York Times noted that "if it was a bipartisan consultation, as advertised by the White House, it was a brief one," and that Bush "allowed 5 to 10 minutes for interchange with the group." The Times also described the briefing as being "exceedingly upbeat" and lasting approximately 40 minutes.
From the January 6 article in The New York Times:
Colin L. Powell said nothing -- a silence that spoke volumes to many in the White House on Thursday morning.
His predecessor, Madeleine K. Albright, a bit stirred up after hearing an exceedingly upbeat 40-minute briefing to 13 former secretaries of state and defense about how well things are going in Iraq, asked President Bush whether, with the war "taking up all the energy" of his foreign policy team, he had let the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea spin out of control and allowed Latin America and China policy suffer by neglect.
[...]
But if it was a bipartisan consultation, as advertised by the White House, it was a brief one. Mr. Bush allowed 5 to 10 minutes for interchange with the group -- which included three veterans of the Vietnam era: Robert S. McNamara, Melvin R. Laird and James R. Schlesinger -- before herding the whole group into the Oval Office for what he called a "family picture."
Those who wanted to impart more wisdom to the current occupants of the White House were sent back across the hall to meet again with Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But as several of the participants noted, by that time Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had gone on to other meetings.
[...]
The session Thursday morning began with briefings from Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq and, by secure video connection from Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador there.
"The message was, briefly stated, that the political process is working," said William J. Perry, who served as defense secretary under President Clinton.
[...]
In the few minutes that he engaged with his guests, Mr. Bush seemed to call on the oldest officials present: Mr. McNamara, whose own second-guessing about his decisions on Vietnam have now become legendary; Mr. Laird; and George P. Shultz, secretary of state to President Reagan and still an important behind-the-scenes adviser to some officials in the Bush administration. (Henry Kissinger, whom Mr. Bush also consults periodically, had to cancel at the last minute; Warren M. Christopher and Caspar W. Weinberger could not make it.)
From the January 6 Los Angeles Times article:
Bush and a number of the participants said some of them disagreed about whether he was right to invade Iraq but agreed that, with American forces deployed throughout the country, the United States had to be certain of success.
The president said the meeting, which had been scheduled for 45 minutes but lasted about an hour, had given him "a chance to listen to their concerns, their suggestions about the way forward."
"Not everybody around this table agrees with my decision to go into Iraq. I fully understand that," Bush told reporters during a photo session at the end of the meeting. "But these are good, solid Americans who understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there.
"We take to heart the advice," he said.
From the January 6 article in The Washington Post:
The session in the Roosevelt Room came complete with a photo opportunity and presidential statement after Bush spent an hour with such prominent foreign policy voices as Robert S. McNamara, a Democratic secretary of defense during the Vietnam era 40 years ago, and James A. Baker III, the secretary of state for Bush's father during the Persian Gulf War of the early 1990s.
While the president was challenged once or twice in the meeting, according to participants, White House aides believed they accomplished their twin goals of portraying a more solicitous president and underscoring the broad bipartisan agreement that a speedy withdrawal from Iraq would be unwise and potentially devastating to U.S. interests.















If my theory is correct, the explanation for the disparity is simple; The Washington Post and LA Times versions were written by men and the NY Times version was written by a woman.
Madeleine Albright was on O'Reilly last night, and I recall something about the meeting being about an hour.
O'Reilly interviewed Albright largely about the meeting. If it were "5 or 10 minutes," I think she would have said so and made a stink. Instead, she said she had an opprtunity to speak her mind, and others did so, also. She did not seem "stirred up," as the Times claimed she was.
This looks like shoddy reporting by the Times.
The MEETING took an hour, the discussion was only five or ten minutes. THAT is the discrepency. Adult education look into it.
And you know this for certain because the New York Times says it's so? Funny, but when MMfA approves of what the Times reports (fits MMfA's left-wing agenda), then MMfA declares the NY Times as the authority on the issue. But when the NY Times writes something MMfA doesn't like, it's labeled conservative media misinformation. Sounds like a lot of B.S. to me.
I have yet to see it be because they just made something up. They take the administrations word for something already shown to be suspect or they tell us the administrations side omitting the saner side but they dont just make things up out of whole cloth. IF you have an example of them doing that then get back to me. Otherwise you have no point.
You are saying that if I agree with one thing a newspaper says, I have to consider them the authority and agree with everything they say? Some of us read widely and judge each article on its merits given other information we have gathered. We don't just swallow verbatim everything a source says just because they seem to be an "authority".
No, what I'm saying is that two newspapers wrote that the meeting lasted an hour, and as Left045 pointed out Madeleine Albright was on O'Reilly's show discussing the meeting and never said it only last 5-10 minutes, but MMfA chose to endorse the New York Times story as the Truth simply because they preferred their version and it fit their Hate Bush leftist agenda. What other reason would they have to believe the NY Times over the other two sources? Especially since MMfA often cites the NY Times as reporting conservative misinformation.
Had the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times reported the meeting lasted 5-10 minutes, and the NY Times reported it as an hour, who's version do you think MMfA would claim as the Truth?? See it's just bullsh*t.
Get it?
The meeting lasted an hour. 50 Minutes of that was cheerleading 5 or 10 minutes was taken up by the actual discussion. NOTHING the other papers said contradicts this. GET IT??????
THAT was funny
It was nothing but a dog and pony show. I'm disappointed that former white house officials and diplomats would allow themselves to be used in such a cynical manner.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
For Republicans, it means inviting Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman to your meeting...
"But...but...they're Democrats!"
Yeah, and Paris Hilton is an "actress".
Does it really matter? This was nothing more than an opportunity for the President to portray himself as open, honest and receptive. It made for a nice photo opportunity as well.
This administration has a history of tuning out, firing, or shaming anyone of knowledge and experience who speaks out and tries to let the president know the magnitude of his blunders regarding Iraq.
Does anyone think for a moment that Dubya going to experience some kind of epiphany as a result of this meeting? Heck NO! The moment all these people leave the White House it's business as usual: keep feeding soldiers and tax dollars into a endless, bloody middle-eastern mess.
Which one is the dog and which one is the pony???
Whether the meeting was "5 or 10 minutes" or "an hour" is irrelevant . . . It would seem to me that if the President of the United States wanted advice and counsel from experts in the field of foreign policy, statecraft, and national defense, particularly on such a divisive and controversial matter as the war in Iraq, he'd of carved out more than just an hour to actually listen to them . . . that is, unless he had no intention of doing so in the first place . . .
Must Read: A satirical, yet very accurate account of the bizarre goings on at the WH .....
Someone needs to call in the men in white coats and butterfly nets...
CLICK HERE
60 minutes divided by 13 guests equals about 4 1/2 minutes per person to discuss Iraq.
That is all the time they were given to impart their wisdom, to give their knowledge and to help the administration with Iraq policy.
And thats if the discussion happened as soon as the doors opened. So wether the discussion was 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 60 minutes, it was not enough time.
Does anyone honestly believe Bush wanted to know how screwed up his policy was and how they could help him fix it?
Dispelling the liberal myth that Sadamm had no connections to terrorists. [link to www.husseinandterror.com]
Liberalism is a mental disorder!
The CIA said directly in their threat assesment of 2002 they had NO evidence connecting Iraq and international terrorism for a decade. Nothing on this website contradicts this. Abu Nidal was a bad guy the last terrorist act attributed to him was 1986. Yes they gave money to the families of suicide bombers. As does Saudi Arabia our good ally. That is NOT international terrorism. In the Arab world that is a war of liberation whatever you or I think about it. A terrorist old folks home is about all Iraq was guilty of NOT harboring people who were currently committing terrorist acts ALL of the quotes about how there werent any connections between Iraq and terrorism CURRENTLY are true. I know its too bad for your propaganda attempts but you have shown NOTHING to contradict the CIA's assesment. IF you find something dont waste time on this website. Tell the CIA, I am sure what they REALLY need is some guy on a website to make up for their inadequacies. I am sure with your vast budget and network of contacts in the middle east you know MUCH more about this than the CIA, at least in your dreams
Are morons suffering from CBR, conservative Brain Rot