CNN spliced quote by Obama aide to remove part in which he said Sec. Def. Gates, like Obama, wants to meet with Iran
SUMMARY: In two reports on CNN Newsroom, CNN aired comments by Robert Gibbs, Sen. Barack Obama's communications director, responding to President Bush's remarks that "[s]ome seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals," reportedly in reference to Obama, but CNN spliced the audio clip to omit part of the statement in which Gibbs noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has reportedly advocated a position on engaging Iran that echoes Obama's. CNN had left intact Gibbs' reference to Gates in the audio clip of Gibbs' comments it aired earlier in the program.
In reports during the 10 and 11 a.m. ET hours of the May 15 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN aired comments by Robert Gibbs, Sen. Barack Obama's communications director, responding to President Bush's remarks that "[s]ome seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals," reportedly in reference to Obama, but CNN spliced the audio clip to omit part of the statement in which Gibbs noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, like Obama, has reportedly said that the United States needs to be willing to meet with Iran. CNN had left intact Gibbs' reference to Gates in the audio clip of Gibbs' comments it aired during the 9 a.m. hour of the program.
Gibbs was responding to comments Bush made at the Israeli parliament in which Bush said: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' " Gibbs stated, "I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, 'We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.' Them being Iran." During the 9 a.m. hour of the program, CNN aired Gibbs' assertion -- which came in the middle of his statement -- about Gates stating that the United States should "sit down and talk" with Iran. By contrast, during reports about Bush's comments on the 10 and 11 a.m. hours of the program, CNN spliced the audio to omit Gibbs' statement about Gates saying the United States should engage Iran.
During the 9 a.m. hour of CNN Newsroom, CNN aired Gibbs' full comment, including his reference to Gate's statements -- noted below in bold:
GIBBS: Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Them being Iran. Look, we have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were. Ronald Reagan once asked Americans whether they were better off than they were four years ago. And I think people are going to ask themselves in this election are we safer than we were eight years ago under this president, and I think the answer is going to be a resounding "no."
Here's what CNN aired during the 10 and 11 a.m. hours:
GIBBS: [T]his is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. ... [W]e have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were.
The reports during the 10 and 11 a.m. hours made no mention of Gates' comments about Iran. The Washington Post reported in a May 15 article that Gates said the United States should "construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran" and quoted Gates as saying: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them." The article also noted that "[o]thers, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president, have said that talks with Iran on a range of issues might be useful."
From the May 15 Washington Post article, headlined "Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure":
The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.
"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way ... of Americans" visiting Iran.
"I think that may be the one opening that creates some space," Gates said.
The Bush administration has said it will talk with Iran, and consider lifting economic and other sanctions, only if Iran ends a uranium enrichment program the administration maintains is intended to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. Although the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met three times last year for discussions on Iraq, Iran has refused to continue that dialogue.
Others, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president, have said that talks with Iran on a range of issues might be useful.
Gates publicly favored engagement with Iran before taking his current job in late 2006. In 2004, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report titled "Iran: Time for a New Approach." At the time, he explained yesterday, "we were looking at a different Iran in many respects" under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Tehran's role in Iraq was "fairly ambivalent," he said. "They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful."
From the May 15 edition of CNN Newsroom:
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD (anchor): It's that word, "appeasement." Senator Obama had said in the past that he'd be willing to talk to Hamas, willing to talk to, quote-unquote, "enemies." What is the Obama campaign saying now in response to the president, Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Well, Fred, you'll notice that President Bush did not mention Obama by name but my own colleague -- our own colleague Ed Henry, who is traveling with the president there, said that he spoke with White House aides who acknowledged that, yes, he was referring to Barack Obama when he made those comments. And it really is that whole idea, this policy of appeasement that has the Obama campaign quite surprised by all of this, the fact that the president is making these remarks in Israel, but also it is designed really to have that kind of impact, at that setting, in that particular moment, to talk about what is going to be a really hot political issue for the general election.
It is only -- not only about national security, but it is also about Middle East peace. President Bush trying to make a push in that direction, saying that he had hoped that he would bring that about before the end of his administration. The Barack Obama folks have reacted quite strongly this morning. We heard from Robert Gibbs. He is the communications director. Let's just take a quick listen at how he responded to President Bush.
GIBBS: Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Them being Iran. Look, we have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were. Ronald Reagan once asked Americans whether they were better off than they were four years ago. And I think people are going to ask themselves in this election are we safer than we were eight years ago under this president, and I think the answer is going to be a resounding "no."
[...]
MALVEAUX: Now, we heard from Robert Gibbs, communication director of the Obama camp, lashing out, simply saying that this is more of the past rhetoric, that frustration from the Bush administration that has not moved the ball that much forward in the Middle East peace process. And also, a different philosophical approach to reaching out to other leaders. Take a listen.
GIBBS: [T]his is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. ... [W]e have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were.
MALVEAUX: And, Tony [Harris, anchor], I know John McCain is getting set to speak. So we're going to make this real quick here. Obviously, it underscores this is going to be a very important issue come the general election.
BUSH: "[s]ome seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,"
Don't you love the way Bush equates everyone in that region with being a terrorist or a radical?
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye.
Here's the title to an on-line story by The Guardian, and it's first two paragraphs:
Furious Bush hits back at Sharon
American relations with Israel plunged to their lowest point in a decade yesterday when the White House denounced as "unacceptable" statements by the Israeli prime minister comparing the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s.
The Bush administration was reported to be furious with Mr Sharon's actions, and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that the president felt personally affronted by the comparison to Neville Chamberlain and the discredited policies of appeasement in the run up to the second world war. Mr Bush is an avid admirer of Winston Churchill.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/06/israel
...please read that carefully. You know when that report is dated?
October 6, 2001... 2001! Less than a month after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
My memory is very good in these things... the moment I heard that Bush had invoked "appeasement" to Israelis, in a speech to them, and was referring to those who disagree with him (Bush) as "appeasers", I realized that Bush and his people have long memories too... and they're petty, and they always payback.
Not long after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when it appeared that the Bush administration was not going to confront, or even hold accountable or even demand an explanation from, saudi arabia... and instead, Bush sent Rumsfeld on a tour of the Middle East, where Rumsfeld not only met with the saudi "king", but was photographed bowing to him, and kissing his hand (or ring, which is even worse)... well, that was too much for a lot of us to bear, the Israelis especially.
And so, on October 4, 2001, Prime Minister Sharon of Israel held a press conference. Here are the 3rd and 4th paragraphs to the Guardian article linked to above:
In an extraordinary speech, the Israeli prime minister had poured scorn on the campaign aimed at building an Arab consensus behind the campaign against terrorism.
Mr Sharon said: "Don't repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense... Israel will not be Czechoslovakia."
...the word "placate" as interpreted there in that report, is the word that was also interpreted as "appeasement" (they are synonyms: and of course, Mr. Sharon did not deliver his speech in English).
Here is a White House Press Briefing link, one day after Mr. Sharon said what he said: and as you can see from reading it (and I implore you to read it), the very first question asked of Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was about Sharon's "appeasement" (or "placate") remark.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011005-3.html
Here's the immediate start to that Press Briefing of October 5, 2001 (2001!):
Q Ari, would you tell us what the President's reaction was to Prime Minister Sharon's comments yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yesterday, Prime Minister Sharon issued a statement in which he said that the United States should not repeat the mistakes of the West in 1938, and appease the Arabs at Israeli expense. He said, "Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense," warning that Israel, "will not be Czechoslovakia." And the President believes that these remarks are unacceptable.
George W. Bush has a long memory (so don't I, as I said)... he never forgets an insult... he pays back... there's a perfect kind of sense to George W. Bush's "appeasement" remark to Israelis yesterday... but not only does it help to have a long memory, it helps to be able to think like a small vindictive person, to recognize that sense.
Well, considering how Iran appears to much closer to "nucleurization" than they were before Bush took office, and thanks to Iraq, Iran seems stronger and more emboldened now than ever before, aren't we at the very least entitled to explore the options of talking to Iran? Or has the discussion been reduced to simply appeasement.
Things cannot get much worse than they are now, so Bush and company haven't a leg to stand on with regards to much of anything regarding our foreign policy, sorry.
-- aren't we at the very least entitled to explore the options of talking to Iran? -- tommy
Tommy, I think that is a little over-simplified. I think that the international community...and that includes the U.S....are constantly exploring ways to resolve the Iran nuclear position diplomatically.
The U.S. and the U.N. have repeatedly stated that they would welcome and pursue diplomatic sessions with Iran...after they comply with UN resolutions to suspend their nuclear program...which Iran has steadfastly ignored.
Iran is a sovereign nation with the right of self-determination. If they are interested in a diplomatic solution...the request to "suspend" their nuclear activities is a reasonable one.
The Chinese UN rep said "the foreign ministers of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States have issued a joint statement reiterating their commitment to resolving the issue through diplomatic negotiations and expressing their readiness to strengthen diplomatic efforts and adopt creative approaches to vigorously facilitate resumption of negotiations."
If Iran is opposed to the positions taken by the international community...so be it...that's their right. But they will also have to be responsible for the outcomes.
It appears to me that Iran is the party responsible for the breakdown of diplomatic solutions...not the U.S.
Wes,
I appreciate your comments, all I am saying is that when Bush uses comments like appeasement and negotiating with terrorists it leaves me asking why? It's not negotiating with terrorists, it is exploring our options with regards to dealing effectively with our enemies; for me, I want a vigorous and substantive debate on the ramifications of each's proposal in dealing with countries like Iran - I don't want the debate shut down with inflammatory comments like Bush made, or McCain has made......it does not serve us well, that is all I am saying.
Fair enough.
On a sidebar...while I am not opposed to the negotiation stance by Pres.Bush...the jabbering by his staff and supporters is more than irritating.
He made the statement about appeasement...and he damned will meant it for Obama and any others with similar positions...and the discussion gets deflected to who was he talking about or to.
From both the right and the left comes cowardice at every turn. As soon as someone makes a "hot button" comment...it is immediately amended to some politically palatable pap...like it was taken out of context...it wasn't really what he meant...didn't mean to offend anyone.
I realize that a politician can't completely ignore the vagaries of playing politics...but god o mighty...where have all the leaders gone?
Say what you mean...and mean what you say. That's how trust is restored in politics.
I completely agree with you on leadership deficiency in our politicians today, it is sorely lacking. They are insulated with spokespeople, handlers, blah blah and every word they utter is "youtubed" to death for their opponents to play gotcha, to try and bring 'em down by soundbites and perceptions. Issues get lost, substance is replaced with style, and important vital policy decisions like this one get relegated to political posturing, it's sickening.
I wish I knew the answer, and then we complain six ways to Sunday about nothing getting accomplished right after we slurp up these gotcha games throughout an election......we get what we deserve.
With the current crop of ineffective cowards masquerading as political leaders I would vote tomorrow...heck I'd vote today...to adopt the form of government used by Texas.
Their congress only meets every other year...hopefully they would only be able to produce half the horseturds that come out of Washington today.
You will need to stop refering to "horseturds from Texas" as legislation. It is too easily confused with the recent leaders that come from that place.
Does anyone else work at a job where they hope to get big things accomplished by doing absolutely nothing at all? I want that job!
It is pretty funny (but in a sad way) that Bush claims he hoped to get the Israeli Peace process settled before his term was over...by not doing anything at all. What a joke.
Did anyone else notice that Malveaux described Obama as "lashing out" in the second version that also lacked the reference to Gates? It seems someone had a little talk with Malveaux to make Obama seem more angry and without the strongest part of the rebuttal.
Secondly, CNN asserts right at the beginning that Obama will be "willing to talk to Hamas". I don't think Obama has claimed he would do that without stressing some important conditions like renouncing violence and recognizing Israel first. It is irresponsible to give people the impression Obama will talk with Hamas and not mention the conditions for that to happen.
Interesting that Bush doesn't mention, and neither do any of the CNN people, that the Senator Bush quoted was Senator Borah, a Republican.
But then, the ones who were in favor of "appeasement" and against our entry into WWII were usually Republicans, a fact that our media chooses not to mention in general.
the instantaneous reaction of the democrats reminds me of an old saying that i learned in hebrew, but who knows where it cames from, the hat burns on the head of the thief.
now gates suggested meeting with the iranians only with sticks and carrots in place.
obama says no preconditions. so there is a bit of a difference.
the hat burns on the head of the thief.
The hat would only burn if it caught on fire or something like that, otherwise the hat would be okay.
They're responding to an outrageous comment made by an utter moron who got 4000 Americans killed in a conflict that was completely avoidable and unnecessary.
Mr. L, don't expect it to make sense. Our gullible friend has absorbed the media talking point on the issue (Yes, I listen to righty radio so you don't have to). In keeping with the "playing dumb" playbook that seems to be about all the GOPpers have left, the sucker-bait on this one is as follows;
"What? who, us? we weren't talking about Obama. Just because the media has been in full force spin in portraying his remarks about diplomacy as weakness and appeasement, how could you think Bush's remarks were directed at Obama? I guess it's pretty telling that he thought talk of weakness was about him!"
I even heard a couple (Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt show, Newt on Fox) suggest that the words were directed at Jimmy Carter. You know, the guy right before the old actor who actually did negotiate secretly with terrorists?
Seriously, here's an open request to all conservatives. "Playing dumb" is not a good strategy.You either appear dishonest (if you're given the benefit of the doubt, that you know better), or stoopid (if it's assumed that you're not playing dumb, but are actually dumb).
We've already seen it;
"What? why are you noticing that we're saying Barack Hussein? It's his name, isn't it?"
Michelle Obama is really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life? What does that mean, that she hated America for the rest of it?
and now, this one. Not even offensive, just lazy, and insulting that those who are saying it expect normal people to swallow it, or disappointing that some of our fellow Americans are buying it.
Step it up a notch. Before you know it, Grampy will have to come out of hiding, and in between ham-fisted GOP swift-boat style BS, you may be forced to discuss some issues.You may want to be packing something besides "Duuhhhh........ I don't know what you're talking about. Do I win?"
That's only going to work on the bottom rung types, and they're already voting GOP.
"You know, the guy right before the old actor who actually did negotiate secretly with terrorists?"
Negotiated with terrorists? Col, the sainted Gipper did more than negotiate; he armed terrorists, both Iranian and Nicaraguan. And those Somozistas (sorry, Contras) thanked him by flooding our cities with cocaine, while Oliver North, Eliot Abrams and the CIA covered for them.
You're right, Conchobhar. I was really referring to the Iran Hostage situation. I didn't see any need to bring up everything, as there are some Disciples of The Gipper who visit here, and that whole list might cause some crying bouts or fainting.
I wonder if the wingnuts who set out to ruin the Dixie Chicks for a very similar, albeit tame comment in comparison, are going to go out and torch their W stickers over this?
Are country radio stations going to boycott Bush for this?
Are they going to send him threats? Will they intimidate his family?
I'm aquiver with anticipation.
That remains unclear and needs to be addressed. The "no preconditions" part is seen as so important that Clinton and Obama differ in their approach.
I assume that neither one of you are diplomats. No doubt you are aware that people in BushCo did talk to terrorist country Libya, continuing an effort that took many years, which resulted in Libya making concessions. It took more than a few paragraphs of campaign speeches to get these results, but it took DIPLOMACY, with and without "carrots and sticks."
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists," Obama
That part about not supporting engagement with terrorists sounds like a precondition to me.
When the Bush administration came into office, North Korea had only one or two bombs. It had agreed in 1994 to freeze its existing nuclear program and accept enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. When that agreement unraveled, the Clinton administration came close to negotiating a better deal in its final months in office. The Bush administration refused to carry on the negotiations and instead labeled Pyongyang part of the “axis of evil.”
Bush started a war against Iraq, which did not have the bomb, but allowed North Korea, which had a known nuclear program, to continue developing its capabilities. Bush’s aggressive war policy sent a clear message to North Korea: Don’t wait to get the bomb if you want to avoid Saddam Hussein’s fate. Pyongyang took that message and now has an estimated 10 nuclear weapons and is part of the nuclear club.
The Bush White House has refused to negotiate with North Korea, instead hiding behind the six-party talks and relying on China to pressure the North. This will never work. Pyongyang’s primary concern is the United States. We have maintained economic and diplomatic sanctions and military pressures against North Korea for more than 50 years.
Oh yeah that Bush foreign policy of not talking to our enemies but talking tough instead works soooo well.
Thanks, President Numbnuts!
Despite the mindless utterings of President Numbnuts, it IS possible to talk to your enemies. Maybe you won't accomplish what you want, maybe they won't listen to reason... but what's the harm in trying? If you take that option off the table, all that's left is armed conflict.
Does anyone really believe that we can fight a sustained war with Iran without instituting a draft and wrecking our economy? Of course, the Troglodytes' wet dream is to set off a nuke in Tehran..... do we really want to go down that road? We got away with it in 1945..... but we were the only ones with the bomb at the time.
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East."
I also like the remark from Bush about the senator who said "If only I'd had the chance to talk to Hitler".
I understand his target audience isn't supposed to go beyond a Pavlovian response to "appeasement", but what's the point of this, really? What is the implied negative consequence of this hypothetical talk with Hitler? Maybe it would have resulted in something really bad. Like a bloody World War, or something.