Following President Bush's September 15 press conference covering, among other subjects, the administration's interrogation policies, numerous print and television outlets -- including the Associated Press, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and McClatchy Newspapers, as well as the September 15 broadcasts of NBC's Nightly News and the CBS Evening News -- uncritically reported Bush's reaction to a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in which Powell argued that "[t]he world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." Responding to a reporter's question regarding Powell's letter, Bush stated: “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that.” In fact, neither the question nor Powell's letter made any such comparison.

In contrast, The Washington Post and an online article by CBS -- which was not broadcast on CBS Evening News -- noted that Bush's response did not address the content of Powell's letter. Also, noting Bush's non-responsive response (though overstating Bush's mischaracterization of Powell's letter), ABC News national correspondent Sam Donaldson said on the September 17 edition of ABC's This Week that had he had the opportunity to ask Bush about Powell's letter, his follow-up question would have been: “Sir, are you saying that Colin Powell -- and you almost said in so many words -- cares more about the terrorists and believes they have the high moral ground rather than the United States. Is that the way you read the pure words of his letter, sir?”

As Media Matters for America noted, the first question to Bush during the September 15 press conference came from Associated Press White House correspondent Terence Hunt, who asked: “If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?” Bush responded: “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that.”

As Media Matters noted, following Bush's answer, Hunt asked, “Can I follow up?” to which Bush answered, “No, you can't,” before moving on to Reuters reporter Steve Holland. None of the subsequent questioners pointed out that Bush had answered a different question from the one Hunt asked.

In fact, Powell's letter did not compare “the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists,” or assert that the “behavior of the United States” is on par with the “action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children,” as Bush suggested. Powell's letter actually asserted that the administration's handling of the threat of terrorism -- and more recently its position on the treatment of detained terrorism suspects -- has tarnished the nation's image worldwide and led many across the globe to question the “moral basis” for these policies.

Nonetheless, numerous reports on Bush's press conference uncritically reported his response to the question about Powell's letter. For example:

• A September 15 report by AP's Terence Hunt:

Bush took vehement exception when asked about Powell's assertion that the world might doubt the moral basis of the fight against terror if lawmakers went along with the administration's proposal to come up with a U.S. interpretation of the Geneva Convention's ban on “outrages upon personal dignity.”

“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just I simply can't accept that.”

Growing animated, he said, “It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

• A September 15 article by McClatchy Newspapers reporter Ron Hutcheson:

The president bristled when he was asked about Powell's comment Thursday that “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

“That's flawed -- flawed logic,” he said. “It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

• A September 15 report by NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory on NBC's Nightly News:

GREGORY: And Mr. Bush shot back at his former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who criticized the White House in a letter yesterday, writing, quote, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

BUSH [video clip]: It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children in an understand -- to achieve an objective.

GREGORY: But key Republicans in the Senate object to the White House's attempt to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, which set the rules for the treatment of prisoners. The fear that other countries like Iran or North Korea could turn the tables on the U.S., interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit and torture U.S. military personnel.

• A September 15 report by CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod on CBS Evening News:

AXELROD: But a chorus of critics has emerged, led by Republican Senator John McCain that says adding to the Geneva Conventions in any way sets a dangerous precedent, allowing other countries to make their own rules for treating American POWs. When asked about his former secretary of state Colin Powell's statement, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” the president disagreed sharply.

BUSH [video clip]: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. It's just -- it's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think.

AXELROD: If the president was trying to get everybody back in line today, he didn't. Late this afternoon, Senator McCain said there is nothing in his bill that would require the CIA interrogation program to be shut down. So, Katie [Couric, anchor], President Bush is now locked in a dispute about how to handle prisoners of war with America's best-known prisoner of war and a Republican at that.

• A September 16 article by reporters Jim Rutenberg and Sheryl Gay Stolberg in The New York Times:

He [Bush] also discounted an argument made in a letter from Mr. Powell that his plan would encourage the world to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

Asked about that analysis, Mr. Bush said, “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic.”

• A September 16 article by staff writers James Gerstenzang and Noam N. Levey in the Los Angeles Times:

Also backing the Republican dissidents is Colin L. Powell, Bush's former secretary of State, who is also a retired general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell, in a letter to McCain opposing Bush's approach, issued a broad caution that “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

Asked whether Powell's letter suggested that Americans were wondering whether the president's strategy was flawed, Bush responded: “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorists' tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic.”

In contrast, a September 16 Washington Post article by staff writer Peter Baker, after noting Bush's response, reported that it came “even though Powell's letter made no such comparison”:

Joining McCain and the other Republicans this week was former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, who wrote in a letter that reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions would encourage other countries to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

Bush bristled at the criticism from his former top diplomat yesterday, calling it “flawed logic” and accusing Powell of equating U.S. tactics with those of terrorists, even though Powell's letter made no such comparison. “It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children,” Bush said.

Similarly, in his September 15 online “reporter's notebook,” CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller noted that “Powell never made such a comparison in his letter, but Mr. Bush was adamant.”

Responding to a question from host George Stephanopoulos about what he would have asked as a follow-up, on the September 17 edition of ABC's This Week, Donaldson said:

DONALDSON: I'll tell you, though, one thing. In watching the show this morning -- the two interviews you did -- and then watching the president last Friday, Stephen Hadley made a reasoned, calm, I thought rather impressive case of his point of view, the national security adviser. George W. Bush on Friday threw fits. First, starting against Colin Powell, another great, popular American, and trying to make it appear that Colin Powell thought more about the terrorists' morality than the Americans'. Poppycock. Absurd. And then saying, “It's my way or the highway. I'll shut down the program.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sam, there's no one better to ask, because I was upset by that too. And Senator McCain didn't bite on that equation about Al Qaeda and American. But if you were at that press conference at the White House, what would have been the follow-up?

DONALDSON: Well the follow-up is just that: "Sir, are you saying that Colin Powell -- and you almost said in so many words -- cares more about the terrorists and believes they have the high moral ground rather than the United States? Is that the way you read the pure words of his letter, sir? Could someone read them to you? Now, I wouldn't have been that rude, but the point is ...