Bush on First Amendment: "Just something we've got to live with"

In light of recent threads bemoaning the state of discourse on the board, I fear brining this one up and will beat the first reply to the punch and say this will not end well. But ... From Dana Milbank's WaPo column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202305.html

Note: JD, Feel free to move to News and Sports. Never know where these kind of things fall anymore.

 

I assume he meant an adversarial press rather than a free press. Had Arod voiced displeasure with the fans last year, would you have read that as a constitutional challenge?

 

I'll just say that when the head of one of three branches of government takes a shot at one of the founding principles of the nation, it's not elevating discourse. Bash the way the press operates. Don't take shots at the notion of the free press.

A-Rod ain't the Leader of the Free World; he just gets paid a helluva lot more.

 

I'd look for the quote in context before believing Milbank that that's what he did. I'll bet anything that the notion of a free press wasn't the subject.

 

"Something we all have to live with" sounds a lot better than "shoot all the journalists."

Getting very picky here, aren't we?

 

Weird. I can't even link to the WP website.

 

OK, if you read the transcript of the speech, it comes out somewhat differently in context:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070502-2.html

Q I'd like to know, like a lot of other people in this room, we have family members -- we have family members who are actively involved in the security of this country in various ways. From them, we've received positive information that we consider credible, who say about the success and the good things that are happening as a result of us being in Iraq. I would like to know why and what can be done about we, the American people, receiving some of that information more from the media, or (inaudible.) (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: If you're trying to goad me into attacking the media, you're crazy. (Laughter.)

It's interesting, people get their news all different kinds of ways. This is an interesting, different type of war. I mentioned asymmetrical warfare. That means an enemy can use inexpensive weapons to try to defeat expensive defensive armament. A car bomb, a suicide bomber, an IED, these are inexpensive weapons that help them achieve strategic objectives.

....
It's just a -- I can't answer your question beyond that people just need to be -- the best messenger, by the way, for us is David Petraeus, because he's actually there in Baghdad, and Ryan Crocker who is actually -- he's the ambassador who is there in Baghdad. And freedom of the press is a valuable freedom here, and it's just something that we've all got to live with and value it for what it is, and just continue to speak the truth as best as we can without trying to -- without trying to gloss over the inherent dangers.

---------------------

I took it to mean that "we have to live with" the gap between what the media reports and what is happening on the ground, not the First Amendment itself.

 

I think I agree with the Pope's assesment. But it concerns me that he feels the best messengers "for us" are Petraeus and Crocker, when most international news agencies have people on the ground in Baghdad and Iraq as a whole as well.

Does he mean "Us" as in the government and the message it is trying to send?

 

As journalists, are you comfortable with Milbank's portrayal of the quote?

 

And William Westmoreland always told the absolute truth in Vietnam...

 

My take:

Fredo.

Just something we've got to live with.

Until ...

Let the war tribunal begin!

That's what I'm talkin' about!

 

For once, Guy, we're on the same page here. As much as I'd like to have yet another reason to dislike Bush, this isn't one of those occasions. Quote was rather misrepresented in this case.