Appearing on NBC’s "Meet the Press," Burnett several times characterized this economic recovery as not only far stronger than any of the indicators suggest, but also "faster" than those in the recent past.

"Our recovery started more quickly than after any other recession in the past 25 years," the CNBCer told David Gregory and his panel.

Burnett later elaborated on this preposterous claim as fellow panelist Rich Lowry of the National Review shook his head on screen (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: And big picture, the president maintains, in response to the jobs numbers, "Look, we’re going in the right direction here. We are part of the solution, not part of the problem." But as I suggested to David Plouffe, there is a–an economic record there that is tough to run on.

ERIN BURNETT, CNBC: Yes, very tough to run on. He’s right, though. I mean, I call it the "tortoise economy." The economy’s growing. The numbers are coming out. We’re getting better – in fact, after this recession we have – our recovery started more quickly than after any other recession in the past 25 years. So it’s accurate to say we’re growing and we’re going in the right direction. Politically, though, how do you spin a 9.6 unemployment rate to have it be positive? That’s incredibly difficult. And it’s very hard politically to see how they’re going to make that case.

————————-

MR. GREGORY: But, Erin Burnett, the big question on unemployment, if, if–and in 30 seconds, when is there a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate that can help these political fortunes?

MS. BURNETT: Well, I think it’s interesting, because by the way, I don’t think the stimulus has been a failure, and I think that you are correct that it is perceived that way. But I don’t think it’s actually true. Without that stimulus, we would be significantly worse off than we are right now. There, there’s really no question about it. You can ask any economist on Wall Street or any CEO. I see you shaking your head, I know you disagree. But, but, but, but my reporting would show otherwise.

E. J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST: Keep going.

MS. BURNETT: I – look, I, I, I think the problem is you have the fastest job creation in this recovery than you have in any recession in 25 years, but it is still not enough. You aren’t going to win this on jobs, and that is the problem. It’s going to take a long time. I don’t know how you get around that problem, but technically speaking, this recovery has not been tepid.

Really, Erin? And exactly how did you come to such a conclusion?

Let’s begin our analysis of Burnett’s claim by first recognizing that the organization responsible for determing when recessions begin and end – the National Bureau of Economic Research – has yet to announce when the last recession concluded.

In fact, as Fortune reported on August 6, NBER may be delaying its announcement to see if the economy double-dips:

The National Bureau of Economic Research is known to be slow at declaring the starts and stops of a recession, but it looks as if it might have been right to hold off on any bold declarations this time around, potentially proving many policymakers and Wall Street analysts wrong.

Many economists say the recession ended over a year ago — last June or July — even while NBER (the ones tasked to make the formal call) has hesitated from doing so. As early as April, the organization’s committee of academic economists said that it would be "premature" to declare an end to the recession that started in December 2007. [...]

Who knows when the NBER will declare the end of this latest recession. Whatever date it falls on, last summer certainly didn’t feel like the end of the recession even while many economists argue that it was. And in the coming year, it might feel even less like it.

The NBER has never declared a double-dip recession, but believes it is basically one continuous recession with a period of growth occurring and then a slip back to a downturn. At the rate we’re going, it looks like a double-dip is plausible.

As such, it is possible that months from now, the NBER data may indicate we are currently still in a recession making Burnett’s argument Sunday totally absurd.

On the other hand, as the Gross Domestic Product did start growing in the 3rd quarter of 2009, let’s operate from the premise that the recession ended in June of last year. As NBER believes the recession started in December 2007, that means its duration was 18 months. 

According to NBER, the early ’90s recession went from July 1990 to March 1991. Depending on how you calculate it, that’s a duration of eight to nine months.

NBER views the early ’00s recession as going from March 2001 to November 2001, also a duration of eight to nine months.

With this in mind, if the most recent recession ended in June 2009, it took at least twice the time to get out of it than the previous two recessions thereby completely refuting Burnett’s claim.

As for job growth coming out of a recession, this "recovery" is by no means something to brag about.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the fourteen months since this recession theoretically ended, non-farm payrolls have decreased by 329,000.

Even if you look at the "private sector" numbers the administration and their media sycophants have been trying to focus the nation’s attention on, this has shown a decline of 205,000 jobs since the recession "ended."

To be sure, both of these figures are better than what we saw during the early ’00s recession. However, non-farm payrolls increased by 45,000 in the first fourteen months following the end of the early ’90s recession while private sector employment declined by 220,000.

If Burnett wants to hang her hat on this 15,000 private sector jobs "improvement" as a sign that this recovery is faster and stronger than the one in the early ’90s, it seems certain given all the data she’d be skating on thin ice.

Of course, she’d certainly look good doing it, a fact that even Chris Matthews noticed three years ago:

Yes, it appears something other than Barack Obama gives Matthews a tingle up his leg – at least that was the case in August 2007.

As for Burnett, given that she represents one of this country’s foremost financial news networks, it would be nice if she did her homework before making such sweeping claims about the economy.

National Review’s Rich Lowry on Sunday had a classic debate with Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne about whether or not the tax cuts implemented by former President George W. Bush should be allowed to expire.

Dionne agrees with President Obama that they should only be extended for folks making less than $250,000 a year; Lowry thinks that raising anyone’s taxes right now could send the country back into recession.

With this in mind, NBC’s David Gregory opened the panel segment of "Meet the Press" with a discussion about the current state of the economy and how this issue might impact the upcoming midterm elections.

As he tossed the baton to Lowry and Dionne, one got the feeling Gregory was intentionally lighting a fuse he knew would result in some entertaining fireworks (videos follow with transcripts and commentary): 

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: E.J., the economy and taxes and where things stand.

E.J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST: Well, actually, I think the administration is in a position where it should pick a big fight with the Republicans. I, I at least half agree with what Rich just said. They’re clearly down in this election. If the election were held now, they’d probably lose the House, though not the Senate. I think they can claw back enough to hold on to the House. I think they should pick a big fight on the renewal of the Bush tax cuts and say, "We want to renew them for everybody earning under $250,000 a year. Heck, maybe we can actually renew them for everybody earning under a million dollars a year." Draw a line and say, "We want to give them tax cuts now. They want to fight for millionaires." So you can have that fight. I think they can win it. But they need to shake up this race to salvage some of those seats. They need to hang on to 218 House seats.

MR. GREGORY: Right. I’m going to get to Charlie in a second.

But, Rich, back to the–you know, because I’ve, I’ve pressed Republicans on the point of, "Hey, you want to cut the deficit? Well, it’s going to cost $3 trillion to extend all of these tax cuts. How do you pay for it?" And Republicans say to me, "You know, that’s–that argument is off base here, that it’s existing tax policy and that you shouldn’t be making that argument." And respond to E.J.’s point.

Readers are recommended to fasten their seat belts, for Gregory likely without knowing it had nicely placed the ball on the tee for Lowry, and the National Review editor was about to launch the longest nationally televised drive of his life straight down the middle of the fairway: 

RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, there, there, there are a couple things. I think E.J.’s political advice is exactly wrong, although I appreciate him half agreeing with me. I’ll take what–I’ll take whatever I can get.

MR. GREGORY: Right. That may be all you get.

MR. DIONNE: That’s great progress.

MR. GREGORY: That may be all you get.

MR. LOWRY: But, you know, before August, before they left–Congress left for the August recess, you had three Senate Democrats saying, "We need to extend all these things less temporarily." And that was before this awful last month the Democrats suffered. I think it only got harder, if not impossible, not to extend all of these. So I expect the Obama administration either to say, "Let’s do it for one year," or to punt it to the lame duck session. But even if they extend it for one year, that will be an amazing sign. If you have these large Democratic majorities in the Senate and the House extending all the Bush tax cuts, huge sign of the way the worm has turned politically.

MR. GREGORY: Yes.

MR. DIONNE: One idea is to put on the table, one of the things you could do with the money you save from not giving the tax cut to people earning over $1 million, you could either redistribute the rest of that to people down below a million, or you could begin to create an infrastructure bank to try to build us for the long-term. You need to look like you’re making a–you’re drawing a clear line with the Republicans.

MR. LOWRY: But there, there, there you’re sucking money out of the economy in the short-term in order for the long-term in a weak economy. That makes no sense. Raising taxes, there’s no theory in which raises taxes in a slow economy makes sense.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

MR. LOWRY: Keynesians don’t favor it, supply-siders don’t favor it.

Round one clearly went to Lowry.

A bit later as promised, Gregory brought Charlie Cook into the discussion. As readers will notice, this also set Lowry up to demolish Dionne:

MR. GREGORY: All right, but for everybody here, what is the bottom line? How did the president and Democrats get to this point? Is it a bad economy, case closed, Charlie, or is there a leadership question, a failure of leadership by the president that has got him to this point?

CHARLIE COOK, EDITOR THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Democrats desperately needed three things to happen this year. Number one, they needed unemployment to turn around. And when you look at the, the groups that were sort of the booster, that pushed them over the top, among African-Americans the unemployment rate is 16.3, you know, way more than it was when the president took office; Hispanics, 12; young people, 26, the job market for recent college graduates the worst in 35 years. He desperately needed unemployment to turn around. Number two, he needed attitudes toward healthcare reform to fundamentally change, with people saying, "OK…

MR. GREGORY: And that hasn’t happened.

MR. COOK: And that–it just hasn’t happened. And they had to get control of the agenda. And right now what they’re doing is they’re paying a price for having focused so thoroughly on health care for a solid year at a time when the economy was deteriorating. And, for a lot of voters, they just see the president and Democrats as having checked the box on stimulus and then gone to cap and trade and health care leaving the economy to deteriorate.

Absolutely outstanding analysis by Cook. With the table nicely set, Gregory invited Lowry and Dionne to continue the debate: 

MR. GREGORY: Have it out, you two. The question of the economy rules everything, or a question of leadership, E.J.?

MR. DIONNE: First of all, in that Donnelly ad, it’s interesting that John Boehner, the Republican leader, was also in that picture.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. DIONNE: And there are Republicans–the Republicans are unpopular, too. That’s going to be something Democrats want to play. I think the biggest mistake Obama made was in not making a big argument from the beginning, "Here’s where we started, here’s where we’re going. It’s going to be rough getting there. But if you stick with me, this is going to get better." FDR did that, Ronald Reagan did that. He needed to do that.

MR. GREGORY: But trust in government was different when FDR did it.

MR. DIONNE: Right. But he needed to restore trust in government, and I think he was in a position to do that. He needed to emphasize the way they’re actually reforming government, which they are, but nobody knows it.

MR. GREGORY: The flipside of that question, you can address this big one.

MR. LOWRY: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: But is also, have, have Republicans done anything to really regain trust about their leadership…

MR. LOWRY: No, it’s most…

MR. GREGORY: …to an oppositional strategy?

MR. LOWRY: …it’s mostly a free gift from Obama fundamentally fumbling this. And I disagree with E.J. again. I’m going to have to agree with you at some point, E.J. just to be a good colleague here on the set. But people know what Obama’s about. They know what the program is. They know he’s growing government because he thinks that’s good for the economy and good for the country’s future. They get it. The problem, I think, is threefold. One is ideological grandiosity. Democrats thought in ‘08 they had a mandate from heaven to do everything they ever wanted, when really they were just getting an opportunity because people were recoiling from the Republicans and the poor state of the economy.

Indeed. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman made the same point on ABC’s "This Week" Sunday about Obama over-reading his mandate. But I digress: 

LOWRY: Then there was the cynical opportunism that Charlie referred to, a crisis is–never let a crisis go to waste. Therefore do health care, try to cap and trade, things that have nothing to do with the economy or may actually be harmful to it. And then three, there’s the fact that the program has not worked on its own terms. The stimulus has not worked. So you add all three of those things up and you have a very grim picture. And another huge problem, independents are much closer to the tea partiers on the big issues and even on the smaller hot-button ones–spending, debt, Arizona immigration law, Ground Zero mosque, all that–much closer to the tea partiers than they are to the Democrats. 

Indeed.

Game, set, and match Lowry.

Bravo, Rich. Bravo. 

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager on Sunday said Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin are currently the leaders of the Republican Party, and this represents a long-term problem for the GOP.

Appearing on NBC’s "Meet the Press," David Plouffe was asked about a number of questions facing the nation as well as the President he helped get elected.

Apparently feeling the need to do some conservative bashing, host Gregory asked Plouffe about a section from his book "Audacity to Win" dealing with Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin.

This set the Obama adviser up nicely to go after targets liberals just love to hate (video follows with transcript and commentary): 

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Finally, a quote from your book, handicapping the Republican field, this is what you write in the new part of "Audacity to Win." "This is the Republican Party of 2010, and I think it will be the Republican Party for a long time. It is hard to see how a Republican gets the presidential nomination without winning the plurality of the Palin-Limbaugh-Beck base of the Republican Party. Without a drastic change in orientation, they will probably nominate someone a good bit out of the mainstream." Who do you have in mind? Who do you think is the most formidable Republican likely to challenge President Obama?

DAVID PLOUFFE: Oh, I have no idea. I mean, this time four years ago there was very few of us talking about Barack Obama running for president, including me. So I think some of the people that we think are going to run may not run. There’ll be other people who’ll run. We’ll see. I wish I could just sit back with a tub of popcorn and, and enjoy it because I think it’s going to be quite an adventure.

MR. GREGORY: But who is the leader of the Republican Party, would you say?

MR. PLOUFFE: I think the–I think right now–and this is a problem for them long term–I do think that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, they are the leaders of the party. And you see whenever–I was struck by–Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, I think, was at a town hall meeting and said, "I don’t agree with anything the Democrats are doing, and I don’t agree with Speaker Pelosi, but she’s a nice person," and got attacked for that. There, there is an intolerance in that party and an extremism that I think is where the real energy is. And so I think, as you see in ‘11 and ‘12, as that presidential primary, those are the people that are going to come out to vote. So I think that’s where the real energy is, and I think particularly in, in elections where more people vote, in presidential elections where you have a lot more younger people, minorities, independent voters who skew a little bit more moderate, that’s going to be a big problem. So we’ll just have to wait and see. But let’s get this–through this election first, and then we’ll be right on to the next one.

It truly is fascinating the left and their media minions continue to bash Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin.

After all, with the possible exceptions of Obama and the Clintons, there aren’t any other liberal political figures in this nation that come close to the popularity and visibility of these three conservatives.

As such, suggesting that they represent a problem for Republicans is like saying ground beef and potatoes are bad for McDonalds.

Regardless, Gregory just couldn’t resist giving his guest the opportunity to attack three of the nation’s most well-known conservatives.

As the jingle goes, "If it’s Sunday…" 

After Gregory played a clip of that — complete with Engel calling Iraq a "giant distraction of resources" from Afghanistan, just like a congressional Democrat – Senator Graham insisted that the NBC reporter was "completely rewriting history" and that Saddam "was not becoming a good citizen, he was becoming a more dangerous dictator. The world is better with him dead."

Even as this stage of the Iraq war, as the surge seems to quite clearly brought peace and calm, never-say-it’s-a-win die-hards in the liberal media are the first line of attack on the Republican position:

DAVID GREGORY:  Senator, I want to conclude by asking you a question about Iraq and Afghanistan.  The president, of course, ended Operation Iraqi Freedom with an Oval Office address, addressing the nation on that point on the end of the war.  Our own chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, who covered the war throughout and has covered the war in Afghanistan as well, offered some analysis during an appearance with Ann Curry on the "Today" show about the legacy of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  I’d like you to listen and react to it.

RICHARD ENGEL:  If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power.  He was probably getting more moderate.  He was being welcomed into the–into–by, by a lot of European countries.  He was being welcomed into Eastern Europe in particular.  He as heading in a, in a direction of, of accommodation.  The, the sanctioned regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail.  So I think he would–it would be somewhat of a, a basket case, but it would still–it would be–Iran would be a lot more contained. So it would be a dictatorship that was trying to break out of its box, but Iran would not be as dangerous as it, as it is today.

ANN CURRY:  And had the United States not invaded Iraq, would we be done in Afghanistan?

RICHARD ENGEL:  Probably.  That was a giant distraction of resources, of intelligence assets.  That war would probably be over.

GREGORY:  Senator, what do you say?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:  Completely rewriting history.  Our planes were being shot at in the no-fly zones, Saddam Hussein was violating every U.N. resolution to account for his weapons program, he was openly defying the international community when it came to controlling Iraq.  He was not becoming a good citizen, he was becoming a more dangerous dictator.  The world is better with him dead.  If we can get a government together soon in Iraq and it becomes stable and secure, we’ll have a democracy between Iran and Syria.  Iran’s biggest nightmare is to have a neighbor on their border who practices democracy.  So the 4,400 young men and women who’ve died have done this country a great service by securing Iraq and making…

GREGORY:  Well, nobody’s disputing whether they’ve done the country a great service.  But even our current…

GRAHAM:  We’re safer.

GREGORY:  …defense secretary, who’s a Republican says, "Iraq will always be clouded by how it began." Three-quarters of the American people think it was not worth the cost.

GRAHAM:  Well, I can tell you, we will be safer by how it ends.  History will judge us, not by what we did wrong at the beginning, but what we got right at the end.  If we can get the government stable in–and, and President Obama, it is now his job to finish out Iraq. 

If it finishes out well and it becomes secure and stable, allied with us on the war on terror–this is the place al-Qaeda was beat by fellow Muslims.  I can’t underestimate how important that was.  Al-Qaeda went into Iraq to topple our efforts to bring about stability and representative government, and they were, they were beaten by Muslims with our help.  That is a huge win in the war on terror. 

So Afghanistan is a — we’re getting things better, we got a long ways to go, but I am glad we did what we did in Iraq.  America will be safer and history will record this as a big event in the Mideast where a dictatorship was replaced by a democracy in the heart of the Arab world.

PS: I am not related to Senator Graham.

Jay Leno on Friday ribbed Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the poor state of the economy.

In his opening monologue on the "Tonight Show," the comedian began with a lot of politics first joking about the President’s Middle East peace talks, then moving to the war in Afghanistan, and eventually a poke at airline security.

On the day the Labor Department announced an uptick in the unemployment rate, Leno had a number of jokes about how bad the economy is.

Finally, the monologue concluded with a nice tribute to a United States Marine Corps unit in the audience (video follows with commentary):

It sure is nice to see the late night comedians feeling that this White House is no longer off limits. 

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld had some fun Thursday evening bashing NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel for absurd comments he made on the "Today" show this week.

As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Engel that morning told NBC’s Ann Curry:

If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation.

LAURA INGRAHAM: In the "Back of the Book" segment tonight, "The Dumbest Things of the Week." Is NBC News making excuses for Saddam Hussein? Regardless of your thoughts on Iraq, one thing most people agree on is that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But some are wondering if NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engle, doesn’t miss the good old days when Saddam was still around.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD ENGLE, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the — into — by a lot of European countries. He was being welcomed in Eastern Europe, in particular.

He was heading in a direction of accommodation. The sanctions regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail. So, I think it would be somewhat of a basket case, but it would be — Iran would be a lot more contained.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining us now from New York is Greg Gutfeld, host of "Red Eye" and the author of "The Bible of Unspeakable Truths."

So Greg, as far as I can tell, Saddam was on the verge of having his own reality show.

GREG GUTFELD, HOST, "RED EYE": I mean, you have to figure out he said he would be more moderate. You have to ask him, what does he mean by moderate? Was he talking about alcohol intake? Was he going to cut back on his booze? Or was he going to only gas half as many Kurds or tell his sons they could only rape women every other weekend?

Pr maybe he was becoming more environmentally friendly and was going to use renewable car batteries when he electrocuted his citizens. So we need — we need to give specifics on what he meant by moderation.

INGRAHAM: I think he was clearly going green, Greg. He was making inroads with Eastern Europe. I don’t know what countries in Eastern Europe? Poland? Old Czechoslovakia? What countries was he getting close to? I just don’t recall that.

GUTFELD: He does have a point, though. He said that, if we didn’t have the war, Saddam would be more accommodating, which is true because you are more accommodating when you are not dead. It’s really hard to buy somebody dinner when you’re dead. So, in effect, he’s actually correct by accident.

INGRAHAM: Well, Iran — Iran might not have been the problem it is today, but the idea that he — it was going to be Saddam the milquetoast if we didn’t invade. I just — I was desperately looking to follow that logic. But you know, when NBC is involved, Greg, all bets are off. All bets are off.

GUTFELD: Yes. Can’t stomach victory. You’ve got a war that you’ve won. Enjoy it.

INGRAHAM: Winning is not fun. We’re supposed to be America on our knees, begging for mercy all the time. You don’t understand that. We need to apologize, Greg. Get used to it.

GUTFELD: I am. Believe me. I’m married.

To give readers an idea just how absurd Engel’s comments were, even the liberal Mediaite found this segment to its liking.

Now that’s saying something.

In the midst of covering the performance of the broadcast networks last week, David Bauder at the Associated Press noted the following (HT Kevin Alloca at Media Bistro):

Meanwhile, the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts combined for a dubious record last week: the average of 18.7 million people who watched one of the three shows last week was the smallest audience those three telecasts have reached collectively on record, since the infancy of television, Nielsen said.

During the slow news period of late August, the broadcasts broke their previous record — set just last week.

Little did I know that my post last week (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) also covered a negative record-breaker.

The news actually got worse from there, Media Bistro’s Chris Ariens separately reported:

And not a good sign from the younger viewer department — none of the shows broke the 2 million viewer average in the A25-54 demo. That’s the first time that’s ever happened.

I don’t find the contention by the AP’s Bauder about the "slow news period of late August" very convincing. Political campaigns are already heating up, and family vacation season was mostly over, as the large majority of children were back in school last week. The networks’ collective performance was down almost 8% from a year ago for all viewers, and over 14% in the 25-54 demo.

I think it’s more likely that more and more viewers and news consumers are tuning out because they agree with this sentiment.

It will be interesting to see what if any kind of fall recovery there will be at the Big 3 networks’ evening newscasts.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made the rounds of the six broadcast and cable morning news shows on Tuesday morning to help set the table for the President’s speech marking the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Of the six network anchors Gibbs spoke with, only CBS’s Harry Smith failed to ask whether President Obama would extend credit to President Bush for the successful surge strategy (a strategy then-Senator Obama denigrated as futile).

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos recited House GOP Leader John Boehner’s dig at politicians who “fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy,” and then rejected Gibbs claim that Boehner’s was “made up history.” NBC’s Matt Lauer recited Obama’s own words to Gibbs: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are gonna solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

At each stop, Gibbs insisted that no one doubted the surge would improve security, but insisted that the real accomplishment was “an improved political situation.” CNN’s John Roberts followed up, asking whether security improvements credited to the surge were essential to those political improvements, but Gibbs dodged: “John, you asked me the same question I’m likely to give you the same answer.”

When Gibbs reached Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson was met with condescension and mockery when she asked the same question as the other hosts. “I think you’ve asked me this question twice and I’ve given you an answer,” Gibbs chided, dodging the question. Later: “That’s actually now the fourth time you’ve asked me that question….That’s number five….Gretchen, I don’t know whether this is you actually interviewing me or just a tape of you looping the same question over and over again.”

Gibbs never directly stated whether or not the Bush administration deserves any credit for the (so far) positive outcome in Iraq.

Only CBS’s Harry Smith — who last year voiced “regret” that he did not abuse his position as a newscaster to “stand up” and say of the Iraq war “this doesn’t make any sense” — refused to ask Gibbs about the surge. Instead, he suggested the seven year military commitment wasn’t worth it:

HARRY SMITH: The President goes to Texas today to talk to veterans and soldiers. There are folks who have gone there on deployment after deployment after deployment, and some of them wonder this morning if their sacrifice has been worth it.

Gibbs stubborn refusal to share any credit with the Bush administration — even going so far as to belittle a Fox News journalist — is baffling, since President Obama himself declared the surge to be a success in 2008. “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." (Video)

Here’s how Gibbs handled the five networks that posed questions about President Bush and the surge (thanks to MRC’s Geoff Dickens and Matthew Balan for help transcribing). They’re organized in roughly the order they took place, starting with the broadcast networks and then the three cable networks:

# ABC’s Good Morning America:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more on that speech, let’s turn now to Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. He joins us from the White House this morning. You know, Robert, already, the House Republican leader [John Boehner] has issued, I guess, a ‘pre-buttal’ of the President’s remarks in the speech he’s going to give today. He says this: ‘Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy, now proudly claim credit for the results. Today, we mark not the defeat those voices anticipated, but progress.’ So he’s basically saying the milestone the President is marking today happened in spite of President Obama, not because of him. Your response?

ROBERT GIBBS: Well, look, there’s a lot of made-up history in that statement. I think what Congressman Boehner — I think what the American people would like to know, with Congressman Boehner is, do you support withdrawing the 90,000-plus troops that this commander-in-chief is marking the milestone of today? There’s no doubt that were it not for a timeline for getting our combat troops out of Iraq, we’d still be there. First and foremost-

STEPHANOPOULOS, interrupting: You say ‘made-up history,’ Robert, but- wait a second. You say ‘made-up history,’ but the President did oppose the surge.

GIBBS The President did oppose the surge, George, but understand this: while the surge did provide some increased security in Iraq, what happened was a political transformation that took a long time after those added troops were put into Iraq. There was a Sunni awakening, where Sunni tribesmen decided they did not want to fight with, but against al Qaeda.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But does credit also go to the surge? Does the President now believe that President Bush made the right decision to order that surge in troops in Iraq?

GIBBS: Again, George, I think the President has always stated and always believed that our security would be- that adding 30,000 troops into Iraq would improve the security. But obviously, the leaders in Iraq had to make some political accommodation to move that country forward….

# NBC’s Today

LAUER: You also mentioned at the White House the President would call President Bush in advance of his speech. Has the call taken place?

GIBBS: I believe the call will take place a little bit later this morning, likely when the President is on Air Force One flying to thank our troops at Ft. Bliss right outside of El Paso, Texas. I think probably both commanders in chief share, share certainly one thing in common and that is thanking the men and women in uniform for the tremendous sacrifice that they made over the past seven-and-a-half years-

LAUER: Right.

GIBBS: -the thousands that aren’t coming back from Iraq, the tens of thousands that have been wounded but those that keep us safe and secure each and every day.

LAUER: Let me read you something. In January of 2007 when President Bush announced the surge in Iraq, then Senator Barack Obama had this to say, quote, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are gonna solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." So when President Obama speaks to former President Bush today, will he change his mind on that? Will he give President Bush credit for making that decision on the surge and admit that it contributed to the situation of more stability on the ground today?

GIBBS: Matt, what is, what is certainly not up for question is that, that President Obama, then candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq would, indeed, improve the security situation, and it did. What was necessary for this moment to happen was a diplomatic surge, a change in the Sunnis, the Sunni awakening, rather than fighting with al Qaeda they fought against al Qaeda. I think a number of things, most importantly our men and women in uniform, brought us to this point.

LAUER: Right.

GIBBS: I think there’s no doubt that the surge improved the security situation. But as this president said many times, the war in Iraq was not going to be fought or won primarily or just militarily. That we had to see some political accommodation and we had to see sectarian violence reduced because Sunni, Shia and Kurd decided to live together and chart Iraq’s future together, not fighting each other.

LAUER: Alright Robert Gibbs at the White House. Robert, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

# MSNBC’s Morning Joe

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Obviously the war was controversial, in the first few years, especially. The surge was controversial, for sure, and it generated and garnered a lot of criticism. Will the President be crediting the former president for his work there?

ROBERT GIBBS: Well, look, I think the President will talk about the steps that our men and women in uniform took to make this day possible. There’s no doubt about it. I think, Mika, then-candidate Barack Obama said that adding 20,000 men and women into Baghdad and into Iraq was likely to improve the security situation….

# CNN’s American Morning

JOHN ROBERTS: I know that the president is going to call former President Bush this morning. Will he tonight during his speech give credit to the president’s surge strategy for helping to better the security situation there so that the political process could proceed?

GIBBS: Well, John, I don’t think there is any doubt. And you heard candidate Barack Obama say that adding 20,000 of our brave men and women who, quite frankly, John, I think we all share the belief that they are owed a tremendous amount of gratitude. The president is in awe of their sacrifice.

We knew that adding those men and women in there would improve the security situation, but the reason we are where we are today is because of an improved political situation, we know that the Sunni awakening, Sunni tribes in the western part of Iraq began not to fight with but to fight against al Qaeda. And all of those circumstances led to a point in which we’re at today.

I will say this, John — I think many people believe that when the President made a commitment to end our combat mission in Iraq by August 31, 2010, I am not sure many people believed that he could pull it off. He’s kept his word. He will talk about the fact that we’ve made a determination that in July 2011, we’ll begin to transition our mission in Afghanistan as well.

ROBERTS: Just back on the surge strategy. There’s no question that the surge strategy did improve security. I think most military and political analysts would agree. But you said that it would improve security but it was the political aspect of it that took place that allowed Iraq to come to where it is today. But most military and political analysts would tell you that the improvement in security, because of the surge, set the conditions for the political aspect of it.

I’m wondering, again, will the president credit President Bush’s surge strategy for setting the conditions to allow withdrawal?

GIBBS: John, you asked me the same question I’m likely to give you the same answer. Again, I don’t think anybody doubted that the 20,000 people were going to improve the security situation in Iraq. It was the political accommodation that had to happen. It was Sunni, Shia and Kurd that had to decide not to fight one another in sectarian violence but to live and work together and chart Iraqis’ future together….

# Now, the most contentious, the Fox & Friends appearance. I’ve loaded the entire transcript, so you can see that Gibbs was inaccurate when he accused Carlson of asking the same question two or three times in a row, which set off his string of sarcastic remarks.

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Welcome back, everyone. Well, tonight is the big night. President Obama expected to announce the formal end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq. How will this change our mission there, and is Iraq stable enough to stand alone on its own. Joining me now, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Good morning to you, Mr. Gibbs.

ROBERT GIBBS: Good morning, how are you?

CARLSON: I’m doing just fine. So the big question today is, why now? Why not wait until Iraq is a bit more stable. Why tonight?

GIBBS: Well, look, I think Iraq is very stable right now. We have — despite the fact that there is still violence in Iraq, and there certainly will continue to be — as General Ray Odierno told the President in the Situation Room a few weeks ago, it’s among the lowest in measurable violence that we’ve seen in the seven and a half years that American troops have been in Iraq. There’s no doubt that we’re still in the midst of government formation, but the Iraqi security forces provided the security for that election. And I think what’s important today is that as we transition out of our combat role to assisting the Iraqis, the future and the history of Iraq will be written by and be responsible — the Iraqis will be responsible for writing that.

CARLSON: Will President Obama recognize the success of the surge put in place by President Bush tonight?

GIBBS: Well, look — there’s any doubt that first and foremost that the men and women in our uniform and the sacrifices that I think we are all in awe of and the President will laud today both at Fort Bliss when he stops there as well as in his speech. I don’t think there’s any doubt as candidate Obama said that adding 20,000 men and women into Iraq would improve the security situation. I think along with –

CARLSON: Candidate Obama said that? No, wait, excuse me, back in 2007 he said he was against the surge.

GIBBS: No, he said he was against the surge. He said there was no doubt that adding 20,000 men and women would improve the security situation. But as we know, our efforts in Iraq weren’t going to be done simple militarily, Gretchen. There had to be a political accommodation. We had sectarian violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurd and, quite frankly, the Sunni and the Shia and the Kurd had to decide they were going to live and work together for an iraq that met their future needs and not fight each other. I think that’s why we’re at this moment and that’s what the President is going –

CARLSON: So that will be the way in which the President will address his flip-flop on the issue tonight?

GIBBS: Gretchen, I’m happy to spend a lot of time looking back at decisions four years ago or even seven and a half years ago. I think what’s important, while you guys play political games, is the President to laud our men and women and to mark the end of our combat mission.

CARLSON: No political games here. I think a lot of people in the American public are wanting to know what the President will say and how he’ll rectify what he said back in 2007. Let me ask you this-

GIBBS: Let’s just be very clear-

CARLSON: Word on the street is the President is going to call President Bush today. What will he say when he calls President Bush?

GIBBS: Well, I think the President will talk about the situation in Iraq. Thank the President for his service, for his love of country. And I think they’ll have a nice private, quiet conversation about what’s going on in the world.

CARLSON: Will the President, will President Obama credit President Bush tonight in his speech for the success in Iraq?

GIBBS: Again, Gretchen, I think you’ve asked me this question twice and I’ve given you an answer.

CARLSON: No, this is the first time I’ve asked you the question.

GIBBS: Okay, maybe I’m having a hard time counting to three

CARLSON: Will President Obama thank President Bush tonight during his speech for the success of the surge?

GIBBS: No, that’s actually now the fourth time you’ve asked me that question.

CARLSON: Well, you haven’t answered it. Will he credit President Bush tonight for the success of the surge?

GIBBS: That’s number five. Let me give you the same answer I gave you the first time.

CARLSON: In baseball you get three strikes and you’re out. You’ve had five chances to answer the question. Will he credit President Bush tonight?

GIBBS: Gretchen, I don’t know whether this is you actually interviewing me or just a tape of you looping the same question over and over again. There is no doubt and the President will mention that adding men and women into Iraq improved the security situation. There’s no doubt about that. But I think we would all recognize, Gretchen, if you’ll take a moment to understand that we wouldn’t be where we are in Iraq without the political accommodation. We wouldn’t be where we are in Iraq today without the Sunni tribes deciding instead of fighting with al Qaeda, they were going to fight against al Qaeda. There were a whole series of factors that went into marking where we are today.

I have one question for you, Gretchen, do you support the fact that the President is pulling out more than 90,000 troops today and ending our combat mission there?

CARLSON: Well, this is not an interview of Gretchen Carlson. This is an interview with the spokesman of President Obama on one of the most important issues facing the American public today.

GIBBS: That’s my one question for you, and I can even ask it five more times.

CARLSON: Well, that would be very cute, I guess. Let’s go back to why tonight, because you have Michael O’Hanlon, who’s from the Brookings Institute, saying this is not the right time for a victory lap. If I were him — speaking to the President — I would wait until they have a government and do it with Iraqis together. How would you respond to Mr. O’Hanlon on that?

GIBBS: Well, look, Gretchen, I’ve said this before. This is not a victory lap. You’re not going to see any ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners that will be unfurled and you won’t hear the President say the words ‘mission accomplished.’ We understand that violence will still continue. We understand we still have troops there. But it’s important to transition our role out of Iraq and put the Iraqis in control and make sure that the Iraqis are responsible for the decisions that have to govern that country.

That’s also a reason why we’re marking this transition today is we put pressure on the Iraqis to come up with decisions and accommodations that they could live with themselves rather than fighting each other because we told them we weren’t going to be there forever and that at a certain point, we were going to transition out. It’s their responsibility. The Vice President is over there now. I don’t think there’s any doubt that we will very soon have a government in place, the last election it took six months to form a government. This election was certified in June, and I think we’re making progress toward that end.

CARLSON: And undoubtedly, your boss, the President, will thank the troops tonight during his speech as well.

GIBBS: You know, the president will start today, Gretchen, at Fort Bliss which saw some of the heaviest combat fighting at the very beginning of this war and they had troops that were — that have served there continuously. Some have served two, three and four times. You know, Gretchen, whether you agree that we should have gone or not, whether you agree on the certain tactics, I think we can all agree that the men and women of our uniform — the men and women in uniform and those that provide our safety and security and sacrifice and the families that they have that sacrifice so much are a group of people that we are forever indebted to.

CARLSON: All right. Very well said. Robert Gibbs, spokesperson to the President. We will all watch tonight, 8pm Eastern time. Thanks for your time this morning.

GIBBS: Thank you.

Yet in the interview broadcast on August 29, there was no mention by the "Nightly News" anchor of how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is at odds with Obama over the proposed location.

For more information, check out this post on the Eyeblast.tv blog.

The New Orleans mayor at the time was almost entirely ignored in this hour-long examination. The only mention of the state’s former governor was actually one of praise.

Rather than offering one new compelling insight into the natural disaster that changed America, the invited guests all fed fill-in host Brian Williams the same old tired lines about racism and classism; despite numerous opportunities to delve into the decades of political corruption in the region that left the levees surrounding New Orleans in a dreadful state of disrepair, the subject was never broached.

Instead, what ensued – given all the time and resources available to really do a groundbreaking exposé on this issue – was something all those involved should be tremendously embarrassed for.

Frankly, that was clear right from the get go (partial video follows with partial transcript and commentary, full video and transcript here and here respectively):

MR. BRIAN WILLIAMS: August 29th, 2005, Hurricane Katrina touches down on the Louisiana coast. The city’s levees fail, the next morning nearly 80 percent of New Orleans is under water. A botched government response, a poor local evacuation plan, thousands are left without food, water, shelter or safety, trapped for days as the city is looted and its people suffer. 

Here’s the picture that was on the screen when Williams said "botched government response":

And that was just the beginning:

WILLIAMS: Senator Landrieu, before I begin with you, I want to show you a piece of videotape of another member of your family. The–a long time ago, a newspaper columnist affectionately called the Landrieu family the "Cajun Camelot," and that’s the last time there was, first of all, a white mayor in the city of New Orleans before the current mayor, your dad, Moon Landrieu. What was it, 1970 to ‘78, a two-term mayor, former head of the Conference of Mayors, later secretary of Housing. Senator, have you searched your own soul and conscience to make sure–there was so much blame that went around after Katrina–that you bore none of it? How–have you sorted out just what it was that happened here?

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU: (D-LA): Well, Brian, first of all, no elected official could say that they didn’t make mistakes. We all did. It was an extremely tough time. But I can say proudly that I helped to lead the effort to help the federal government respond more effectively.

And that was all the discussion about Landrieu’s potential culpability as part of a strong political family in the region, as Williams had much bigger catfish to fry:

MR. WILLIAMS: Now I want to ask you about one of the many promises made after Katrina. I want to roll in a piece of sound from President George W. Bush after Katrina, speaking not far from here in Jackson Square.

(Videotape, September 15, 2005)

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.

(End videotape)

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, you heard it.

SEN. LANDRIEU: Yeah.
Advertisement | ad info

MR. WILLIAMS: Did it turn out to be hollow? Did it turn out…

SEN. LANDRIEU: It was.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you think he was telling the truth then?

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, it, it turned out to be a hollow promise, and I’ll tell you why: Because the federal government didn’t stay and do everything they could. The federal government didn’t make it easy. They made it very, very difficult.

Landrieu then went on to complain about how little money her region has received from the federal government since Katrina hit. She quoted astonishingly low numbers – in the low millions to be precise – without any challenge whatsoever from Williams about the billions of taypayer dollars that have been sent to this area since 2005. 

All Williams had to do was cite figures from the Department of Homeland Security’s website to address the many billions of dollars authorized by Congress and former President Bush for Katrina relief in just the first twelve months after the storm made landfall. But that would have made Landrieu look like a liar.

Potentially even more absurd, Williams didn’t ask her about last year’s Louisiana Purchase when she got $300 million for her state as a bribe from Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to change her vote in favor of healthcare reform.

No, such inconvenient truths were unimportant to Williams who changed the subject to the BP oil spill:

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Senator, we should note that you were talking about wetlands before talking about wetlands was, was in vogue. And, perhaps, though, you can explain the very confusing relationship between Louisiana and oil as we look at the once-beautiful wetlands with that now characteristic oil line that’s to be found on all the grass. A lot of folks elsewhere in the country just assumed that the anger down here would come out of the oil spill, the fact that three months of oil is sitting out there in that water. A lot of folks assumed that the folks in Louisiana would be behind a stoppage until there could be a rule that if you can get oil a mile down, you should be able to stop it. What is the relationship between Louisianans, who love the great outdoors and have some of the great outdoors in all of the world, and the petroleum that comes out deep under the ground?

SEN. LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, Brian, please know that people are very angry about that spill, and very disappointed in BP, and very disappointed in the subcontractors as well, and are just furious about the oil. We want to keep our waters clean. We’ve tried to keep our waters clean all these years. But we do have a strong relationship with the oil and gas industry, not just big oil, but independents and the thousands of small businesses that we built that we’re proud of that support that industry because the nation needs this oil. This nation consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day. It did the day before the Deep Horizon exploded, it does today. Now, we’re going to transition to cleaner fuels. And by the way, Louisiana is well positioned to be part of the energy future, not just our past. But that’s why people down here feel so strongly. We’ve been fishing in the same waters that we drill for oil. We’ve been navigating all of the commerce of–not only of this country, but of the world on those same waters. And yes, Brian, we recreate, we swim in those waters. And we believe with the right kind of balance in policy we can do it. So, yes, a pause was necessary. But a six-month moratorium has put a, a blanket of fear and anxiety, and it must be lifted as soon as possible.

Might have been a nice time for Williams to bring up all the contributions Landrieu received from BP during the 2008 election cycle. That year, she received more from this oil company than any other member of Congress.

But Williams wasn’t interested in challenging his guests: 

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, was the administration slow off the dime when the spill happened?

NEW ORLEANS MAYOR MITCH LANDRIEU: I don’t think so. They were down here pretty quickly. And, of course, this was a much different disaster than Katrina was. I can honestly say that they’ve been working very hard at it.

This might have been a great time to reference a recent PPP poll about what Louisianans think about Bush’s job of handling Katrina versus Obama’s job with the oil spill (h/t NBer Gary Hall):

Louisianans’ severe disapproval of Obama overall, 35-61, mirrors their disdain for his efforts in the cleanup, 32-61. George W. Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, by contrast, is viewed barely negatively, 44-47; the response in June, 34-58, was more in line with Obama’s, 32-62. A full 54% now think Bush did a better job dealing with crisis than Obama, who gets the vote of only 33%.

Unfortunately, Williams chose to ignore this as well, and decided to head back to Katrina:

MR. WILLIAMS: How should Ray Nagin’s term as mayor be remembered, as history looks back on what happened here?

MAYOR LANDRIEU: Well, that’s a, that’s a very hard thing for me to opine about, you know?

MR. WILLIAMS: Try.

MAYOR LANDRIEU: We’re going to let history–we’re going to let history take care of itself. I would say this. You have not seen me talk much about what happened during the storm. That was a cataclysmic event. Who knows how to judge people that went through those couple of days? I will say…

MR. WILLIAMS: But you were in it, and now you have his old job.

MAYOR LANDRIEU: Yeah. I don’t, I don’t think generally that it was well done. But I would say this, that subsequent to the storm, putting the city in a position to recover, as it were, I don’t think he did a good job. That’s why I ran against him the first time, and of course, it’s why I ran the second time. I really believe that this city can fix itself.

But I will say this, just to put an exclamation point on President Bush’s statements a minute ago. There was huge damage, the damage was man-made. It was a result of the federal government’s negligence. And not withstanding all the incredible things that the people of America have done for us, we have not received enough money to repair the damage that was done. And when we do, we will be able to rebuild the city faster.

Amazing. And that was all that was said about the mayor in the middle of this disaster.

From there, Williams did an interview with actor Brad Pitt about his charitable efforts in the region, and then invited in some local celebrities that further pointed their fingers at Bush and the federal government:

MR. WILLIAMS: …until we–until we recently aired our own documentary on MSNBC and NBC News, you told me you’d been in a dark radio studio on generators, you, you hadn’t seen a lot of the pictures. But now you, you think about this region so much, you’ve lived here so long, raised in the bayou south of here, four decades in New Orleans, looking back, what was it we witnessed here, what do you think went on those few days?

GARLAND ROBINETTE, JOURNALIST AND RADIO HOST: To me, it was a Salvador Dali painting, it was just surreal. The United States of America couldn’t take care of itself. I’ve been to Banda Aceh, I’ve been all over the world with a company that I owned, and I’ve seen how we respond to disasters. And the very thought that for five days they couldn’t get here and do the job is just, to this day, is mind-boggling.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it too easy to throw a label on it, stamp it racism, classism? I once asked President George W. Bush on board Air Force One, I said, "Mr. President, if this had happened in Nantucket or New York or Chicago," he interrupted me and said, "You can call me anything you want, but don’t call me a racist." That was his response to that. What do you think was at work here?

Shameful, but it was going to get worse:

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to break that dull glaze by–and this is an essential part of this coverage, I believe, reminding people what it was like back then. Here is a clip from MEET THE PRESS the Sunday after Katrina that was beamed around the world. The president of Jefferson Parish, Aaron Broussard, pleading with Tim Russert and the authorities who might be watching television to send help.

(Videotape, September 4, 2005)

MR. AARON BROUSSARD: Nobody’s coming to get us. Nobody’s coming to get us. The secretary’s promised, everybody’s promised. They’ve had press conferences. I’m, I’m sick of the press conferences. For God sakes, shut up and send us somebody.

(End videotape)

MR. WILLIAMS: Aaron Broussard on live television.

The research behind this special was astonishingly sub-standard; within days of Broussard’s appearance on "MTP," it was exposed that he had lied about some of the things he told the late Tim Russert that day.

Three weeks later, Russert grilled Broussard about how he had totally misrepresented the death of a colleague’s mother during his first appearance.

Even worse, Broussard resigned as President of Jefferson Parish this past January in the midst of a federal corruption investigation. 

Nice character witness there, Brian!

But there was still more:

MR. WILLIAMS: It’s yesterday, really, and it’s been five years. The children and relatives of the people at this table, I’m going to go ahead and guess, would not have gone a week without water or food because their dads, their dads’ companies would have found a way, as NBC News did, as NBC News did, to get us supplies in the central business district. They found us in Metairie in the parking lot of a used car dealer, and they made sure we had something to drink. What’s the difference? Why didn’t it matter to someone? Why wasn’t someone able to, to get supplies and get those folks out?

WENDELL PIERCE, ACTOR: I think the thing that you have to remember is that we have to understand that the disaster lifted the veil of issues of race, of issues of class, not only in this city, but in the country. If we’re to move past it and truly be a part of this wonderful recovery that we’re feeling, we can’t look at it through rose-colored glasses. It is not an indictment of any one person or whatever, it’s an indictment of us all. We have to look at all of the issues that caused the fermentation of that poverty. One of the things that we can’t lose sight of is the fact that many New Orleanians heard that call from Garland Robinette on their transistors radios in the hinterlands of New Orleans, and we tried to make a Dunkirk run to that convention center–white, black, rich, poor–because they had the humanity within them when they saw those images and when they heard those voices cry out. This was an abject failure and incompetence of our government. No one’s feet have been held to the fire because of it. We can sit here and debate the pathology of what caused it–racism, classism, a lack of respect for New Orleans and this region. But does that matter if we don’t hold anyone accountable and if we forget the incompetence that was displayed during that week? We have to hold people accountable. If we’re not going to go back and hold those people accountable, make sure that we held–hold people accountable now as we move forward. And if we’re truly to move past this, we have to look at ourselves and see what is our contribution to this dysfunctional dynamic, and how can we change the paradigm, the dysfunction of class and racism, the dysfunction of education, which is the root cause of all of this.

Amazing. After all, if you remove the passion from this issue and look at it from a purely logicial perspective, another conclusion has to be reached.

As NewsBusters reported in March 2006, the folks at Popular Mechanics spent a great deal of time researching the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and their findings went quite contrary to the conventional wisdom both then and now:

Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest-and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm’s landfall. [...]

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day-some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, ‘guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways,’ says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000. [...]

While the press focused on FEMA’s shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success-especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

Once again, these facts would have gotten in the way of Williams’ agenda on Sunday, and that of liberal historian Douglas Brinkley who actually said, "Governor Blanco, during Katrina, is the one who eventually got the buses to get those people out of the convention center. And she’s the one who got the Superdome refixed, but she’s also not given credit for that."

Imagine that. The governor that badly failed her citizens during this crisis demonstrating staggering levels of incompetence was finally mentioned in this hour-long special edition of "Meet the Press" only to be commended for her efforts.

That should be all readers needed to know about the total lack of impartiality and balance presented to viewers this Sunday.

As I stated at the onset, the folks involved in this propagandist piece of detritus should be ashamed and embarrassed for what they’ve produced.

After five years, for one of the largest and most well-funded news organizations to be able to offer no new insights or facts behind this history-changing natural disaster than that it was all caused by Bush, the federal government, and racism is nothing less than disgraceful.

If this was all NBC had to say on this issue, why not just put together clips of their hideous coverage from five years ago?

And they wonder why people across the fruited plain continue to switch to other sources for their news.