This transcript has been formatted to fit his worldview

I know the [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]White House[/tag] will occasionally alter official [tag]transcript[/tag]s when the president accidentally misstates someone’s name or confuses one country with another, but as a rule officials shouldn’t confuse protest with approval. And yet, after the president’s appearance before the NAACP yesterday, that’s exactly what happened.

A little while after Bush acknowledged that “many African Americans distrust my political party,” four men in the Massachusetts section rose to demonstrate that distrust by shouting epithets at the president. The ruckus continued until Bond got up and walked behind Bush to make sure the miscreants were removed.

“Don’t worry about it,” Bush said. “I’m almost finished.” He displayed the enthusiasm of a man undergoing an uncomfortable medical procedure. “I know you can handle it,” Bond consoled.

An hour later, the White House released a transcript omitting that exchange and describing the disruption as “[tag]applause[/tag].”

For that matter, the president’s comment about almost being done with his remarks was removed as well. In fact, as it turns out, the Bush gang edited quite a bit.

As Dana Milbank noted, Bush mentioned his support for vouchers, prompting booing and cries of “no!” that the record will not reflect. “The [tag]booing[/tag],” Milbank explained, “like the heckling, was omitted from the White House transcript.”

It’s not as if the Bush gang doesn’t believe in recording [tag]boo[/tag]s in official White House transcripts. Indeed, in one speech Bush delivered in Miami in October 2004, the transcript reflects 16 interruptions in which the audience is not only credited with booing, but the Bush gang even added an exclamation point for emphasis.

Of course, Bush’s audience was booing the president’s constant mischaracterizations of John Kerry at the time, which might help explain the difference.

This is a surprise? The Bushites lie?

I love the leaving the booing out, though. Does sound awfully petty.

And why would anyone ask for the President’s transcription rather than the NACCPs’?

  • NOT A LINK: “As John Kerry was overheard to say in March of 2004:”

  • I don’t think the 2004 audience was booing Bush’s mischaracterizations. They were booing any mention of Kerry, just as one would expect a carefully screened group of Bushites to do.

  • rather Satlinistic.

    I assume this is a typo, yet I rather like it (of course, I am reading it with a silent “l”).

  • The fact that (1) nobody is surprised; (2) nothing will come of it; and, (3) Dems still can’t rise to the challenge and do anything about it. . . I just can’t decide which is more indicative of major trouble on the horizon.

    Oh, wait, it’s the weak dollar, huge deficits, and WWIII brewing in the “soon to be liberated and made democratic by an Authoritarian American near you” Middle East that worries me. Sigh.

  • As Dana Milbank noted, Bush mentioned his support for vouchers, prompting booing and cries of “no!” that the record will not reflect. “The booing,” Milbank explained, “like the heckling, was omitted from the White House transcript.”

    But you did get to see the un-edited version and in the national newspaper, too. So it’s not 1984. Not yet.

  • Those in power write history as they wish it was, not as it is. They could have tried to lynch him and it would have gotten written up as a, “Hands On” opportunity.

  • Comments are closed.