Time Magazine Edits Out Clinton Saying 'For Him' in Obama's Bin Laden Ad
It's become a huge source of contention that in the Obama campaign ad featuring the current White House resident shamelessly congratulating himself for killing Osama bin Laden, former President Clinton says that if SEALs had been captured or killed during the raid, "The downside would have been horrible for him."
Time magazine published an article last week by former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham wherein the words "for him" were mysteriously edited out (video of ad in question also follows with transcript and commentary):
I take what President Clinton says in the ad seriously: “Look, he knew what would happen,” Clinton says of Obama. “Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they had been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible. But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’ He took the harder, more honorable path and the one that produced, in my opinion, the more honorable and best result.”
Actually, that's not what Clinton said in the ad. This is:
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: That's one thing George Bush said that was right: the President is the Decider-in-Chief. Nobody can make that decision for you. Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they'd been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible for him. But he reasoned, "I cannot in good conscience do nothing." He took the harder and the more honorable path, and the one that produced, in my opinion, the best result.
Why did Meacham and Time magazine edit out the words "for him?"
Is it due to Obama getting heat for including that in the ad because it showed a shameful disregard for the lives of those brave SEALs and neither Meacham nor Time wanted to add to the controversy?
It must be nice to be President and have the media cover for you this way - especially in an election year.
(H/T NB reader Edward Wronka)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This is a joke, right?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 1:52pm.
I guess if there was any doubt about "journalists" being in the tank for the RBFSOB, that is out the window now.
Funny thing is, the comment that Clinton made wasn't just a "poor choice of words," or "taken out of context." It is exactly how the entire American Socialist Party (formerly the Democrat Party) feels about the military. If they die, tough Shiite, as long as it doesn't reflect poorly on Da One.
In case you aren't paying attention, Obama is already in the process of clearing the top ranks of career officers so that he can replace them with what he considers officers more friendly toward him and his policies. Four more years and we are permanenty screwed.
What a despicable pack of bastards.
Well Said
Submitted by Bighead227 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 9:53pm.
This is exactly how they operate. This has been another deadly month and another very deadly year in Afghanistan. The press buries it. When Bush was in office they celebrated our heroes deaths because hurt "him". They publicized every milestone. Now? Nothing. Where are all those war protests we used to see blown up by the media during the Bush years anyway? No gathering was too small to command full coverage by the left wing media? Now? Nothing. Shame on all of them.
Kind of like the May Day Parade
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 1:52pm.
Every year the picture of the Soviet officials reviewing the parade would show a blank spot where someone had been "removed from history."
More egregious editing by the media
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 2:04pm.
But just like NBC and the Trayvon audio edit, & ABC edited the bloody head video, the entire MsM will cover for each other. Poof, it never happened!
Truly disgusting. I hope Brent Bozell takes this up on Hannity's show. The more this sort of obsequious and dishonest editing that accrues to Obama's benefit is exposed, via all media outlets, the better off we'll all be. Although the media is so blatant and unapologetic about it these days that I'm not sure that there's anything so totally embarrassing that they'll be forced to change their ways. But one can hope.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
NBC??
Submitted by Joe W. on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 2:06pm.
No different than NBC editing the George Zimmerman 911 tapes to fit their narrative. The liberal press knows no journalistic standards anymore. Not that they ever did, mind you. But things are getting so far out of control that I feel very much like I live in the former Soviet Union, where all "news" got filtered through the "politburo" prior to being spoon fed to the people. We hear what the government WANTS us to hear, in the context with which they choose to give it. Even FOX News has caved to the abomination that is the MSM. We are left with the likes of "Newsbusters", "Breitbart.com", HotAir, and a few other "New Media" sites that believe in presenting current affairs in their raw form, and allowing us to make our own minds up about things.
Now this is a big deal. This
Submitted by cristo on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 2:21pm.
Now this is a big deal. This changes the entire meaning of what Bill Clinton said. It is not something that happened by mistake. It was done intentionally. It is a lie, an intentional lie, a lie to smooth over the poorly written and edited Obama commercial. Meacham lied. Meacham should resign.
So we have the awkward words
Submitted by celator on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 2:38pm.
So we have the awkward words of the scoundrel Clinton heralding the actions of the rapscallion Obama being "fixed" by the discredited Time Magazine.
Perfect.
Obama (or his minions) had a scapegoat in place...
Submitted by texasborngranny on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:18pm.
Clinton's statement, "The downside would have been horrible for him." is false, because all the timing and operational control were put into the hands of Admiral McRaven. If the mission had failed, Obama could conveniently throw the Admiral under the bus.
BINGO!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:40pm.
All cowards leave themselves an out. I think politicians call it "plausible deniability."
Ya know why the libs wont be by here
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:47pm.
Protecting his character? Because not even they can give a single example of Obama's chivalry of any kind.
He's a creep.
Hey Leslie Stahl, journalists
Submitted by forest on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:46pm.
Hey Leslie Stahl, journalists disappearing the two most important and controversial words from a video clip is Orwellian.
Feeding a jailed terrorist Ensure is not Orwellian.
At this point,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 4:25pm.
I would be more shocked if the reporting was at the very least, accurate.
So much disrespect for the
Submitted by grammajane on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 4:55pm.
So much disrespect for the Seals and all Military coming from an x is beyond words. How far is the media going to go to protect the worst Dem Party in the history of any elections. Sleeze and the messiah plus meachen need to hang their heads in shame for what they did. Hope the Seals are taking note of what their commander-in-chief thinks of their heroics. It is so sad as to what elections have come to
And what, exactly
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 5:21pm.
does Bill Clinton, Lecher in Chief know about honorable? Don't make me laugh. Or gag.
Go ahead, rub it in
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 6:00am.
Why isn't Bill Clinton referred to as 'the impeached former President'?
I know why the MSM won't say it, but why not NewsBusters?
Do I have to say 'What if Bush had been impeached'?