On Saturday's World News, ABC's David Kerley characterized President Bush's statement regarding the standoff between Britain and Iran as "lashing out," presumably because the President referred to the captured British soldiers as "hostages," as the ABC anchor suggested that Bush risked "inflaming" the situation. After relaying that the "outspoken" Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today called Britain "arrogant" while still demanding an apology, Kerley also suggested that Bush's statement was not "cool-headed" as he introduced a story by correspondent Mike Lee playing up the possibility of a diplomatic solution. Kerley: "In spite of that rhetoric [from Ahmadinejad] and those remarks from President Bush today, there were some new signs that cooler heads may be prevailing." (Transcripts follow)
By contrast, while ABC saw in Iran a "sharp turn away from the tough talk," the NBC Nightly News contended that "there are no visible signs that Iran is backing down," and gave more focus to Ahmadinejad's defiant comments. NBC also reported Bush's criticism of Iran without undermining the President's words.
During the teaser for ABC's World News, Kerley announced: "Tough talk: President Bush lashes out at Iran, calling the 15 British sailors 'hostages,' and demanding their release." Kerley then opened the show contending that Bush was "stepping forcefully into the fray," and that he was running the risk of "inflaming an already tense situation." This opening was then followed by a clip of the President saying he supports the British government's attempts to "resolve this peacefully," while also saying "the Iranians must give back the hostages."
Kerley: "The standoff between Iran and Britain over the capture of 15 British navy personnel is nine days old. And until today, the White House has largely stayed out of it, trying not to inflame an already tense situation. But at a Camp David news conference late this afternoon, President Bush stepped forcefully into the fray."
Bush, from press conference: "And it's inexcusable behavior. And I strongly support the Blair government's attempts to resolve this peacefully. And I support the Prime Minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages."
After Kerley mentioned that Ahmadinejad called Britain "arrogant" and demanded an apology, correspondent Lee still saw signs that both Iran and Britain were taking a "sharp turn away from the tough talk," a view likely shared by Kerley as he introduced the segment saying that "cooler heads may be prevailing."
Kerley: "For its part, Iran insists the sailors were trespassing, and today Iran's outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called Britain and other countries 'arrogant' for not apologizing. In spite of that rhetoric and those remarks from President Bush today, there were some new signs that cooler heads may be prevailing. ABC's Mike Lee reports from London."
Mike Lee: "As the British captives began their second week in Iranian custody, their government today suddenly abandoned rhetoric and talked only of diplomacy. It is a sharp turn away from the tough talk from British and Iranian officials, during a week that included anti-British protests in Iran, an apparently doctored letter of apology from a British sailor, and a so-called 'video confession.'"
After featuring a soundbite of former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton arguing that it is important to make the the Iranian government believe that force could be used against them because "weakness is provocative," Lee then provided a soundbite in support of the "tried and tested" strategy of diplomacy supported by Middle East analyst Rosemary Hollis, who argued that "force doesn't solve everything," and that the "British tradition of diplomacy" could succeed without "behaving like a cowboy," possibly referring to President Bush.
Below is a complete transcript of the relevant stories from ABC's World News and the NBC Nightly News, while the CBS Evening News was preempted by basketball:
From the Saturday March 31 World News:
David Kerley, in opening teaser: "Good evening. I'm David Kerley, and this is World News. Tough talk: President Bush lashes out at Iran, calling the 15 British sailors 'hostages,' and demanding their release."
George W. Bush, from press conference: "The Iranians must give back the hostages."
...Kerley: "Good evening. The standoff between Iran and Britain over the capture of 15 British navy personnel is nine days old. And until today, the White House has largely stayed out of it, trying not to inflame an already tense situation. But at a Camp David news conference late this afternoon, President Bush stepped forcefully into the fray."
Bush, from press conference: "And it's inexcusable behavior. And I strongly support the Blair government's attempts to resolve this peacefully. And I support the Prime Minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages."
Kerley: "Now, President Bush would not say whether the U.S. would have reacted militarily if the sailors had been American. But, as you just heard, he said he backs British efforts at diplomacy. For its part, Iran insists the sailors were trespassing, and today Iran's outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called Britain and other countries 'arrogant' for not apologizing. In spite of that rhetoric and those remarks from President Bush today, there were some new signs that cooler heads may be prevailing. ABC's Mike Lee reports from London."
Mike Lee: "As the British captives began their second week in Iranian custody, their government today suddenly abandoned rhetoric and talked only of diplomacy. It is a sharp turn away from the tough talk from British and Iranian officials, during a week that included anti-British protests in Iran, an apparently doctored letter of apology from a British sailor, and a so-called 'video confession.'"
Unidentified British soldier from video: "I would like to apologize for anything-"
Lee: "But today the Iranian state news agency backed away from earlier reports the sailors could face trial and punishment, saying there had been a poor translation. British officials today said they would give diplomacy a chance to work."
Margaret Beckett, British Foreign Secretary: "Things have gone a little quieter, and so we hope that that is a good sign and that people are thinking afresh, 'What is the way out of this situation?'"
Lee: "But a former American official disagrees with Britain's low-key approach, saying that Iran is using the boat incident to test Western resolve, which might be challenged in a showdown over its nuclear program."
John Bolton, Former Ambassador to UN: "The government in Tehran needs to understand that force is a viable option. If they think they are immune from the use of force, they will behave accordingly. Weakness is provocative."
Rosemary Hollis, Royal Institute of International Affairs: "Force doesn't solve everything."
Lee: "In London, Middle East analyst Rosemary Hollis says that while the British response may conflict with the American approach, it is tried and tested."
Hollis: "A British tradition of diplomacy, which is about literally relishing the complexity of the situation and finding what is achievable without having to behave like a cowboy."
Lee: "For better or worse, British officials have chosen quiet diplomacy, at least for now. Mike Lee, ABC News, London."
From the Saturday March 31 NBC Nightly News:
John Seigenthaler, in opening teaser: "President Bush demands the release of British troops held by Iran."
George W. Bush: "The Iranians must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They've done nothing wrong."
...
Seigenthaler: "Good evening, everyone. President Bush joined America's strongest ally today in demanding the release of 15 British marines and sailors held in Iran. Speaking publicly about the situation for the first time, the President made a point of calling the 15 'hostages' and said their detention was inexcusable. But after a nine-day standoff with Britain, there are no visible signs that Iran is backing down. We have two reports tonight, beginning with NBC's John Yang at the White House. Good evening, John."
John Yang: "John, this was the first time President Bush has spoken out about the captured British troops. And he made clear the he supports the tough stand being taken by British Prime Minister Tony Blair."
Bush: "The Iranians took these people out of Iraqi water, and it's inexcusable behavior. And I strongly support the Blair government's attempts to resolve this peacefully. And I support the Prime Minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They were doing nothing wrong, and they were summarily plucked out of water. And it is, as I say, it's inexcusable behavior."
Yang: "Right now, there are two U.S. aircraft carrier groups off the waters of Iran, the Stennis and the Eisenhower. They're conducting military exercises in the Persian Gulf. Officials here at the White House and at the Pentagon stress that they are not seeking a confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf. And, John, it's interesting he did not answer one part of the question he was asked, and that's about what he would have done if these were American troops who had been taken."
...Seigenthaler: "From Iran today, more defiance. Despite diplomatic efforts to find a solution to the crisis, tension between Iran and Britain appeared to be growing today. NBC's Stephanie Gosk reports from London."
Stephanie Gosk: "As the crisis reached its ninth day, the president of Iran blamed what he called the 'world arrogant powers.' During a speech, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the British sailors trespassed in Iranian waters when they were seized, but, quote, 'arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise.' These comments come as a British official struck a measured tone at the European Union meeting in Germany."
Margaret Beckett, British Foreign Secretary: "What we want is a way out of it. We want it peacefully, and we want it as soon as possible."
Gosk: "The British have been denied access to the 15 prisoners, though their pictures have appeared on Iranian TV. Behind the scenes, the British government says there is a high-stakes diplomatic effort under way, including meetings in the exchange of letters, but still no breakthrough. Today a European Union official demanded the prisoners' release after Iran suggested they might be put on trial. Concern that the prisoners may be tried was sparked today by a Russian TV interview with the Iranian ambassador in Moscow. The Iranian government later said the ambassador's words had been translated incorrectly. But the threat of a trial still looms, and quick release of the troops seems unlikely."
Bruce Reidel, Iran expert: "The Iranians are going to get something before they give these guys up. They're not just going to say, 'Oops, here are your people back.' That's not how Iran works."
Gosk: "The 15 were taken in disputed waters long a cause of friction between Iran and Iraq. And one opposition group says Iran's leaders planned the capture to gain leverage for the country's nuclear program."
Hossein Abedemi, National Council of Resistance of Iran: "This was a carefully and meticulously concocted operation which has ... the approval of the highest authorities of the regime to gain concessions."
Gosk: "But as frustration builds among Britain and its allies, concessions, for now, seem unlikely. Stephanie Gosk, NBC News, London."




Seigenthaler: "Good evening, everyone. President Bush joined America's strongest ally today in demanding the release of 15 British marines and sailors held in Iran. Speaking publicly about the situation for the first time, the President made a point of calling the 15 'hostages' and said their detention was inexcusable. But after a nine-day standoff with Britain, there are no visible signs that Iran is backing down. We have two reports tonight, beginning with NBC's John Yang at the White House. Good evening, John."
Stephanie Gosk: "As the crisis reached its ninth day, the president of Iran blamed what he called the 'world arrogant powers.' During a speech, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the British sailors trespassed in Iranian waters when they were seized, but, quote, 'arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise.' These comments come as a British official struck a measured tone at the European Union meeting in Germany."









Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Are they guests of the Irania
April 1, 2007 - 01:56 ET byAre they guests of the Iranian government? Last I knew, guests could leave when they choose to leave. Call me silly, but I don't think they are guests. --Debra
Thank goodness the president
April 1, 2007 - 03:11 ET by old croThank goodness the president doesn't listen to these fools in the media.
I wish I would hear a conversation like the following, from Catch-22 (not that I'm advocating anything :)
"Who is this man?"
"M-major Danby, sir," Colonel Cathcart stammered, "My group operations officer."
"Take him out and shoot him," General Dreedle demanded.
"S-sir?"
"I said take him out and shoot him. Can't you hear?"
BTW how does the scumbag joe wilson get the title "Ambassador" when John Bolton, who has done more to serve his country in one day than that irrelevant twerp wilson has done his whole life, gets introduced as a former American official.
BTW how does the scumbag jo
April 1, 2007 - 03:18 ET by John in CABTW how does the scumbag joe wilson get the title "Ambassador" when
John Bolton, who has done more to serve his country in one day than
that irrelevant twerp wilson has done his whole life, gets introduced
as a former American official.
old cro, Excellent observation! It can only be because wilson is a mamby-pamby twerp, whereas John Bolton is a straight talking, tough guy.Leftists don't like straight talking, tough guys.
It was a black day in Senate history when Voinovich, with tears welling from his eyes, voted against moving Bolton out of committee.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
I remember his confermation h
April 1, 2007 - 03:30 ET by old croI remember his confermation hearing when the libs were insenced because Bolton once yelled at an underling. What fools they are.
BTW John, where is CA? I would hope you don't stutter when you say you are in deep :)
old cro, ha, no, I don't st
April 1, 2007 - 03:41 ET by John in CAold cro, ha, no, I don't stutter; and I'm sure you know CA is California and just making a joke...but I won't wind up like George Allen...:) Though in internet domain naming the dot ca extenions is for Canada, which always gives me a moment of hesitation asking myself when California got it's own country code on the internet.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
It should be John in KA then,
April 1, 2007 - 03:52 ET by old croIt should be John in KA then, you know its Kalifornia now! Ha ha, yes just joking, but I didn't know that about Canada, thanks.
More on Bolton. I hope the
April 1, 2007 - 03:35 ET by John in CAMore on Bolton. I hope the next Republican President (in 2009) picks John Bolton to be the Secretary of State. Of course, we couldn't even get him confirmed with a GOP controlled Senate, there wouldn't be a chance with a demo controlled Senate. If I was the President, I'd nominate him and send him up there anyway.
Gosh, that would stand the careerists at State right on their pointy heads. Maybe if someone like Bolton headed State, those careerists might self-deport.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
"And it's inexcusable
April 1, 2007 - 05:59 ET by motherbelt"And it's inexcusable behavior. And I strongly support the Blair
government's attempts to resolve this peacefully. And I support the
Prime Minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos. The
Iranians must give back the hostages."
Well, there you have it. No talk of compromise, solutions agreeable to all sides, bilateral talks, trilateral talks, international committees. Just more of that black/white, right/wrong rhetoric from the President.
And good for him, to ignore the part about what he would do if the hostages were Americans. Had he said anything, that would have been the lead of the story for sure.
right/wrong rhetoric
April 1, 2007 - 11:14 ET by Pragmatic-ManDo you think the President is wrong in his "rhetoric", and thus are you complicit with the capture of British troops? The only rhetoric I am hearing is the same treasonous press playing for the enemy.
Iran
April 1, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Emma GrumpJust curious, Motherbelt - what would you feel if the hostages were American citizens?
In the first place, motherbelt
April 1, 2007 - 13:37 ET by RJIn the first place, motherbelt, it has always been the postion of the U.S. that there be no "quid pro quo" (i.e. reward) for kidnapping. President Bush is only restating that postion for Iran and the rest of the world.
In the second place, I wouldn't expect the British or the U.S. governments to conduct their negotiations through the media.
I would feel the same anger
April 1, 2007 - 17:38 ET by motherbeltI would feel the same anger that I feel about the British seamen.
See my post below. Apparently, I did a lousy job of being both sarcastic and clear in my post.
I was glad that the President did not let the reporters change the subject from the British to the hypothetical "what if they were Americans?" He kept the focus where it belonged.
And what would you feel, Emma
April 1, 2007 - 19:08 ET by BlondeAnd what would you feel, Emma Grump?
That was a rude question that you posed to motherbelt.
So time to put up.
Umm, I think the responders
April 1, 2007 - 13:50 ET by John in CAUmm, I think the responders to motherbelt's comment are taking her wrong. Read it differently than you're taking it now and see how it sounds to you.
I think she's saying she agrees with the stance the President has taken in this fiasco. That it's the media blowing out of proportion his otherwise tepid remarks.
There's one thing for certain, we don't even begin to know what the whole story is. We don't know what is going on behind the scenes, who is actually talking to whom nor what the endgame is for England or the United States.
If England can get her sailors back, unharmed, without concessions, then good. However, I don't see how they let this happen to begin with. <shrug>
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Her use of the word "rhe
April 1, 2007 - 13:57 ET by RJHer use of the word "rhetoric" says otherwise, John...unless she was being sarcastic or facetious. If so, I apologize, although my post was by way of explanation rather than condemnation...'cause I know motherbelt is one of the good guys... ;^>
RJ, I was just judging her
April 1, 2007 - 14:06 ET by John in CARJ, I was just judging her comment from the tenor of most of her (I'm guessing her because of the mother) past posts - so, guessing she's being sarcastic/facetious.
Such is the problem withe the internets, especially in quickly dashed off comments on forum posts. Sometimes the real meaning of what one wants to say gets mangled in the translation.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
RJ _ I think she meant it in the context===
April 1, 2007 - 14:14 ET by misterbillRJ - I think she meant it in the context---"the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory."
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
OK, in answer to all of you
April 1, 2007 - 15:04 ET by motherbeltOK, in answer to all of you guys: I was being sarcastic. The "well
there you go" line was meant as a "this is why the newsies say he's "lashing out". Because he's not bending over backward to be accomodating. I thought the next remark aboutbeing glad he ignored the question of what he would do in that situation showed that I was on his side.
I hope you all get back to read this. Next time I'll be a little more obvious when I'm being sarcastic.
no hard feelings
April 1, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Pragmatic-ManThanks, understood, and no hard feelings. Sarcasm in a post is always tough to pull off without being over the top.
unless she was being sarcas
April 1, 2007 - 17:41 ET by motherbeltunless she was being sarcastic or facetious. If so, I apologize,-RJ
I was, RJ, and apology accepted. ;-)
Right after I posted the ab
April 1, 2007 - 14:01 ET by John in CARight after I posted the above comment, I read this at Captain's Quarters
Tony Blair had better dust off his study material about the Jimmy Carter presidency. It looks like the Iranians have begun another embassy standoff:
[...]
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Iran
April 1, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Emma GrumpOf course, a peaceful resolution to this is preferred, but we are not dealing with a reasonable government here, and history is only repeating itself, as evidenced by the 1979 hostage situation. True, we little folks are not aware of what is going on behind the scenes, and, hopefully, these measures will be fruitful. That said, more forceful steps must not be ruled out should these unseen negotiations fail. I will hope for the best, however. I concur that the Brits showed an incomprehensible lack of backbone in preventing the seizure of their service people, something that could have easily been accomplished by a show of resolve, and I wonder what we would have done under the same circumstances.
"The Iranians are going to get something .....
April 1, 2007 - 08:37 ET by OldSailor88"The Iranians are going to get something before they give these guys
up. They're not just going to say, 'Oops, here are your people back.'
That's not how Iran works."
If the Iranians want something, give them this.
Listen to Newt.
1. Blow up their one and only gasoline refinery.
2. Naval blockade the rest.
The country would implode inside of 90 days.
yes, war
April 1, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Pragmatic-ManYes, agreed! It's called WAR, and it is waged for one reason only -- to WIN. This timing is superb. A blockade to the south, while Putin is not being paid to the north, the border at Iraq is still secured, and internally there is much strife between the government and Achmagenocide.
Iran
April 1, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Emma GrumpHey, OldSailor - Newt hit the nail right on the head. Of course, for standing up to Iran, he will be labelled a warmongering bully by the MSM, and his statements will be recorded and replayed for the next several years by our leftist media. This whole situation is an outrage! When those Brits were taken, that British warship could have easily intervened, but the orders were given to stand down and let the Iranians do as they please. This should send a clear message to citizens of the UK - your government will NOT stand up for you. And now the use of the word "hostage" is inflammatory? Give me a break.....
Thats letting them off a litt
April 1, 2007 - 14:31 ET by bassndudeThats letting them off a little easy for my taste. We need to start patrols along the Syrian and Iranian border, also. Intensify the Iraqi border patrols and adopt a zero tolerance Irani presense within a perscribed area. That along with a their refinery distruction, oil pipe lines cut with the naval blockade would pretty much sew things up in short order. And lets not forget the gasoline storage facilities.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
there were some new signs tha
April 1, 2007 - 11:14 ET by MidAmericathere were some new signs that cooler heads may be prevailing
Jimmie Carter kept a cool head with the Iranians and that cool head was served on a platter to Ronald Reagan.
Rosemary Hollis, Royal Instit
April 1, 2007 - 14:24 ET by MidAmericaRosemary Hollis, Royal Institute of International Affairs: "Force doesn't solve everything."
uuuhh...... wasn't it by force that the Iranians took the British Sailors?
I don't recall that the government of Iran used diplomatic means to resolve this so-called territorial dispute.
I give you 10 to 1 that Hitle
April 1, 2007 - 14:33 ET by bassndudeI give you 10 to 1 that Hitler would have a diffrent view. Force was the force that forced him to kill himself.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
spank the babysitter, give the brat a lollipop
April 1, 2007 - 14:37 ET by Pragmatic-ManSure they did! They surrounded the Brits rubber boat with six vessels, and discussed territorial disputes, citing historical precedence and the inaccuracies of positioning systems, then invited the sailors to be guests of their country. And all this at the point of a full-auto assault rifle.
Don't forget their offer of
April 2, 2007 - 10:08 ET by steviep831Don't forget their offer of tea and crumpets...
The msm never puts the blame
April 1, 2007 - 15:04 ET by msh1973The msm never puts the blame where it should be and that is with Iran. They aggressively took prisoners, who they claim were in their waters and now the msm wants to blame the President for possibly making the situation worse. Unreal, my head is spinning. Blame America but don't blame Iran. Ok then!
"They aggressively too
April 2, 2007 - 10:14 ET by steviep831"They aggressively took prisoners..."
Can I just call it what this really is? It's called kidnapping. And you are totally right... it's always America's fault, because we've been dumb enough to accept the responsibility so many times in the past.
Wrong! It is not called k
April 2, 2007 - 10:50 ET by NL207Wrong! It is not called kidknapping.
This activity has a traditional name and is punishable by death in most jurisdictions. That name is PIRACY. These Iranians are pirates. They siezed persons from a foreign flag vessel at sea and in the territoral waters of another country. This is an act of international piracy not to mention an act of war against both Iraq and Britain.
PIRACYAbsolutely right. Tha
April 2, 2007 - 11:18 ET by dahliatraversPIRACY
Absolutely right. Thank you for the correction.
Dear ABC. Bush may have use
April 1, 2007 - 16:08 ET by dahliatraversDear ABC. Bush may have used the word "hostage" accidentally but accurately. It's entirely possible that Iran has conveyed terms for the return of those fifteen sailors. Obviously, as GB and the US are still trying the diplomatic route, they would not necessarily issue a press release on such a development.
By the way, this business of Iran demanding an apology from GB and then pouting when they didn't get it. Pah-leez. If GB had issued an apology, it would have been Prosecution's Exhibit A at the sailors' trial that would have been convened the next day.
Calling hostages 'hostages' i
April 2, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Clear thinkerCalling hostages 'hostages' is the only logical conclusion any clear thinking person would come up with, unless they are rooting for the bad guys of course.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.