Whew, it's getting rather heated these days... Over the past several days, a war of words has broken out between the WH and NBC along with several other outlets. As Dan Froomkin points out in this article.

First, he mentions...

There is more to the White House's unprecedented attack on NBC News yesterday than meets the eye.

The blistering letter to NBC from White House Counselor Ed Gillespie ostensibly focuses on the way President Bush's interview with NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel was edited for presentation on Sunday's Nightly News. [...]

Here is the particular exchange that Gillespie complained about at some length:

Engel: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

Bush: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. . . . And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you got to take those words seriously."

What NBC cut out was these two sentences: "People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously."

The unedited interview of Shrub by Engel is posted at the top, and, is well worth the watch, if only to see Shrub squirm and grow increasingly furious at the hardball questions... Anyways, back to Froomkin...

...Engel, a fluent Arabic speaker who has logged more time in Iraq than any other television correspondent, assertively confronted Bush with the ramifications of his actions in the Middle East.

For instance, Engel noted: "A lot of Iran's empowerment is a result of the war in Iraq." He questioned Bush about his lack of an exit strategy in Iraq: "So it doesn't sound like there's an end anytime soon." He clearly upset Bush by saying that "on the ground," the situation in Iraq "looks very bleak." (Bush replied: "Well, that's interesting you said that -- that's a little different from the surveys I've seen and a little different from the attitude of the actual Iraqis I've talked to, but you're entitled to your opinion.")

He also challenged Bush on his legacy: "[I]f you look back over the last several years, the Middle East that you'll be handing over to the next President is deeply problematic: You have Hamas in power; Hezbollah empowered, taking to the streets, more -- stronger than the government; Iran empowered, Iraq still at war. What region are you handing over?"

And Bush seemed positively furious by the end of the interview, when Engel had this to say: "The war on terrorism has been the centerpiece of your presidency. Many people say that it has not made the world safer, that it has created more radicals. That there are more people in this part of the world who want to attack the United States."

Froomkin goes on to point out...

"The White House letter also includes gratuitous swipes at Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann -- which may be a hint! Olbermann's ' shut the hell up, Mr. President' comment swept across the internet last week. It was maybe a bit more upsetting to the White House than a 'deceptively edited' interview."

On Cable

Here's Olbermann's own take on the complaint that NBC didn't show the full exchange: "Since they asked, we'll play it. Trust me, it makes him look worse." Olbermann's conclusion: "The White House apparently [doesn't realize] that in full it is clear the president never actually answered Richard Engel's first question and clear that the president either does not know what he talked about or what he is now talking about."

Now, as I mentioned it wasn't just NBC the WH took aim at, as the NYT points out...

The White House sharply criticized a news organization on Tuesday for the second time in two days over reports about administration policy toward Iran, dismissing an Israeli report that President Bush was preparing to order an attack on Iran before leaving office in eight months.

The White House released a statement disputing a report in The Jerusalem Post that a senior administration official had told Israelis during the president’s visit last week that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney supported military action against Iran.

Interestingly, I was just about to write a post on the Jerusalem Post's article stating that 'unnamed' senior administration source(s) said Iran would be attacked prior to Shrub's departure... When, *poof* the article disappeared, and this retraction appeared, entitled; "White House denies Iran attack report," instead of the original...

Now, as Think Progress reported...

Reporting shortly after the morning White House gaggle, CNN’s White House correspondent Ed Henry said: "A reporter pointed out to Dana Perino though that we heard these similar denials from the White House in the run-up to the war in Iraq. They insisted that diplomacy was the first option; military option was the last option." Henry said that there was no public word of such a meeting while Bush was in Israel, but he noted that "if -- and I stress if -- this had happened behind closed doors, this is not exactly the kind of story the Bush administration would have told us, because it's not the story line they want out right now." And Henry concluded: "The bottom line is that there's a broader fight going on -- which is the White House against the media."

Fancy that! Where was this push-back during the run-up to Iraq? Is it enough to head off the cataclysmic disaster of bombing Iran? Only time will tell...