Expert: Ted Nesbitt - 8/26/2004

Question
I found this quote from Bush regarding Osama bin Laden online at PBS.org (http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200304/0428span.html), which seems to be a credible source:

"I don't know where he is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush, May 13, 2003

I can't imagine that this quote could be accurate and have avoided any type of media frenzy. Can you verify (through Nexis or other resources) whether or not he actually said this?  And if it's inaccurate, can you tell me the actual quote and context?  Thanks in advance!

J

Answer
Dear J:

FINAL UPDATE -- [I hope.]

I just received another e-mail from Jeff Postelwait, the originator of the problem.  It is regrettable that he made the error, for which he admits his wrongdoing.  I respect him, however, for his apology, and I believe that he has learned an important lesson, which will help him in his career as a journalist.  

PBS, which should have known better, has made no such admission of guilt.  I find it very unfortunate that PBS would have posted the Postelwait editorial without reading it carefully and checking the facts.  In my opinion, PBS was once an exceptional organization that is continuing its downward slide of the last decade.

A valuable lesson that we all should learn from this experience is that anyone -- either completely unarmed with facts or purposefully vicious -- can post something harmful on the internet.  From that one posting, other people pick up the misinformation and accept it as truth, solely because it was "on the internet."

I commend you, J, for challenging the comment you discovered and for trying to find its truthfulness.  You, unfortunately, are in a small minority.  Here is the latest e-mail from Jeff Postelwait:

Hey there. My name's Jeff Postelwait. I write for the
O'Collegian and I did the piece that has been found on
the PBS Web site.

I have a mistake to admit...

Though I have to admit that my memory is not serving
me very well concerning this piece I wrote more than a
year ago, I think what happened here was probably one
of two things.

Scenario One: I read one of the quotes (or both) as
outlined by Joe O'Connel. Those being: "I don't know
where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him . . . ."

And this one: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much
from him. . . . And, again, I don't know where he is.
I -- I'll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that
concerned about him.  I know he is on the run.  I was
concerned about him, when he had taken over a
country."

My first scenario is that I found these sources and
attributed them falsely as direct quotes (a big
mistake for me to have made when I should have
paraphrased them instead). If this is the case, I
couldn't regret the error more profoundly. Today,
looking back, I'm baffled that I would have made such
an amateurish mistake. That said, I offer scenario
two.

Scenario Two: I saw the quote in question ("I don't
know where he is and I really don't care.  It's not
that important. It's not our priority.") somewhere on
the Internet and used it in my article. The most
likely scenario in my mind is that someone out there
falsely quoted the president, I picked it up and wrote
it and PBS picked up my column. From there, others
could have perhaps referenced that article since its
being published by PBS could have lent it an air of
additional credibility (though it was still not a
primary source and therefore shouldn't have been
considered authoritative).

At this point, I can't be sure how I made this
mistake, but it seems apparent at least that I did
make a mistake. I should not have put quotes around
the statement. It should have been paraphrased. I'm
sorry for any confusion that my have resulted from my
negligence. It won't happen again. ---JEFF

PS: Let me know, please, if you unearth the quote as
published. I'll continue to look for it myself for my
own personal vindication, but if you find it, please
let an ashamed journalist know about it. Thank you.

=====
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be
limited without being lost." ---The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume
9


UPDATE #2 -- "The Rest of the Story"

Jeff Postelwait, the writer at Oklahoma State University, sent this message, indicating that he took some rather unprofessional liberties in his column.  He admits that he "probably" made up the statement by paraphrasing quite liberally.  He also selectively chose portions of Bush's press conference and left out significant sections that would have put the entire thing into a more fitting context:

Subject: Bush Quote, PBS, etc...

Hey there. This is Jeff Postelwait from the O'Collegian. I wrote the column
that has apparently touched off a bit of a stir.

Are you telling me that people have been referencing my column as a
"reliable" source for something that the president said?

If so, that's a little disheartening as I should not be considered an
authoritative source by anyone! First off, I made the mistake of not
referencing where I got the quote in the first place. I know that I did find
it in a very authoritative (primary) source, but it was so long ago I have
forgotten which one.

Second, like you, I haven't been able to re-locate that source--at least not
authoritatively. I have, however, been able to find many secondary sources
(not authoritative). I personally don't think that I would have ever used
such a source myself in the first place.

As for the "18 months later to the day" comment, I may have made a mistake.
Unless, of course, I was referencing a source that was not the president. I
will admit that it is possible for me to have made this mistake, but I don't
see how it could have happened.

Here's what I think happened. I probably put quote marks around what should
have been a paraphrase. This is a horrible mistake for a journalist to make,
and I regret it if that is what happened, but I think that may be the
answer. I'm going to look into this some more and see what I can find.

J -- Until Mr. Postelwait can some up with his "possible authoritative source," the answer to your original question is that Bush NEVER made the remarks, in the manner that Postelwait suggested.

Ted Nesbitt




I never got a response from you, so I don't know if you even received my answer.  That's a shame, since I spent so many hours trying to help you.

I finally ended up contacting the writer at the newspaper of Oklahoma State University.  It was his column that was posted at PBS.  I have his detailed remarks about his inexcusable actions.  It's very sad, really.

You will NEVER find a source that connects those exact words to President Bush.  

If you need more information, you can contact me.  But, apparently, you don't.

Ted Nesbitt

This is probably the last question I will take at Allexperts.  I am against a publication deadline that Yale University Press has moved FORWARD, and I thought that looking for another dumb "Bushism" would relieve the pressure.  

Instead, I am furious [and trust me, I am an INDEPENDENT voter] at the slanderous statements I have found at various internet "blogs" and so-called "intelligent discussion groups."

After checking three years worth of newspapers on LexisNexis -- and the top 300 papers of the world [English language] are included -- I could find no mention of the statement.  The fact that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times -- all known to be very anti-Bush -- did not have the story was a clue that something was VERY WRONG.

I found numerous internet sites that included the statement you gave me -- VERBATIM -- indicating that what one person started was picked up by people who do not take the same or spend the effort/do the work . . . as I have done.  They merely copy the remarks, as gospel, that some "nut" has made up.  Many of them had different dates, including DIFFERENT YEARS!

I went back to LexisNexis and searched three years of transcripts, using various words from your statement as my search terms.

LexisNexis has a huge number of transcripts from about 30-40 sources, including the major ones:  "ABC News Transcripts" OR "Burrelle's" OR "CBS News Transcripts" OR "CNBC News" OR "CNN" OR "Federal News Service" OR "Fox News Network" OR "MSNBC" OR "National Public Radio" OR "NBC News" OR “News Hour with Jim Lehrer”

Here is the closest statement I could find:
CNN Crossfire Transcripts -- March 7, 2003

CARVILLE: Yes, there's a difference between bombing Iraq and going to war with Iraq, I would guess. "Where is Dick Cheney? Sitting in the vice president's house thinking of ways he will garnish some bucks off our new oilfields in Iraq. Maybe I missed it. Did he quit?" -- Curt Strausbaugh, York, Pennsylvania. [question posed by a viewer]

CARVILLE:  Frankly, I'm kind of -- my problem is ignorance or apathy. I don't know where he is and I really don't care.

*****

Apparently these people who have posted the so-called Bush statement did their own version of the actual remarks.  Bush had a press conference on May 13, 2003 -- and that is where I found a "version" of his "I don't know."  He certainly NEVER said "I don't care."

PRESIDENT'S PRESS CONFERENCE – MAY 13, 2002
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html>

Q    Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.  Why is that?  Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?  Final part  --  deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of  --

THE PRESIDENT:  Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.  Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.  And the idea of focusing on one person is --  really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.  And he's just  --  he's a person who's now been marginalized.  His network, his host government has been destroyed.  He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.  He is  --  as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide  --  if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.  I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan.  There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly.  We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy.  We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q    But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.  And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.  And, again, I don't know where he is.  I  --  I'll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.  I know he is on the run.  I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.  I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became  --  we shoved him out more and more on the margins.  He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.  And if we  --  excuse me for a minute  --  and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things  --  part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do.  See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle.  I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not.  But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective.  And I can assure you, I am not going to blink.  And I'm not going to get tired.  Because I know what is at stake.  And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

So, Bush admitted that he didn't know where Osama was, but what he DID know was that Osama had been "marginalized," no longer having a headquarters from which to command and no country from which to operate [as he had freely been doing in Afghanistan].

The PBS site where you found the original statement published an editorial by a writer for the Oklahoma State University newspaper.  PBS should have practiced what too many "journalists" have forgotten:  Check your facts . . . . and then check them again!

<http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200304/0428span.html>

COLUMN: The president's often short attention span
By Jeff Postelwait
Daily O'Collegian (Oklahoma State U.)
04/28/2003

(U-WIRE) STILLWATER, Okla. — "Dead or alive," said the president. We were promised Osama bin Laden's head on a platter. On Sept. 13, 2001, President Bush said this to a grieving and shocked nation, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." But then his focus shifted and there was a new public enemy number one: Saddam Hussein. Eighteen months later to the day, President Bush said this of bin Laden, "I don't know where he is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

*****

According to my calculations, "18 months later to the day" was February 13, 2003.  On that day, President Bush spoke to navy personnel at the Mayport Naval Station in Jacksonville, Florida.  Osama's name was never mentioned.  There was no phrase about "not caring" or "not knowing."  He did mention Saddam Hussein, and he talked about terrorism:

Today the gravest danger in the war on terror -- the gravest danger facing America and the world -- is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies who would use them without the least bit of hesitation. That's the reality of the world we live in, and that's what we're going to use every ounce of our power to defeat.

*****

Apparently, Jeff Postelwait of OSU has information that no one else seems to have . . . and that PBS is more than willing to propagandize.

So, J . . .

If you ever find the direct quote from Bush, please let me know.  I have exhausted ALL my sources.

Ted Nesbitt