White House website is scrubbing embarrassing interviews (Updated: Interviews Present, Whitehouse Search Flawed)

I doubt it, tschreck. First off, the interview is in the index, it just appears that only the title rather than the content is indexed, which is why the blogger didn't find it. Not indexing content isn't a very effective way of hiding embarrassing stuff, because anyone searching for a specific phrase implies they already know the phrase.

The blogger clearly jumped to a biased conclusion. I agree with Steve's sentiment.

tschreck, I think your question was a legitimate one — it crossed my mind too. But I think it is a sad sign (please don't take this personally) that your comment has received more votes than mine where I prove the blogger's claim as false. I don't trust the Bush administration, but what's the difference between the Bush administration and pro-war American's seeing concluding Iraq had WMDs on flimsy evidence and left-wing Americans concluding that the blogger's claim above must be true?

vas my friend, i have long given up as to why some comments are more popular than others.

the fact that goreporters stats have improved even though the quality of work can't get any worse leads me to think the system is somewhat broken.

eh in the the big picture it matters little..

:-)

vas my friend

Ah... thanks! You made me feel better, my friend. I was worried you'd interpret my remarks.

eh in the the big picture it matters little..

Oh, I don't care about the votes as it affects me personally... What I cared about was what the votes represented. Your comment, which I think was a fair one, had/has the highest number of votes -- which is an indication to me of such a great eagerness for the bloggers claim to be true that after concrete evidence to discredit the blogger's conspiracy theory is presented, it is the new counter-counter-theory that that gets the most votes. See Steve's comment below.

That said, perhaps I in my eagerness to expose liberals who resort to the same behavior as our opponents (because they ultimately hurt our cause more than they help) that I read too much into such a small amount of votes :)

i hear ya vas

beyond all that.. my distrust of the bushco is pretty much impervious

if they tell me the sky is blue, im gonna have to run out and double check..

sucks huh?

Agreed, the less accurate we are in the criticism of the administration the less legitimate we become.

You're right. But why would they hide a transcript of the original interview, but leave up the ones where Cheney is directly confronted with the how wrong he was?

I verified that whitehouse.gov does not have the March 16, 2003 Meet the Press transcript on its site, but neither does MSNBC.com, which only goes back to Aug 2003. So my gut says we're all wasting our time here. I've put non-trivial amount of time into this already, mainly because promoting rational discourse is important, and though I don't have the time to counter every left-wing conspiracy theory (honestly, I'd rather be countering right-wing ones), I have to do so once in a while to keep honest and to set an example.

I may be wrong. But if anyone really feels that something is fishy going, despite evidence to the contrary, please spend some time to do some actual research! Cheers.