Earlier today, I wrote about the interesting press gaggle comment by White House spokesperson Dana Perino that Bush was not a “gambler.”
When I read the original transcript of the meeting, I saw this line:
Q Is he familiar with the Snowcroft letter, I guess signed by a bunch of other folks, as well, saying basically that if there is either nothing accomplished at this session, or very little accomplished, it risks devastating consequences in the region?
Since I have helped get a great number of the signers for this letter — and to get it pushed out into the public eye, I know that the questioner meant “Brent Scowcroft,” not someone named “Snowcroft.”
I don’t know if the recorder of the meeting spelled it incorrectly or whether the questioner incorrectly pronounced Scowcroft — but clearly, the “Scowcroft letter” is what was intended.
When Dana Perino responded though, she didn’t call him “Snowcroft” or “Scowcroft”; she referred to him as “the gentleman you mentioned” in response to the questioner.
Since I succeeded yesterday in getting the Smithsonian’s Sackler Gallery of Art to fix the spelling of Bartlesville, Oklahoma — I thought I’d try again on a similar front. I called the White House, informed two different staff of the error and was told that my “concern would be passed on.” Tonight nothing has been fixed.
A former senior White House staff person in the Bush administration told me today that they may not be able to fix the spelling if the recording shows that the questioner pronounced it wrong.
But what do they do when Bush mispronounces something? And what did they do when few people actually knew how to pronounce and get the cadence of Ahmadenijad? Did they just go with what flowed verbally?
Or do they still just hold a grudge against Scowcroft — and don’t want to fix his name in the transcript — just to dig at him a bit?
— Steve Clemons
20 comments on “S<u>n</u>owcroft: A Mistake or on Purpose?”