It's become a huge source of contention that in the Obama campaign ad featuring the current White House resident shamelessly congratulating himself for killing Osama bin Laden, former President Clinton says that if SEALs had been captured or killed during the raid, "The downside would have been horrible for him."
Time magazine published an article last week by former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham wherein the words "for him" were mysteriously edited out (video of ad in question also follows with transcript and commentary):
I take what President Clinton says in the ad seriously: “Look, he knew what would happen,” Clinton says of Obama. “Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they had been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible. But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’ He took the harder, more honorable path and the one that produced, in my opinion, the more honorable and best result.”
Actually, that's not what Clinton said in the ad. This is:
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: That's one thing George Bush said that was right: the President is the Decider-in-Chief. Nobody can make that decision for you. Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they'd been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible for him. But he reasoned, "I cannot in good conscience do nothing." He took the harder and the more honorable path, and the one that produced, in my opinion, the best result.
Why did Meacham and Time magazine edit out the words "for him?"
Is it due to Obama getting heat for including that in the ad because it showed a shameful disregard for the lives of those brave SEALs and neither Meacham nor Time wanted to add to the controversy?
It must be nice to be President and have the media cover for you this way - especially in an election year.
(H/T NB reader Edward Wronka)