Gee let me guess. The people who thought you were disrespectful support the presedent and the ones who thought you were too soft dont like the presedent. Is there anyone left in this county that can come to a honest conclusion without letting there political views cloud there judgement. What a bunch of phonies.

BRIAn On the Eve of THE UPCOMING IRAQI ELECTIONS, THE U.S. MSM has Failed To talk About the significance of the Pact of Honor,THAT WAS SIGNED BY 35 DIFFERENT political parties running for election.who AGREED in PRINCIPLE TO UPHOLD the 14 demands contained in the Pact. ONE OF THOSE demands HAS DIRECT CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR TROOPS -NO MORE IMMUNITY FOR AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ.- SHALL WE DISCUSS THAT LITTLE GEM WHEN DEBATING HOW LONG we should keep troops in IRAQ?

What I would care to know about Katrina and New Orleans are the accounts of the wealthy who have been impacted but have been found wanting from this president who probably have cast these individuals into the reprobate status along with the poor. There must be stories of tremendous extent that assess even the rich within New Orleans who did not derive one iota of help from FEMA or the White House and have been left adrift. I would be interested in knowing how many of these classed citizens have been disappointed with Bush in not being provided the needed help to New Orleans that would have been provided by another presidential administration which makes one wonder if red states are subject to a greater amount of concern with this presidential administration as regards this presidents abilities or lack thereof to assist.

My wife and I have watched your news shows since the days of doubleheaders on cnbc and msnbc and CBS 2 New York long before that. We were thrilled to see you succeed Tom Brokaw. Allowing yourself and the NBC News organization to be used by the White House for free spin time is disgraceful. We need real questions and real answers, not fluff. I could watch Fox News for that.

Brian, I don't think it is possible to interview anyone as controversial as President Bush and not be critized. He is what he is. I think it was as good as can be expected, even though any interview with him is hard to watch at times. We watch nightly news almost every night and enjoy your work very much. Keep on keeping on. We think you are the best.

I would be interested in knowing what the "ground rules" were for the interview. Were you allowed to ask follow-up questions?

I specifically did NOT watch the Bush interview. I have however read the transcript and it was just as I imagined it would be. Were the questions submitted before hand ? I cannot believe that this stupid man was able to string together so many words in his responses.

Why didn't NBC and Brian Williams have the guts to say to the White House, " No, we are not going to participate in this blatant attempt to use the media ? "

It was an insult to every viewer. Does the White House and NBC really think that we are all that stupid to not be able to see what the purpose of this interiew was ?

Wellllllllllllll , WE ARE NOT !

Watching from Canada

I did not like the orchestrated interview with the

president---stick with the news at 6:30

I did not know when I turned on last night's Nightly News that it was an interview with President Bush. It would have been nice to have seen some hardball questions, some counters to comments Bush made. Instead, it was a nice chatty piece with your questions, Bush' answers, absolutely no rebuttal, just take-everything-at-face-value fluff piece which served as another P.R. opportunity for Bush. Where were the hard questions? When he stated that he agreed with McCain's definition of torture, why was there no mention of Cheney's attempt to force legislation to exempt certain agencies from following U.S. POW policies? If this is considered a coup, I'd prefer the regular Nightly News newscast. This wasn't worth taking time to watch it.

That said, I do generally like the Nightly Newscasts and think you do a pretty decent job with it.

Brain
Good Job!
You, like the Pres., would be criticized no matter what you do. No mater what question you ask they would be the wrong ones. And no matter what the Pres. does, for some people it will be wrong.

There are so many references to softball. Softball was the question Dan Rather ask Saddam Hardball would be Dan Rather saying that even thought they could not prove the documents were not forged he was sticking with his story.

Brian, I have always appreciated your newscasts and the sincerity you bring to your journalism. I applaud you for not letting go of Katrina, and for guest appearances like the Daily Show. I can really see in your broadcasts the confidence you have in your abilities. However, I think you dropped the ball on this one. Were the questions approved by the White House? If not, they sure seemed to be. I know you were pressed for time, but no follow ups? Just softballs out of the park every time. Brian, the American people no longer have access to the White House (as they did in Lincoln's day). Even the "Town Hall Meetings" have become farces. Everything has be dumbed down, rewritten, severely edited, and spoon-fed to us. You are our access. We know you have to be respectful and cordial, but ask the questions we would ask. Never forget that we are depending on you!!

Ever hear the term "follow up question", Brian??? Why do you and Russert allow any politician to say almost anything without challenge? All you do is allow them to plow through their normal talking points. What a wase of time...

I have watched your career for a long time. I probably knew before you did, that one day you would surely replace Tom Brokaw. I have admired your wry sense of humor and your knowledge of world and domestic affairs. I admire you.

But your blog about this interview with President Bush (and the interview itself) also reveals something which you may not wish to face squarely. You are being sucked into that Washington malestrom of network competition and don't piss off the source or it dries up syndrome. You are showing some signs of puppy dog tail wagging at being on Air Force One and having the "Man" talk to you and you alone. Your pride and your fear of antagonizing the President of the United States like Dan Rather did to George the First have resulted in a missed opportunity of mammoth proportions. The country is going to hell in a hand basket under George Bush and you aren't revealing that fundamental truth through your questions. That is concealment of the news, not reporting. In your private self you know the tough angry questions Americans need to have put before this president. I won't be so presumptious as to suggest what they are. But you didn't ask them. Let's take only two examples of hundreds: "Mr President, why don't you permit the public to see the returning coffins at Dover Air Force Base?" or, "How much did Attorney General Gonzalez tell you about his legal opinion on torture? Follow up: "Did he ever discuss permissible levels of torture with you on any occasion?"

Brian, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! My goodness, I have read over all of your posts and the answers to them from yesterday. For your sake, I hope you didn't have time read the answers. It is unfortunate that people who don't hear what they want to automatically assume that you work for "their enemy". I appreciate your positive attitude and stick-to-itiveness in the face of such a daunting and public job. I watch NBC News programming whenever I can. Once again, to you and your colleagues, keep up the good work!

Hi Brian, Thanks for this "A Day In The Life" show. I do think you were respectful of the President. It also seems to me that the President is attempting to bridge the gap with the American public, as much as he can do anyway given the gravity of the situations he deals with every day. Everyone has an opinion, and we do love this opportunity you are giving us to rant and rave, or praise and congratulate. I did notice that you were more gentle with the President than you were during the Katrina disaster. I don't think that is a particularly bad thing though. You were understandably unsympathetic to all government powers at that time in our country's saddest hour since 9/11. It looks to me like people want to see you interrogate and discredit the President. I think you did a nice job of showing us that he has a tough schedule and he is willing to open up and discuss issues to attempt to get us all on the same page. Personally, I don't envy any President, and especially not this one. My feeling is that he is probably doing a much better job of running this country than I ever could. If all the critics think not, then they have the option of running for the office. I get a little worn out listening to the verbal abusers. What ever happened to the concept of respect for self and others?

I agree with those who have suggested that today's interview series reflected neither robust investigative reporting nor a hardball questioning style. However, I believe that the president's answers were just as interesting as you found them to be, and that President Bush--not Brian Williams--was the man on display. Since I can't wander through the West Wing like Lincoln's contemporaries, and because I don't have the right party credentials to gain admission to screened audience events, I appreciated the opportunity to hear Bush simply hold forth--more effusively, with more animation, and with more bursts of detail(however sporadic)than I would have imagined. Certainly the topics were those that allowed him to stay on message, and I still disagree with virtually every policy-related statement he uttered. He needed to have three-part questions broken down, and apparently he genuinely believes that a few minutes' chat in the Rose Garden matches (or trumps?)lots of chewing the fat while working it off. But he wasn't reading from a teleprompter; he produced longer, more articulate sentences than I've heard in any other impromptu setting; and there was a direct candor in phrases like "chopper driver" and his reflections on "41"'s WWII experiences that helped me see George Bush in a more human and less caricatured light. Thanks for all that you're doing, and definitely keep the blogs coming.

Two thumbs up Brian you asked the questions that people are asking. I was shocked to hear President Bush was watching on TV all the people begging for help yet he thought why aren't the agencies communicating. Wow what an answer for the leader of the free world. As for the torture question I wish you could have asked by Connie Rice apologized to the President of Germany for kidnapping and torturing a German citizen by mistake. Also did the President know that the planespotters were watching our planes carry prisoners to our secret prisons. But at lease we go to see the President asked the right questions even if he is still spinning, coving up and misleading Americans. Thanks for your help during these tought times.

Kudos to Brian Williams:

I want to thank Brian Williams for doing an excellent job promoting himself and the administration of President Bush. I would only ask that Mr. Williams review the transcript and ask himself whether he asked one--just one single question that really pushed the President to actually acknowledge the real and honest problems with his administration.

NBC Nightly News, for this evening, became a conduit for mis-representation of information and an apologist for this administration. I thought you people were smarter than that--apparently not. You were duped--like the rest of the inadequate media of this country. Where are the Edward R. Murrows of our time? Certainly not in the managing editor's position at the NBC Nightly News.

Brian, you succeeded even beyond Barbara Walters in the arena of TOTAL fluff. Congratulations!!!!!!

Thanks for nothing.

Dr. Douglas E. Wood
New York, New York

Although you had good initial questions, you had poor follow-up. Better luck next time.

Dear Mr. Williams:

I am a dedicated Nightly News viewer and have appreciated the intelligence, passion, and clarity you bring to your job. Tonight's broadcast was no exception.

I faithfully read your blog and was moved to write by the commentators who accuse you of pandering to the President. I am not a journalist, but I thought you asked good questions and respectfully allowed the President to respond, which is the purpose of an interview. Some of the people who wrote to you seem to think that the interview should have convinced the President that he was in error, or should have led him to confess that he is a liar. To me, the interview showed that the President honestly believes what he says. Others are free to disagree with him, but that's what the voting box and the Op-Ed page are for.

As you wrote to LBJ so long ago, buck up, and don't let the critics get you down. I, and many others, will still be tuning in.

Brian: Did you do this interview at the request of the White House? I was hoping you would ask the tough questions of Pres. Bush and follow through on them.I'm so disappointed.

I hope the MSNBC interviews are expanded with follow-up questions to President Bush's obvious side-stepping. The interview segments on NBC News offered no in-depth reporting just question, answer, next subject, question, answer, etc. It's time for this country to get real answers to real questions from this administration and specifically from this President!

I echo the comments by Watching in the Midwest. Your blow by blow blog today was great. But I too realize that blogging doesn't pay your salary.

Now THATS reporting, talk about taking the ball and running with it.

This team is actually, actively, recording factual history instead of plagarizing the word from the house as has been the norm by far too many sources for an enternity.

Pride is being restored, nearly single handidly, by a pitcher and his world series team, to an industry many have thought was lost forever in a vacum of greed.

What was Rather's sign off word?

COURAGE.

Today's work animated that ideal, and you Brian and your entire team, our leading us all to the higher ground, by reporting truth, as it is witnessed, when our leaders have led us in circles, around and around.

Just to get that interview, is history in of itself and illuminates, brightly, the shifting of the sands by the tides of time, but one wonders is this not just more of the same. Manipulation of perspective, er, excuse me, (the message)? For example the timing of this interview, could it be a shrewed political manuver or an indication of the desperation? Or is it that the message from the people,all the people,the have and the have nots, blacks and whites, young and senior, the message is being heard maybe even recognized, that enough is enough, people need help and hope and encouragement.

What is obvious is the motivation and professionalisim repeatedly demonstrated by this team of history MAKERS. Yes, journalists are supposed to be just recording the events but at times become part of the events just by being there and even can end up being the main event itself.

Very tight rope to walk.

Keep the balance, the tickets are selling.

So many clowns, so few stars, such a show we are seeing.

Atta boy's and girls, atta way.

Please "stay the course".

We are watching, reading, listening AND talikng out here in Everytown, USA even if our leaders aren't.

I saw your interview with the president on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and it looked to be overly edited. I hope the entire interview will be available without the censoring of this overly secretive administrations censoring. The cutting was so obvious. The interview did nothing for me. It is the same washed out babble Bush has been delivering. He may be trying out new deliveries, he needs to do better. He can only do beter by coming clean on his march to war. I hope Brian Williams does not get sucked into this White House propaganda machine. We need unbiased news.