Brian,
I watched your interview with President Bush and now with the President of Iran. Keep it up, keep asking tough questions, keep going. You are only a journalist doing your job and a good one at that. "We" as a governing body have a right to know how our countries are run. By the way, great coverage of "Hurricane Katrina."

Hi Brian,
I just wanted to say I liked the comments on this post by JD Hawkins, Santa Clarita California. JD points out that presidents of past were truly diplomats, and hesitated to immediately resort to being commander-in-chief in times of danger. I think we should hold our current president up to the standards of his predecessors. Any chance you'd consider doing a piece on diplomacy and American Presidents of the 20th century? I think it'd be good to shed light on this issue. I've never been so against an administration as I am this one, and one reason is because it rarely resonds to crisis with graceful diplomacy. It prefers the "tough, like it or not approach." Yet, it was the more charming diplomacy of, for example, Nixon, that did mend many fences and open doors rather than fortify opposing walls. I think a story on genuine diplomacy would recall for us its usefullness and grace in times of trouble.

Just to share a little anecdote on the effects of diplomacy, when a boy here in China was asked what he wanted his "English" name to be for our English class, his choice: Nixon.

Just goes to show the lasting effects a gesture friendliness can bring.

Regarding the Ahmadinejad interview (and, I'll add, coverage of what Venezuelan President Chavez had to say), I'm with the previous posters above--between the First Amendment and the fact that it's better for us to get to know our international adversaries in that way, I think you did a great job.

Here's something that should be covered on NBC Nightly. Last night on the Fox Report it was reported that local politicians in Louisiana say the federal government has made mistakes that have been holding up rebuilding. FEMA apparently has not been doing a good job on estimating the costs of damage by Katrina and Rita. Its initial estimates were way too low, and as a consequence, New Orleans' recovery has been under-funded by the Feds.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. The Times-Picayune has said that FEMA is holding up Louisiana's recovery. FEMA is responsible for disbursing the $110 billion allocated towards post-storm rebuilding. And the purse-strings have been tight--says the Times-Picayune, "FEMA's current policies are in fact starving efforts to restore South Louisiana."

New Orleans needs $4 billion to repair her infrastructure. But a stingy FEMA has agreed to reimburse her for about $217 million, which is bad enough. But New Orleans has only gotten $117 million. So city buildings must go unrebuilt, city services suffer, and sewer and water lines go unrepaired.

The water in the northern half of the Lower 9th is a case in point. It is still not safe to drink, cook with, or bathe in. Water pressure and water quality are inadequate. The water is so bad not even boiling it will make it potable. Councilman Arnie Fielkow said, "This is the United States of America. A segment of New Orleans should not be without the necessary services to live. It's just not acceptable...That's heartbreaking."

According to Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis, the Lower 9th is "dying a slow death." She said, "It is an issue of social justice. Without water, you cannot get housing..." Adding that this is keeping people out of the area, she went on, "I cannot fathom why this is being allowed to continue. Heal the divide. This is sacred ground."

FEMA requires governments to begin the work themselves--which cash-strapped New Orleans does not have the money to do. And FEMA and water woes aren't the only problems plaguing New Orleans. There is a lack of affordable housing for renters.

Prior to Katrina, about half of the city's residents were renters. Since the storm, rents are up an average of 39%. Also, the neighborhoods with the greatest concentration of apartment houses and other rentals are also those in ruins a year after the storm.

This lack of affordable housing is but one thing hindering the return of poor residents. New Orleans has also lost her "Charity Hospital" health care system for the poor. She does not have enough schools even for her much smaller population, and there is very little public transportation.

As long as people in New Orleans and the rest of the storm zone are up against hardships like those described above, the need for a consistent focus on storm recovery is urgent. The people of the storm zone should not be forgotten and abandoned--even if the Bush Administration seems to want to do that.

Brian,
I think choosing to interview the Iranian President was indeed a good decision.
However,do you beleive that the President of Iran would have responded to your questions in the same way if he was interviewed in Iran rather than in US? I mean, this is the person who talked about quite a different world map...I am confused!

The other two broadcast networks have been doing some fine work of late. That piece with "the man in the tan jacket" was a channel stopper for sure people. Good probing Brian, regardless of the negative responses posted. Can we keep ego's checked at the door and keep up the journalisim. If somehow an editorial spot could be squeezed in, might reach out and grab the audience. Tip a the hat to all who are making miracles happen.

You did good Brian! Its quite impossible for the American Public to ask point blank, questions to the Iranian President about his policies . Since there appears to me, no useful dialoge between our President and our State Department with the Iranians, at least we have you to do it for us.
I'l bet a buck the President and Secretary Rice watched the entire interview. Personally I think President Bush blew an opportunity at the UN by not calling the Iranian President on the phone and asking him to go have a beer at a local pub and talk this "nuclear" stuff out man to man.
History has shown us what can happen if a sitting President takes things beyond the diplomatic arena and goes right to the leader of a country we are having trouble with. President Nixon did just that. He flew to China and met with the Chinese leadership formally and informally. A lot of positive things happened during the informal talks over a few cocktails and some dinner.
A channel for meaningful communication and change began during that trip. At the time of President Nixon's adventure to China, our two countries were at each other's throat because of Viet Nam, Korea, Taiwan and the nuclear threat each country perceived by the other. How things have changed for the better beween us and China from that time until now. It ain't perfect but its a helluva lot better than it was in the early 70's.
FDR was also a President who also made a mean martini. He believed in what a chilled martini and informal talk could do. President Roosevelt got what he wanted for our country out of the Allies, our industrial leaders and the Congress during the Second World War by mixing a pitcher of martini's, dropping the formallites and getting down to business.
Thanks for doing justice to the profession.

It is FAR better to 'know your enemy' than to operate in the dark! Keep asking the questions.

Brian:

Keep up the good work. The First Amendment is still alive and well.