« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
White House to NYT: Take It Back!
It's not every day you see the White House spokesperson going out of her way to respond to a news piece, but they really didn't like this morning's piece in the New York Times on the involvement of administration lawyers in discussions on the CIA tapes. In particular they objected to this line:
The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged. (my emphasis)
Dana Perino says administration officials haven't "publicly commented on facts relating to this issue" -- so if they haven't acknowledged anything, how could the Times account be different?
Of course, given the amount of reporting that's been done on this story based on anonymous sources, it seems likely that the Times was referring to background discussions with administration officials, not their public comments. And we agree with the White House that the Times' story is "pernicious and troubling" -- but it seems like that's better applied to the CIA tapes fiasco overall rather than the Times' reporting.
Full statement below.
The New York Times today implies that the White House has been misleading in publicly acknowledging or discussing details related to the CIA's decision to destroy interrogation tapes.The sub-headline of the story inaccurately says that the "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said", and the story states that "...the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes...was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged."
Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush's immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter. Furthermore, we have not described - neither to highlight, nor to minimize -- the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.
The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story.
It will not be surprising that this matter will be reported with a reliance on un-named sources and individuals lacking a full availability of the facts -- and, as the New York Times story itself acknowledges, some of these sources will have wildly conflicting accounts of the facts. We will instead focus our efforts on supporting the preliminary inquiry underway, where facts can be gathered without bias or influence and later disseminated in an appropriate fashion.
We will continue to decline to comment on this issue, and in response to misleading press reports.
Comments (23)
Alguien wrote on December 19, 2007 10:32 AM:"We will continue to decline to comment on this issue, and in response to misleading press reports."
Translation:
We plan to stonewall this matter to death and to categorically deny any incriminating testimony, regardless of the source and even when the hard facts are screaming in our faces, so good luck to whoever wants to pursue this matter.
This mis-administration has finally managed to make Richard Nixon and his guys look like ANGELS!
Tennessee Tuxedo wrote on December 19, 2007 10:33 AM:Hmm, touched a raw nerve, did they?
Bill wrote on December 19, 2007 10:44 AM:A team of cowards and torturers is offended that the Times is trying to get at the truth? Here's what probably happened: someone at the White House said in a stage whisper, "Is there no one in this town who will rid us of these tapes?" And the tapes were destroyed. No high official had to order their destruction. Underlings, including third-rate lawyers, always know just what to do.
RB-Chicago wrote on December 19, 2007 10:49 AM:Can't quite get the timing right hum??
..WHY is she out lying/stonewalling again now that all the evidence has been torched??
Mark Richards wrote on December 19, 2007 10:54 AM:The NY Times would not write such a story if it did not have a factual basis. There's far too much at stake.
This maladministration can bulk erase magnetic media and shred paper trails, but they can't erase memories. And we've seen how even the most faithful hacks in this maladministration will fold when there's pressure applied.
I'd suggest sending in Harry Reid to kick some ass and squeeze some balls, but he is emaciated, whiny, and capitulation-prone.
Maybe it's Dodd's moment?
steve wrote on December 19, 2007 10:57 AM:Is this the reason the place is on fire as we speak?
jbentley wrote on December 19, 2007 10:58 AM:Didn't Bush say it would be "interesting" to see what really happened with these tapes? Sure, just like he really wanted to get to the bottom of who outed Valerie Plame. Gimme a break. You can't believe a single word that comes out of this White House.
Zebracat wrote on December 19, 2007 10:59 AM:Yet another scandal and obstruction from Der WhiteHaus. This will be followed by the usual flurry of inaction and scurring around inpeachment by the Demo-Rats in Congress. Sad...
Slim wrote on December 19, 2007 11:00 AM:I'm with steve - I'm no tin-foil hatter, but it chills me to see a fire in executive branch offices.
Alguien wrote on December 19, 2007 11:05 AM:steve wrote on December 19, 2007 10:57 AM:
"Is this the reason the place is on fire as we speak?"
They were probably burning more tapes, a few memos and every piece of incriminating evidence...
Insane President. wrote on December 19, 2007 11:23 AM:Seems to me like the perfect foil.
Jane wrote on December 19, 2007 11:24 AM:A failure to acknowledge is simply a failure to report on something that you know to be true. It can be done by silence: the Nazis failed to acknowledge what was going on in the concentration camps because they never spoke of it. Stonewalling is a form of coverup that need not be accompanied by the lie direct.
Those who advocated destroying the tapes should be impeached whether they are currently officials or not. Impeachment carries the consequence that they can never regain Federal office. Destruction of a political career can be temporary as we know from Nixon.
Isn't it time to acknowledge that the culture of the Republican party is toxic and that all people of good will within it should work to disband it?
litigatormom wrote on December 19, 2007 11:27 AM:"It is pernicious and troubling that the press would try to hold us accountable for what we do."
will o dwisp wrote on December 19, 2007 11:28 AM:"Quick -burn everything before Friday! -hey look out for those drapes!.."
hopeless_in_bluestate wrote on December 19, 2007 11:49 AM:What is it with the GOP and tapes? 18 1/2 minutes, a couple of hours? Federal Judge wants 'em? Screw 'em.
Of course last time we had a congress with teeth -- but we also had R's with ethics and a true commitment to the rule of law and the constitution.
I miss those good old days.
lambert strether wrote on December 19, 2007 12:00 PM:> I miss those good old days.
Yeah, wouldn't it be great to live in a country with a legitimate government again?
rapt wrote on December 19, 2007 12:46 PM:Dana said, in part: "The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story."
This kind of denial/stonewall language used by by all WH hacks has now become so common as to be unremarkable. It is like saying *Yes everybody knows we are criminals, liars, etc. but we'll continue as always to deny deny deny - watcha gonna do about it?*
Try reading some of this stuff from a distant prior POV; stick it into a time slot where the govt was (somewhat) trusted - 50s? - to see how ridiculous it sounds.
As a Russian once said, "Yeah we get propaganda too, but at least over here we know it is always lies." (loose translation)
donviti wrote on December 19, 2007 12:59 PM:I'm going to be the first to say it. Dana Perino is smoking, fire in dick cheney's office, H-O-T!
I can't listen to her or watch her, not for the reason that Bush troubles me, but I fall for her crap. She has something about her, those blue eyes and waspy lips...
man, hubba hubba. I can't imagine the Press Corps is any different
nal wrote on December 19, 2007 1:21 PM:Just another example of a WH faux outrage used to direct attention away from another of their scandals. Let's see how long it takes before the parrots pick up this story and create a narrative that misdirects readers from the tape scandal.
PC in TO wrote on December 19, 2007 1:43 PM:Doesn't this response remind you of the attack on the Dan Rather report on Bush's national guard service? They attack the format of the report to divert attention from the substance. It's all to find some way to distract attention from the core central issue.
Phil
Utopia wrote on December 19, 2007 4:07 PM:"Dana Perino says administration officials haven't "publicly commented on facts relating to this issue" -- so if they haven't acknowledged anything, how could the Times account be different?"
This statement says a lot. It implies the only thing the Times should report is what it's told by the Administration. There's no need to "investigate" (no doubt considered "quaint" by the WH). The WH will just tell them what to print. Where's Judy Miller when we need her?
U
Ryan from Philadelphia wrote on December 19, 2007 5:08 PM:"Take it back"?
This statement says a lot. It implies the only thing the Times should report is what it's told by the Administration.
How about free press with opinion?
Ryan from Philadelphia wrote on December 19, 2007 5:10 PM:"The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story."