WH press statement does NOT deny that it has been "complicit in crimes and other wrongdoing"

[ProSense]

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Missing the Forest for a Single, Immaterial Tree

Marty Lederman

This is actually quite humorous. The White House has been extremely reluctant to say anything at all about the CIA tapes scandal -- except that the President knew nothing about the tapes -- for a couple of weeks now. But today's New York Times story prompted an immediate, impassioned official response, which you can read here.

The Times story, as you'll recall, explained that there was plenty of discussion about the tapes' possible destruction at the White House, and that the highest ranking attorneys in the White House either insinuated to the CIA that the tapes should be destroyed or gave tepid and equivocal advice that the tapes be retained, without actually ordering that they be preserved, and without doing anything once they learned that the CIA had destroyed the tapes. Either way, it's not a pretty picture.

So what's the White House so exercised about today? That the Times story got it wrong? That in fact no one in the White House had such discussions? That it never reached the level of Gonzales and Addington? That no one in the White House indicated that the tapes should be destroyed? That White House lawyers did, in fact, order the CIA to preserve the tapes? That upon learning of the tapes' destruction, that the White House took appropriate action to investigate and punish the wrongdoers?

None of the above.

The White House's vigorous defense this morning is that, in fact, it has never denied the facts in the Times story:

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.

Now, there's nothing actually inaccurate about the Times story: "the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes" was, in fact, "more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged " -- precisely because they have not acknowledged any involvement at all beyond Harriet Miers.

The Times did not write that the White House has lied about WH officials' involvement -- merely that they haven't yet come clean with the full story, which is true. There was some information coming from the White House about its involvement -- they tried to insinuate that the responsibility should be pinned on Harriet Miers alone, a story that was basically inaccurate. (Note the careful wording of the Press Statement: "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." One point of the Times piece is that the carefully orchestrated nonpublic leaks from the White House have been importantly incomplete and possibly misleading.)

But all this is beside the point, which is not whether the White House has been misleading in its "public" comments over the past two weeks, but whether the White House has been complicit in crimes and other wrongdoing over the past several years. And on that question, what's most notable about today's Press Statement is that it does not deny the substance of the Times story.

Gotta include this comment (a response to a previous comment)

Unless you are arguing that the quality of the delivery of the liberal media is somehow substandard (which I do not), then you are left with the partisan content as the reason for the loss of customers for the NYT and its brethren.

This really is no mystery. Pew has repeatedly observed that conservatives are the greatest consumers of news media. Now that they have alternatives, conservatives are dropping the traditional liberal media outlets.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:14 PM

So the problem isn't that the NYT isn't accurate, the problem is that conservatives want "news sources" that will tell them what they want to hear.

# posted by Bartbuster : 12:30 PM

Yeah, the problem is the liberal media, not the WH's criminal activities.

[rodeodance]

1. stall and lie, lie and stall

[ThomWV]

2. It should not be necessary to analize every word that comes from the White House to find truth

Every single word has to be looked at and then only later do you find which one deceived you. It just isn't right that this could come from a public office paid for by the very people who are being deceived.

[ProSense]

3. The WH's specialty is denial, excuses and spin, and when none of that works,

they go for the scapegoat.

[ProSense]

4. Sub-Heading: White House Panics

Sub-Heading: White House Panics

By: emptywheel Wednesday December 19, 2007 7:43 am

As Scarecrow pointed out in the last thread, the White House has done something colossally stupid: they've objected to the sub-heading of the NYT's story revealing the involvement of David Addington and Alberto Gonzales (among others) in the destruction of the terror tapes.

The White House on Wednesday took the rare step of publicly asking The New York Times to change the sub-headline of a story on the destruction of CIA tapes showing the interrogations of suspected terrorists.

At issue is the story’s sub-headline that stated: “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said.” The White House called this sub-headline inaccurate and demanded that it be corrected.

<snip>

The White House argues that the newspaper article implies that “there is an effort to mislead in this matter,” adding that such a conclusion is “pernicious and troubling.”

They appear to be making a fairly narrow objection. Since they have not publicly, officially, responded to the news that someone destroyed the terror tapes, they can't be described to have "said" anything. Never mind that someone has been shopping the cover story that only Harriet Miers was involved in the deliberations on the tapes.

[ProSense]

6. White House Gets Sub-Headline Correction

White House Gets Sub-Headline Correction

By Paul Kiel - December 19, 2007

Victory! Or not quite. The White House's public freak-out over the New York Times has won them... a correction to the Times' sub-headline:

more

[Greyskye]

5. whoever is "Obfuscater General" is doing a heck-of-a-job

Was that position a recess appointment?


:kick: and R