Sub-Heading: White House Panics
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.
And, as we might expect from the Bill Keller- and Pinch Sulzberger-led NYT, they have obliged with the White House’s request and changed the entire title to: "Bush Lawyers Discussed Fate of C.I.A.Tapes." Given that the point of the sub-headline was that the story had been floated, by someone, that Harriet was the only one involved in the terror tape deliberations, I think the more appropriate response would have been to demand that the source for those original allegations either publicly retract them, or consider his source confidentiality sacrificed. Because, as it is, the NYT’s change of headlines coddles the people who have been pitching the cover story about Harriet.
But I’m also interested in the White House’s ham-handed response to this. The last time they handled a public allegation this badly was, oh, around July 8, 2003, when on Dick Cheney’s apparent order, Scooter Libby outed a CIA spy to (the NYT again!) Judy Miller. Thus far, they haven’t tried to out any of the parties involved–at least as far as we know. But as with Joe Wilson’s allegations, they are responding in such a panicked mode that the most logical conclusion is that they are, truly, panicked by the possibility that they will have to answer for the destruction of the torture tapes.
Mr. Mukasey–can we return to the discussion of a Special Proescutor for this issue?
Update: Oh, this is rich. Here’s the White House statement:
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. [my emphasis]
First, in response to "misleading press reports," you’re going to do what? Are you going to finish that sentence? Did someone forget to have this reviewed by someone smarter than Dana "Pig Missile" Perino?
And where does this Administration get off, after leaking Valerie Wilson’s cover as an un-named source, getting all skittish about the use of un-named sources? Not to mention the same Administration that brought us to war by laundering classified information through un-named sources.
A reprise from the previous thread:
MSNBC says that while the fire is in the area of the VP’s “Ceremonial Office”, the nearby offices are working offices for the VP’s national security staff. That would be Mr. David Addington.
So let’s see my mini-EW Timeline:
1. CIA destroys interrogation tapes.
2. MSM reports only list Harriet Miers as WH involvement.
3. Judge Kennedy orders hearing on CIA destruction of tapes.
4. NYT “clarifies” that Fredo and Addington were involved in destruction of tapes discussion.
5. NYT states “One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes.”
6. Fire occurs in WH Executive Offices housing VP’s National Security Advisor.
Guess those tapes are really destroyed now.
Good God. Will the MSM ever take their tongues out of the Republicans’ rectal openings?
The old rule of media used to be as follows: If a source lies to you, and you find out, you burn that source. Period. In fact, it is your duty to burn that source.
Lord, Lord.
Raw Story reports:
“Constitutional scholar: ‘At least six identifiable crimes’ possible in CIA tape affair.”
Could ARSON make it seven?
Arson:
Oh goody. Arson would be investigated by the District Of Columbia Fire Marshal’s Office, who is, and here it comes, an entity of the DHS.
Fire Marshal
D.C. Fire Department
441 4th NW, Doom 370
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 727-3659
FAX: (202) 727-3228
No independent judiciary, no independent fire marshal. It figures.
Seems like the NYT’s “ledership” is taking its cue from Reid, Pelosi and Lieberman: only those wearing kneepads and chapstick need apply.
Leadersheep, in lederhosen, twist the lede and hose the people.
See McClatchy’s Cartoons of the Week for Cheney as Alice’s Cheshire cat, named Bush Records; he fades away, leaving only his leer.
Marty Lederman is on the odd WH complaint as well.
Missing the Forest for a Single, Immaterial Tree.
This is truely strange, for in the previous memo, I linked to an article on Addington in the New Yorker, in that article, it describes “a fire” at Addington’s home:
“Addington, he went on, has a dazzling ability to recall the past twenty-five years’ worth of intelligence and national-security legislation. For many years, he kept a vast collection of legal documents in a library in his modest brick-and-clapboard home, in Alexandria, Virginia. One evening several years ago, lightning struck a nearby power line and the house caught fire; much of the archive burned. ”
link: http://www.newyorker.com/archi…..rentPage=3
third paragraph down
you have to wonder if this is just a coincidence, what were these documents, and why did Addington have them at his home?
I don’t read the earlier story about Miers in the light of the new story the same as you. I don’t think the news that other lawyers in the White House were involved means that Miers was thrown under the bus. Remember the earlier report was that Miers’s was against the destruction of the tapes. I think the point of the first story was to get it on record that someone in the White House objected to the destruction. Had anyone else objected, the White House would have tried to get that out as well. Hence we can be certain that of the four lawyers mentioned today only Miers objected, perhaps with a nod and wink, and the others lobbied for the destruction of the tapes.
One can only hope that one of the firefighters found Cheney’s copy of this morning’s NYT with his handwritten notes on the article.
Addington’s office, NSA offices.
Was it a distraction…or was it truly to destroy documents. That seems very risky…what if they didn’t burn or weren’t damaged? How would you be certain unless the fire was in a specific location? However, the coincidence about Addington’s home fire and this is interesting. I also read a post on dkos that reports that the fire investigators were prevented from being allowed in the building. There was no link to the report however. Anybody know if that is true?
If they did have something to do with this fire, they must be damn desperate, because it means they have decided “to hell with the suspicion, it’s worth the risk.” They have to know how bad it looks but if it accomplished what they wanted then…maybe they don’t care.
electrical. Those are so easy to start…by an electrician. Easy set up with no way to trace. Just cut a hole in a wire, place it next to something burnable, and it looks like an accident.
Ugh. I will say that CNN folks sounded a little suspicious as they reported the offices that were affected.
I realized how horrifically cynical I’ve become as I realized: you don’t need the fire to get them: the water will do plenty of damage.
I’ll double down on your cynicism. The material doesn’t even have to be there to claim it was “destroyed in the fire.”
Daughter just arrived & we’re leaving for early bird Xmas shopping (I’m in L.A.)
Ugh to the shopping. But I get to visit w/her, so it’s all good.
Read you all later.
Hey, this Administration has already made us live in Orwell’s 1984, no reason they shouldn’t make us live in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 as well. Burn the offending truth!
from my list of quotable wisdom:
Well if they did then they screwed it up. Not that I would be surprised– these guys could fuck-up a one car parade. I might lean more to the accidentally-on-purpose explanation. That is they have been running a24/7/365 shredding operation and it overheated.
But what it does now is call attention to the possibility that they may be obstructing, and now they won’t get the benefit of the doubt.
Well, it’s not like I want to think those thoughts, but given all the dishonesty that has been exhibited…it’s awfully hard not to be cynical. Of course, we will all wait for facts…and I have to say, I thought about the water as soon as I hit the submit button.
It will help when we have more facts, and less guesses.
Oh jeepers. WaPo sent me one of their inanely useless NewsAlerts (it always cracks me up what they deem to be “NewsAlert” worthy).
How nice of them to point out the construction underway.
Panic is right. Bush is going to end up in the exact same position as I. Lewis Libby. Somebody must have realized that there is evidence that Bush referred to the torture tapes recently, making his claim on Dec. 11 about having no recollection of them absurd.
If the purpose of the original spin was to set up Harriet Miers as the fall girl for the destruction of the torture tapes/discs/DVRs/mpegs, (and actually I think rege at #10 has the right idea that Harriet was offered up as the WH person who advised that the tapes be preserved), it does indicate a lot of panic among the WH legal types – perhaps AGAG and Harriet as the Bush loyalists pushing back against Addington. Given AGAG’s legal troubles, and Harriet’s exposure on contempt, I think this is an excellent opportunity to exploit – maybe Harriet or AGAG will have a John Dean moment, more out of self preservation than anything.
OT, but on the EOB fire – I remember a decade or so ago, in one of the more “colourful”, Hazzard-like counties in my former domicile, four law firms suffered mysterious fires in less than a year. I don’t know why Cheney would need something as bluntly obvious as a “fire” to get rid of something, he could just bring anything out in somekind of Fourthbranch diplomatic pouch or cart out the man-size safe, but it is interesting that the recent disclosures on the visitors logs were only kept on paper, not in any digital form.
William Ockham – when I heard Bush claim he no recollection of the torture tapes, I was amazed that he went immediately to the memory defence, without any outright denial, even through a mouthpiece. It would not surprise me in the least if Bush watched the videos personally, as some kind of torture porn, given his apparent disappointment that some of the victims had been given pain medication in the course of the torture sessions.
Of course not, Dana. Senior White House officials never allow their names to be used.
Of course, if Dana really wants to push back on this, she could always get the President to say “I want any of my staff who demanded anonymity for these stories to go back to the reporters and let them use your names.”
The other thing I keep thinking of is Addington’s testimony, of learning that Dick was the one who ordered Scottie to say certain things publicly. I’m wondering if its’ possible that Cheney and Bush were free-lancing the response to this until Fred Fielding had flashbacks and told them to stop. Thus the lockdown on the WH.
And I’m increasingly curious about why Shannen Coffin left Cheney’s office on November 2, with seemingly no notice.
When the fire was first reported, one of the reporters was stopped in the middle of a press conference with Dana, she reported that the exchange when the fire was reported had gotten heated?? Was the presser about the torture tapes?? What was going on? All they reported was a heated exchange that was interupted for the reporter because she was sent to cover the fire.
Five distinct concentric circles:
1 Ignition source
2 Combustion fuel
3 Digital data (which would not be destroyed by water)
4 Documents (which will be destroyed by water)
5 Secret service perimeter preventing real investigation
I’m guessing it was planned.
I don’t think this move was stupid at all. I think the plan is to quash this story the same way they got rid of the Dan Rather/National Guard story. Next week, they’ll be saying that everyone is just reporting “rumors”, and the week after that, they’ll claim that everyone has been “discredited”. From a spin standpoint, I think this would be pretty effective. Congress isn’t going to do anything more than posture, and Mukasey isn’t going to appoint a special prosecutor. (They’ve learned their lesson on that one.)
The only X-factor left is the judiciary. Unfortunately for Team Bush, it’s a BIG X-factor. Destruction of evidence doesn’t go over well with judges. Neither does playing cute about it. Friday’s going to be an interesting day.
I don’t think the judiciary is the prime source of opposition to the rule of ‘Waterboarding George’.
I think the only real pushback is coming from within the intelligence community.
Maybe, but the intelligence community is, for the most part, and intelligent and practical bunch. From their standpoint, all they need to do is contain the carnage until January, 2009. I’m more interested in the players who are going to drag this whole mess out into the sunlight. In that regard, it’s the judiciary that’s worth watching.
Right on Frank!
I’ve been admiring you from afar for quite some time.
I’m blushing, aren’t I?
Btw
I’m glad you mentioned 60 minutes, Frank.
I notice the wingnuts are up in arms that 60 minutes covered “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
And that 60 minutes has not, thus far, published the Siegelman story they’re supposed to be sitting on.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has ALWAYS been “Tell During Wartime, and Get Shipped to the Front Lines Anyway”. In fact, that was the policy even before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, during the first Iraq war. It’s one of those many ironies about the whole “gays in the military” controversy. In peacetime, we have to listen to people say that gays will erode the confidence of the troops during wartime. In wartime, we get people telling us that we should wait until peacetime to sort all of this out.
The crowning point was the part with Duncan Hunter. I can’t even begin to list what was wrong with what he said.( That’s a lot of W’s)
Carry-over from the last thread: What’s everyone’s take on the description of the tapes as “very clinical”? That sounds a lot like Newspeak for “pornographic”.
http://www.dcfd.com/ has the story, but it comes from NBC.
On the other hand, here is FEMS, telling us it has investigative powers.
The Fire Investigation Unit is comprised of one lieutenant, one sergeant, 12 fire investigators, and an arson accelerant detection K-9 named Augie. This unit is under the direct supervision of the captain of the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire investigators work a rotating shift schedule: two 12-hour days and two 12-hour nights followed by four days off.
In the past, the Fire/ Arson Investigation Unit of the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS) Department was responsible for investigating the cause and origin of all fires that occurred within the city. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was responsible for investigating all crimes and deaths. The crime of arson presented a special problem for both departments. The Fire/ Arson Investigators of FEMS had the expertise in the science of fire investigation to determine the cause and origin of fires, but lacked the law enforcement training and powers to conduct criminal investigations and to make arrests. MPD had the law enforcement training and powers to conduct criminal investigations, but lacked the specialized training necessary to do fire investigations. Consequently, arson investigations fell between the cracks of the criminal justice system. In response to this situation, the DC City Council, at the urging of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, passed DC ACT 12-418 (Arson Investigators Amendment Act of 1998). This legislation granted members of FEMS Department, Fire/ Arson Investigation Unit, full police powers. Fire/ arson investigators must complete the entire training course at the Metropolitan Police Training Academy before being granted police powers. Currently, six of the members of the Fire Investigation Unit have these police powers.
The Fire Investigation Unit has the authority to investigate the origin, cause, and circumstances of every fire, explosion, or hazardous materials emergency in which the fire department has a reasonable interest. When the fire investigator has reason to believe that a fire, explosion, or hazardous materials incident may be the result of a violation of any law, the investigator will immediately take custody of and safeguard all physical evidence in connection with the incident.
LOL FIU.
Clarification. I was responding to JohnForde@4. Firefighters use water, but are not waterboarders, as far as I know.
Yeah.
I bought the domain name “WaterboardingGeorge.com”
I’m still trying to figure out what to do with it.
The longer the silence on the destruction of the Torture Tapes, the more obvious will be the un-stated Conclusion…
The Only remaining link to be revealed is to establish that Bush, himself, had viewed the Tapes.
And who really doubts that Bush watched the Torture he Ordered?
This one’s not going away, and Privilege isn’t going to stop the investigation, either.
This is it…the Counter-attack of the Rule of Law!
EW – Didn’t Comey tell Gonzo that, one day, Gonzo would be Ashamed and Embarrassed that Gonzo had signed a certain Secret Torture Memo?
Dana Perino: You can’t say that the White House role was wider than we said it was because, officially, we haven’t said anything.
In other words, the White House role was wide.
Another wide-stance admission. Even when they’re trying to hide things, these people are amazingly frank.
Clarification. I skimmed the thread and don’t see this correction.
Above EW states that, in addition to the subtitle, the title of the article has also been changed. EW says:
I have a paper copy of the Times. And in my paper copy, that is the title.
So, only subtitle has been changed, at least in the paper copy.
But as we know, all the paper copies still have the subtitle they don’t like!!!
I think the White House’s objection might be even narrower, hanging not only on the fact that it has not said anything publicly on this beyond denying that Bush had any recollection of the tapes before very recently, but also on the characterization, in the initial subhead, of what it, i.e. the White House, as distinct from the Bush administration has said. Because on background, Bush administration officials and government officials have pointed to Miers specifically – this happened, apparently, two Fridays ago, and was reported both on ABC (which identified its sources as Bush administration officials) and then in the print press, including by Mazzetti, whose sources were described as government officials.
One of the interesting questions therefore is whether any of those sources were White House officials, and whether Mazzetti knows about that. Here’s what the new version of the Times story up right now says:
On Wednesday, the White House press secretary, Dana Perino, issued a statement saying “The New York Times’ inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling.”
Ms. Perino’s statement said that other than President Bush’s comment that he had not known about the tapes, White House officials have declined to discuss the matter because of pending investigations by the Department of Justice and the C.I.A. inspector general.
This is just reporting Perino’s statement, and it raises the question of whether Mazzetti knows that that is true or not. If Mazzetti has a source from the White House (or knows that abc does, or whatever) who has commented, even on background, about Miers and the White House’s role, then the subheadline was on solid ground to begin with. What are the Times’ obligations to readers at that point? Doesn’t the Times, if it knows for a fact that the White House is now saying something that is false, have a responsibility to report that to its readers – and simply reporting what the White House said without affirming whether or not it is true does not get you out of that responsibility.
If, on the other hand, the Times does not know that White House officials have commented on background about the matter – if, say, Mazzetti’s sources for the December 8 piece were government but non-White House officials, and they don’t know about abc’s sources – then the Times was right to change the headline because it was a bit misleading. It should then have said, in line with what the story actually reports:
White House role was wider than Bush administration has said.
Incidentally, I completely disagree with Perino on semantic grounds. She says:
Her “defense” is that the White House is stonewalling, not misleading, and that they haven’t “said” or “acknowledged” anything about their role in all of this, and therefore their “role” or “involvement” can’t be “wider” or “more extensive” than they have already “said” or “acknowledged”.
Since we’re pretty much in “Alice in Wonderland” territory already, I’ll let Lewis Carroll take it from here.
Listening to Dana Perino today, I guess it boils down to what the meaning of “it” is.
Perino apparently said that the Times is going to run a correction tomorrow. It could be a really good one if they just correct the subhead and then go on and on about how the Bush administration has not denied any of the substance of the story in terms of the White House’s role, and how the substance of the story was in fact correct, because Bush administration officials have indeed been telling reporters on background that it was about Miers and therefore the role of the White House has been greater than Bush administration officials have acknowledged, just like the story says.
The NYT has already updated their story a bit, to include the following, right after the “Spokesmen for the White House . . .” paragraph:
You’d think that the reporter would at least call Perino’s reply what it is: BS. “Careful readers will not that Perino’s reply speaks about the official public statements of White House officials. She does not deny that the events themselves as described in this paper ever took place.”
erh, peterr –
the hill already did just
that, gratis, for the new york times.
the hill closes its latest story, thus:
Selise,
That’s too much fun. Inner cynic flying free…per professorFoland…and I have to agree. At every turn in which we have tried to practice some restraint and not go outside the lines of fact, we have been rewarded with facts, coming later that, would more than vindicate some of the most cynical theories. Pretty soon, patterns begin to emerge presenting their own kind of evidence. Certainly, patterns worthy of using to make predictions. Only time will verify these predictions. In other words..inner cynic soaring…where eagles soar.
Maybe the four singing senators could make a song about that.
It’s good they printed this:
Because now they can get their ombudsman on the case! Checking into whether or not they jumped the gun. And incidentally writing another article on this.
They have well and truly invited huge, huge further scrutiny. More will be forthcoming undoubtedly.
The Punch (Sulzberger) and Judy show at The Times. The Times has become a willing slave all too often for the Bushies. Watch Lizzy Bumiller on her raving book tour singin’ the praises of the colossally incompetent chickenhawk Condi Rice who has more blood on her hands than any woman in history, not to mention her incompetence when warned specifically of 911 and refusing to push translating the tapes that would have given actionable information that are part of the Sibel Edmonds saga.
We sure wouldn’t want a troubling inference that the White House is making anything up would we?
As Jeff suggests above, and as I see from Dana Perino’s comments at the press conference, there seems to be a denial that there may just be someone within the WH who is deep-throating this story. its about time, I say.
McClellan, Tony Snow….?
I fairly recently read that the NYT was sitting on a story for at least the last year but that the WH was blocking it…if the CIA tape story is that story…well…
Problem is, I can’t remember where I read it…
I find this pretty unbelievable, if all that was at issue with the article was a somewhat imprecise “It”, but the NYT has apparently basically disappeared that entire article, at least from the front page. You can find the two versions if you do a search, and for all I know you can still find it on the politics page or whatever, but it seems to be nowhere to be found on the front page. Which is puzzling, for such a significant story, if the subhead was all that was wrong with it.
i don’t think anything at all
was wrong with it, jeff — it
is right in the washington
section. . . and if dana
“missile pig” perino is to be
believed, a full-reprint will
run tomorrow — in the dead tree
editions — with perino’s very-
personalized-offending-sub-head
removed. . . good work, dana.
you’ve garnered TWO days of front-
page, torturous muck-splattering,
all over the very top of the white house.
they really don’t pay you enough.
Well, there’s a new article up at the Times for tomorrow by Shane that mentions the correction issue. But more intriguing to me was this seemingly new account:
Clandestine service officials began pushing to destroy the tapes in 2003, but the matter was put on hold after Congressional intelligence committee leaders said they opposed the destruction. The matter arose again in 2005, and in November 2005, the current and former officials have said, Mr. Rodriguez ordered their destruction after being advised by two agency lawyers, Steven Hermes and Robert Eatinger, that it would not violate the law and was within his authority.
Has it already been reported that there was such a close, perhaps even causal, connection between CIA hesitating in 2003 after Congressional intelligence committee leaders said they were opposed to the destruction? Do we know which expressed opposition we’re talking about here – Harman’s letter from early 2003? Something else?
Also, this is an intriguing redescription of the reporting from today:
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that discussions about the proposal to destroy the tapes involved four high-level White House lawyers: Alberto R. Gonzales, who was as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.
That seems to be a very concrete description of discussions of a proposal to destroy the tapes. Which one – in 2003 or in 2005 or both or what? It’s also worth noting that at the time of the destruction of the tapes in November 2005, Addington had just taken the OVP chief of staff position, though I’m not sure if he had relinquished the Counsel position at the end of October when Libby was indicted or if he hung on to that as well for a while.
well – that didn’t take long.
DAY TWO of the new york times’
much-earned-splattering of addington
and gonzales and miers — as close
proxies for cheney and bush — has
already begun. this page-one, center
column story, for tomorrow’s print version,
reprints (without change), a whole bunch
of today’s (supposedly errant) story,
at paragraph 15, while weaving it into
the broader tapestry of news that
the CIA will now cooperate with the
house intelligence committee investigation
of the tapes’ destruction. . .
s w e e t. . .
hoo boy, that dana perino sure does great work!
jeff — we crossed in the
post que — this story has
legs for days and days and days.
I certainly think that should be the case. A side question for you: how can you tell from the website where the article will be placed in the print edition? I’ve never even been able to tell from the Times what page something is on (unlike the Post, which always makes that clear upfront in an article).
i just LOVE this touch — from
the story that will run tomorrow:
p e r f e c t!
the times does show a jpeg
image of their front page,
as printed, in one of the
sections of their site — i’ll
go find it, and let you know.
p e a c e
okay — here is today’s jpeg. . .
it will change after midnight, EDT.
and it will appear on this web-page. . . daily.
hope this helps, jeff.
p e a c e
Thanks! Good to know.
But it raises the question, how do you know that the story for tomorrow is page-one, center column?
um — lucky guess.
actually if i told you,
then i’d have to kill you.
seriously, though, i saw the image
for the 20th by simply substituting
20 for 19 in the url, thus:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/…/12/19/…/scan.jpg
[this is a dead-link, don’t
bother to click it — it is
simply an example.]
a childish trick, i know, but
then many webmasters — and their
approach to coding time-sensitive
pages — is likewise childish. . .
they often pre-load the images
to the server, then connect them
to the page, later. . .
perhaps i have already disclosed
far too much, about far too little.
p e a c e
But in reality it was a bad guess! The story is evidently on p. A6, not page one, center column or otherwise.
it is right there, just below
the fold — but it is only
a summary — then a lead to A6.
see it?
[not that it matters, really.]
it is right there, just below
the fold — but it is only
a summary
Lucky save.
Here’s the correction:
Correction: December 20, 2007
The subheading with a front-page headline on Wednesday for an article about discussions between four top White House lawyers and the Central Intelligence Agency over whether to destroy videotapes showing secret interrogations of members of Al Qaeda referred imprecisely to the White House’s position thus far on the matter. While Bush administration officials have acknowledged some discussions leading up to the destruction of the tapes in November 2005, as the article noted, the White House itself has not officially said anything on the subject, so its role was not “wider than it said.” (A related article appears today on Page A6.)
It appears that they conceded an error because “it” when referring to “the White House” must have to do with the White House’s official position and statements. So even if White House officials had been peddling the story about Miers on background, that doesn’t count as “it”. This would appear to mean that the White House can shape a story anyway it likes without being institutionally responsible for that position. Good to know.
Some forward motion in an article in the Post, which works from the new information that Hayden told Congress behind closed doors last week about the White House lawyers being briefed on and advising (sort of) CIA with respect to the proposed destruction of the tapes. The basic upshot seems to be, there was a briefing of Addington, Gonzales and Bellinger in 2004; they offered very non-committal and perhaps ambiguous urges of caution, without apparent recommendation for or against destroying the tapes (though some other intel officials are saying they or some of them were emphatically against destruction); Miers was brought in in 2005. There is no explanation of what happened to 2003, which we had been led to believe was the start of WH involvement:
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told lawmakers privately last week that three White House lawyers were briefed in 2004 about the existence of videotapes showing the interrogation of two al-Qaeda figures, and they urged the agency to be “cautious” about destroying the tapes, according to sources familiar with his classified testimony.
The three White House officials present at the briefing were David S. Addington, then Vice President Cheney’s chief counsel; Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel; and John B. Bellinger III, then the top lawyer at the National Security Council, according to Hayden’s closed-door testimony before the Senate intelligence committee.
When told that some high-ranking CIA officials were demanding that the tapes be destroyed, the White House lawyers “consistently counseled caution,” said one U.S. official familiar with Hayden’s testimony. Another source said that Harriet E. Miers followed up with a similar recommendation in 2005, making her the fourth White House lawyer “urging caution” on the action.
The ambiguity in the phrasing of Hayden’s account left unresolved key questions about the White House’s role. While his account suggests an ambivalent White House view toward the tapes, other intelligence officials recalled White House officials being more emphatic at the first meeting that the videos should not be destroyed.
Also unexplained is why the issue was discussed at the White House without apparent resolution for more than a year.
Of course, at this point we don’t know whether the briefing in 2004 was the first briefing on the matter. It’s hard to believe that CIA came up with the proposal in 2003 and then backed off because of congressional objection without consulting with the White House. So the point is that the 2004 briefing may again only be one piece of the puzzle.
In my paper copy, it is first among the other corrections on page 2. But frankly, the longest “correction” I have seen there. And really more like a dutiful noting of the white house’s “official” difference in opinion from “the administration” one. And a link to page 6 article related to the CIA’s willingness to testify about tape destruction to House Committee.
Yes, it’s a small thing. But nevertheless, I think the White House did not really win on this. Perino looked like a fool, whining that she’d been wronged (wronged, I tell you!). And in the end my suspicion is that they turfed this to the ombudsman, who can then write a long article after careful digging… which only prolongs the agony of the White House here.
I think some kind of tipping point has been reached or passed… and these folks are flailing badly.
And now ‘Waterboarding George’ will face the press in the next five minutes.
FLAIL AWAY!
emptywheel,
please just forget the name Valerie Plame. That was just a trumped up story to begin with. She decided to “stand by her man.”
One misguided small player, Scooter Libby, was caught for no more than trying to avoid public display and was punished ruthlessly for an embarassing mispeak.
How many times has Joe Wilson “mispoke” or so to speak.
And please allow Reporters to keep their confidential sources, confidential, or there will be no sources except for the offical lines.