Truth, Lies, and Sunday Talk Shows
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on October 2nd, 2006 in Podium Spin, RiceWaPo:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday vehemently denied that she ever received a special CIA warning about an imminent terrorist attack on the United States, angrily refuting new allegations about her culpability in U.S. policy failures before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by al Qaeda.
[…]
Rice was responding to charges in Woodward’s new book, “State of Denial,” that details disarray within the Bush administration over its troubled foreign policy. The book describes a special meeting requested on July 10, 2001 by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to get Rice to focus on increasing intelligence pointing to an impending attack on U.S. soil. The book describes both men as frustrated by Rice’s polite but inattentive response, allegedly brushing them off.
[…]
“What I am quite certain of, however, is that I would remember if I was told–as this account apparently says–that there was about to be an attack in the United States. The idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible,” she told reporters.
The very idea that senior administration officials would ignore or distort key intelligence is totally incomprehensible. How anyone can even entertain the notion…
But Rice was on a roll:
Rice said her staff is now going back to check if there even was a meeting on July 10, 2001.
If only Dan Bartlett hadn’t shot off his mouth yesterday:
“It really didn’t match Secretary Rice’s recollection of the meeting at all,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”
“It kind of left us scratching our heads because we don’t believe that’s an accurate account,” he said.
So Rice has recollections of meetings that she isn’t even sure ever occurred? Are you scratching your head yet?
Why is it so hard for them to get their stories straight? Maybe a round of workshops or seminars is called for? For senior White House officials, as well as the Republican leadership in Congress.
*** Update, 9 am ***
Bartlett isn’t the only one to have already confirmed that the meeting took place:
But White House and State Department officials confirmed Friday that the July 10 meeting took place, although they took issue with the portrayal of its results. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never publicly expressed any frustration with her response.
“This is the first time these thoughts and feelings associated with that meeting have been expressed,” McCormack said.
So Bartlett, McCormack and unnamed White House and State Department officials all confirm that a meeting did indeed take place. Seems Condi is the last to know.
And once again, there will be absolutely no consequences whatsoever for a senior Bush cabinet member flatly lying to the press.
InTheMiddle wrote:
I don’t think that’s actually illegal. Politicians not telling the truth? Decades old news…. Let’s see, Ronald said he would introduce no new taxes, Clinton said he didn’t sleep with that girl, Nixon said he didn’t know what was going on, etc… Perhaps they are either a) dumb, b) covering their asses, or c) covering their political parties asses…
Remember when the US government involuntarily sterilized women from 1929 to the 1970s without their knowledge or consent? Only a few states–to include california–are now actually admitting that they did partake in such horrible acts (almost like the novel 1984!)..
I think it just takes a load of History channel documentaries, years of time passing, and the ever infamous way of waiting for something larger to happen in current events to come out and admit something while no one pays attention to you…
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 1:11 pm ¶
matt wrote:
it’s fascinating to me the lack of understanding shown by certain people. when people lie and get caught, they don’t have to go to jail for there to be consequences. when politicians lie, these lies are traditionally exposed resulting in political difficulties. that isn’t the case for the republican junta, and it’s troubling.
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 3:34 pm ¶
sac wrote:
There has to be an opposing force to hold the offending party’s feet to the fire. I think you know what I’m getting at. The Repubs, for better or worse, never let the Dems get away with anything.
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 3:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
so you’re going to ignore all the jefferson quotes about the role of the media in society we’ve posted here over the years in favor of some “dem’s are weak and stupid” rhetoric?
politics is political. the media was envisioned by the founding fathers to keep score. they aren’t doing that. they are adding to the line you love so much, “they’re both bad,” and leading people to make overly obvious statements like “Politicians not telling the truth? Decades old news”
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 3:59 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Oh, the media are absolutely abdicating their role, as well. I agree. But reporters are insecure attention hogs and if politicians come at them with press conferences and calls for impeachment, they jump all over that shit. Also, I didn’t vote for Brian Williams. I don’t blame him when my government is going to shit. I blame the people in government.
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 4:06 pm ¶
InTheMiddle wrote:
I agree. The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for the Lewinsky thing. I don’t see the Dem’s trying to put such a war against Bush. It’s like baseball, perhpas. You have the Chicago Cubs (Dems), who have a large payroll of great players, but they can’t seem to get together to play as a team and win. Then you have some team like the Astros (the Republicans), who have just a few good players but somehow keep on winning as a team.
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 4:09 pm ¶
matt wrote:
this is gibberish.
irrelevant.
it’s funny to me that with republican control of everything, you look to blame democrats. i’ll say this slowly for you: there is only so much a party this far out of power can do. they can’t change all the absurd rules the house is now operating under, they can’t filibuster because the media has made a subjective decision to cover this as divisive and un-american, they can’t yell because howard dean did that once. what would you have them do? this isn’t a rhetorical question, and if you want to go on complaining about it, then let’s hear a plan of attack.
dems do plenty of things wrong, why do you insist on pointing in the wrong direction?
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 4:13 pm ¶
matt wrote:
THE REPUBLICANS HELD THE HOUSE DURING THE LEWINSKY YEARS.
someone please make the stupid stop. i go out of town for 10 days and this is what i come back to. fucking hell.
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 4:15 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Bullshit. You point to the media as being more culpable in the government’s failings then the Dems. That is bullshit. They are not living up to my expectations, but once again, I don’t look to the media for legislative solutions or governental leadership. I look to politicians.
I blame the Republicans for fucking up the governemnt, I blame the Dems for doing nothing to stem that tide. As I’ve said before, I expect the Republicans to do shit I don’t agree with. I used to expect the Dems to represent my views. I no longer do, or rather, I think they may hold similar views as I do, but I no longer expect them to atempt to carry them out on a federal level. I have no confidence in the Democratic party. And that sucks.
Posted 02 Oct 2006 at 11:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
thank you for proving my point for me. i asked you a simple direct question about what dems could do, and you flailed. pathetic.
“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” –Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491
“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” –Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
“No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33
“Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.” –Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart. 1799.
Posted 03 Oct 2006 at 12:59 am ¶
sac wrote:
Oh come one, Matt, I’ve gone on before about what I’d like to see the Dems do. I know all the Jefferson quotes, but the thing is, they’re not law. It’s like people quoting the verbiage on the Statue of Liberty (Give me your poor, tired, etc.) when arguing immigration. Do you really believe that the press is more to blame for the current state of our government than the Dems and Repubs, the politicians whom we vote for and expect to respresent us by enacting and upholding legislation? I’m asking you directly.
I’ll go over once again some things I’d like to see the Dems do, and then you can tell me how it won’t matter because a) they’re in the minority and b) the press won’t give them the time of day, and then I can say “boo fucking hoo they should be working towards regaining the majority, not by meakly offering up watered down versions of Republican positions (except for a very few) but by strongly and UNIFORMLY (that’s the most important thing, present a unified front regardles off minor disagreements, just like the Republicans have very successfully done.” We’v had this argument before.
Posted 03 Oct 2006 at 7:56 am ¶
sac wrote:
Hit enter too soon. This should have been:
…but by strongly and UNIFORMLY (that’s the most important thing, present a unified front regardles off minor disagreements, just like the Republicans have very successfully done) presenting clear alternative plans to the American people.”
Posted 03 Oct 2006 at 7:58 am ¶
matt wrote:
no, it isn’t. it’s not even close. it’s what the founding fathers were thinking when they were deciding on the form of government this country would use. if you can’t see why this is important, then i don’t know what else to say. had they known the dive the media would take, they would have come up with something else.
i believe that republicans are to blame. i believe that it’s nearly impossible for democrats to oppose without the media doing their job, for reasons i have stated above.
minimize that all you want, yelling louder isn’t an option.
Posted 03 Oct 2006 at 10:01 am ¶
sac wrote:
The press up until the 20th century was HIGHLY unreliable, particularly during the latter half of the 19th C, when “yellow journalism” was rampant. The Hearst papers were not the only ones practicing this form of “journalism.” For all the faults the press currently displays, they are FAR better than their 19th century predecessors, so I’m not sure why you believe the press has historically provided an unoffical checks and balances service. That is a fairly recent development, and while valuable, I don’t think it’s a good idea to imbue with an importance anywhere near our actual government.
Have the Dems come forward with a unified position that clearly opposes or modifies the Republican platform regarding the topic of the day, Iraq, or the larger “war on terror” or whatever other ungrammatical name we want to call it?
Posted 03 Oct 2006 at 10:33 am ¶