1115.org

Yesterday Perino took on the NYT for claiming that the “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said” in the destruction of the CIA’s torture tapes.

The NYT has gracefully conceded Perino’s point, and issued a formal correction.

As Perino says:

The White House has not commented on anybody’s involvement or knowledge, save for me telling everybody that the president had no recollection of being briefed on the existence or the destruction of the tapes before he was briefed by (CIA Director Michael) Hayden…

Yes, the White House did not officially claim they had practically no role in the destruction of the CIA’s torture tapes. Those claims were made unofficially to the media by White House officials, after the White House erected the “No Comment” stonewall.

They were, of course, repeated widely in the press. Both the press and the public treated those statements as coming from the White House. But they didn’t technically come from the White House. Just from anonymous White House officials.

Which gives Perino the implausible deniability she has so magnificently invoked.

I can’t imagine, though, why the NYT didn’t just correct their subheading to: “White House Role Was Wider Than White House Officials Said”.

Because that is precisely the victory what Perino has won. This exchange between CNN’s Ed Henry and La Perino at yesterday’s press briefing puts it perfectly:

MS. PERINO: It says the White House role was wider than “it” said — “it” is referring to the White House, I am the spokesperson for the White House.

Q Okay. Okay, but you’re defining it that way. In fact, right after the first — this story first broke, people within the administration did say privately that, in fact, Harriet Miers had told the CIA not to destroy the tapes and that that suggested that the White House, in fact, was saying don’t destroy. Now this New York Times story is saying four people in the President — or Vice President’s inner circle actually talked to the CIA about it. So that does suggest a wider role.

MS. PERINO: I am not accountable for all the anonymous sources that you turn up. I’m not. I am accountable — I speak for the President and the White House. This says that I was misleading, and I was not.

Q It doesn’t say you. It doesn’t say you at all. And there were other people in the administration who –

MS. PERINO: The White House does not comment. The only thing that I have said from this podium is regarding to the President and his recollection. And if CNN has different information that they want to provide to me that contradicts what I’ve said, you know, let’s see it.

Q They didn’t specifically say it’s you. It’s talking about the White House, the administration in general.

MS. PERINO: I speak for the White House. I represent the White House.

Q Why do you take it personally?

MS. PERINO: I’m not taking it personally. I’m taking it — I speak for the White House. It’s not a personal thing. The White House asked for a correction. And I would remind you, The New York Times is going to do one.

Yes, a great victory for Perino. A totally ridiculous one.

For some reason, Perino wants the media to remind the public that there have been times in the past as well when the White House officially zipped its lips, and then very senior members of the White House instructed very senior members of their staff to whisper some specific non-truths into the ears of the media, for onward transmission. That it is indeed not just the Press Secretary who speaks for the White House.

For some reason, Perino wants the NYT story to be widely retailed again with the clarification that the initial misleading reports came not from the White House but from White House officials.

So be it!