Flashback: The White House’s Single, Anonymous, Unreliable Source
Flashback: The White House’s Single, Anonymous, Unreliable Source
Today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan lectured the media about a “journalistic standard that should be met” before running with a story. Fine, but isn’t there also a political standard of accountability that should be met as well? McClellan’s issue with the Newsweek story was that it was “based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report.”
Remember when we learned that the evidence for Iraq’s supposed mobile biological weapons labs came from an unreliable source? What was McClellan’s response then?
QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never every interviewed?
MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked at as part of a broad review by the independent commission that the President appointed… But it’s important that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.
[White House Press Gaggle, 4/5/04]
There you have it. When confronted with an anonymous source who provided faulty intelligence that the President relied upon to go to war, McClellan chose not to talk about standards of accountability that should be met. Instead, the White House passed the buck to an independent commission and suggested that it didn’t matter what subsequent information they learned about Iraq’s intelligence because they didn’t know it when they went to war. Newsweek has taken responsibility by retracting its story. Will President Bush take responsibility for his own errors?
QUESTION: He’s the president of the United States. This thing he told the country on the verge of taking the nation to war has turned out to be, by your own account, not reliable. That’s his fault, isn’t it?
MCCLELLAN: No.
[White House Press Briefing, 7/17/03]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
[...] 5/17/2005 Appropriate Sourcing Filed under: Politics Media — Kevin This is the White Houses idea of it: QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source fo [...]
May 18th, 2005 at 1:14 amOn the news this evening I heard McClellan and the State Dept. spokesman (whose name I can’t remeber) incredulously stating that this story was false. They said Newsweek was responsible for clearing up these falsehoods. I would like to suggest that if they were sincerely concerned about the truth that they would let the gitmo detainees be interviewed about what did or did not happen to the quran.
May 16th, 2005 at 9:46 pmFor more on this theme of the administration refusing to take accountability for its laundry list of failures, see:
“White House Irony Watch: Newsweek Edition”
May 16th, 2005 at 11:48 pmTime was when Ronald Reagan was called the “Teflon President” because nothing ever seemed to stick to him. It seems to me that at least as far as his subordinates are concerned, GWB is far more deserving of that appellation than Reagan ever was. The lengths to which people will go in effort to exonerate him from any responsibility never ceases to amaze me — especially when they don’t hesitate to excoriate other parties for simnilar offenses. If there is in fact any truth to the Newsweek story (and in light of the infamous photographs from Abu Ghraib, such a story seems plausible enough), a good share of the blame belongs to the officials who decided that it wasn’t enough to twist the religious beliefs of individual inmates into a means of humiliation but only a symbolic desecration of an entire religious belief and anyone who follows it would do. the fish rots from the head down, people!
May 17th, 2005 at 1:17 amclassic. This sums it up…
May 17th, 2005 at 9:45 amYes, Newsweek should make up more stories that have a degree of “plausibility” or rely more heavily on Saudi immans as their source. Come on now people, its more important to make Bush look bad in the European and Arab capitals than it is to do the right thing for American people and win the war on terror. Yes, we all get to pretend to have a sense of moral indignation as we meet in our coffee shops to discuss the poor detainees who just want to practice their religion and kill Americans. Sure, we don’t extend this pretension to Christians killed and oppressed through-out the Arab world…or gays or women or other liberals and progressives denied basic rights in these nations– but hey, some day we might. Yes, someday we might could use the tragedy and death of these folks to bolster our political identity and to cause Bush to go down a few points in opinion polls. Today, however, is not a day for moral consistency or to stand for values we claim to have. Today, we must focus on stirring the pot of anti-Americanism — which is an effective way of showing our disapproval of Bush. Sure, this tactic is repulsive to the majority of Americans and will result in the permanent absence of political power– but whats more important, our identity or being in a position to affect real change? I say our identity. Who cares if some Islamic protesters are killed to help us prop up our political ideology? 1.2 million Iraqis were killed and we said nothing– which implies we need to show tough love to those who don’t fit with our ideological goals. Let these misguide, crazy kids die as martyrs to our political identity. They serve a greater purpose– which is to be a symbol of the enlightened truth of the progressive cause. Indeed, lets make up stories, highlight abuses and generally help enflame the Islamic world until we push them toward the threshhold of annihilation. Remember, the only death and suffering and tragedy that matters is that which might help you look clever among communists, anarchists and nihlists.
May 17th, 2005 at 9:55 amThis latest incident of Michael Isikoff’s inadequate sourcing may be the most embarrassing one yet for Newsweek, but it is not the first. Last August, Isikoff began his coverage of the resignation of New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey with a false, anonymously-sourced tale about how the Governor had broken his leg years before. Despite 911 tapes and several different eyewitness accounts that were widely available and proved the story untrue, Isikoff deceived readers by presenting as factual a rumor that had been often repeated but never substantiated.
Unfortunately, both Isikoff and Newsweek editors turned a blind eye to the corrected information that was presented to them after publication. There is no way to tell whether the recent violence could have been prevented if Newsweek had paid attention to Isikoff’s sourcing sooner. This much is clear: poor journalism is a scourge that crosses all party lines, religious persuasions and international boundaries.
May 17th, 2005 at 10:10 amDailykos has this posted on his site, noting that we’re talking about completely different scales of impact as well.
May 17th, 2005 at 10:28 amWho would you believe. Newsweek or Bush. Hmmm let me think. Hmmmm That’s a tough one. I’ll have to go with Newsweek. Bush never says anything true….
May 17th, 2005 at 10:43 amFinal Word
May 17th, 2005 at 11:23 amNewsweek has, in the face of media and administration scrutiny, retracted its original story after an initial apology. What is disconcerting about this entire saga is that Newsweek felt that it was its duty to issue an apology in the first place, seemi…
Cannon, which made up story were you referring to? WMD’s in Iraq or Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? The only inaccuracy cited in the Newsweek report was that the Quran abuse was not in the “SouthCom” report. The soucre still maintains he read it though perhaps in a draft or another report. For the record I deplore all religious persecution and violence I am aware of but I protest the current leadership of this country more for two reasons. First the US leadership is doing it in my name. Second, before I can start telling my neighbors how to run their house I need to get mine in order.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:02 pmCome on Cannon Yonts. You are denying reality if you insist that these stories of abuse at Guatanamo are ‘made-up’. We performed all kinds of sexual perversions on these prisoners which we have photographic evidence, we killed them during interrogations, why is it so hard for you to imagine that it could be true that *gasp* we could rip up a Koran? Our soldiers are kids that are very impressionable, so much so that they will fight to the death based only on orders issued from their immediate superior. They all know that you aren’t supposed to beat prisoners into submission, what they don’t know are the gray areas like humiliation and uncomfortable environmental conditions. These gray areas come from above, never from the lower ranks.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:27 pmCarlton, I suspect you, I and others are wasting our time on this. But you’re right.
1. General Myers in fact claimed that the offical records indicated that a Quran desecration incident DID occur–only Myers said a detainee was responsible.
So let’s have full investingation of what happen–and what is happening–at GITMO. If Cannon Yonts wants the truth, he should have it.
I suspect Yonts merely wants to do his Rush impersonation.
2. Bush and friends have not only mislead the American people about Iraq, Bush and friends are failing the American people across the board.
Iraq is turning into the next Liberia; Afghanistan, a nacro-state.
We’ve paid over $300 billion and 1600 American lives for Bush’s blunders, and Cannon Yonts wants to blame Newsweek? And thinks this “patriotism”: a patriot would be trying to IMPEACH BUSH.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:36 pmI want progressives and the Left to actually care about human beings– rather than use them as rhetorical tools to validate their own identity. That means caring about poor detainees who seek to destroy American AND…folks killed because of a story in Newsweek. I could give a rats ass about Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, etc. Solutions. Alternatives. Where are they at? Being cynical sychophants of a vacant ideology is useless and what you’ve become. Why not strive for something more? Why not think about ways to make us safer, more prosperous, more enlightened or just try and be a little less of a bore to most Americans. Bush hasn’t made your political identity irrelevant and repulsive. You have and you are, because your betting that the selective application of moral indignation and historical context based on self-loathing and dull cynicism will sell. It has not and will not. You can’t ignore the death of millions, the oppression of millions, the hate factory of totalitarianism that threatens our children and the random evil of our enemies and claim moral credibility. In fact, it lead one to believe that there is no sincerity in your indignation and concern– only a shell of hate covering a political identity devoid of real values. You had your opportunity to impeach Bush last November. Now its time to think of adding value to a nation that facilitates your freedom to be nothing more than sychophants if you choose and the future of your children.
May 17th, 2005 at 1:48 pmCannon, I have no idea what you are talking about. You’ve bought into the Republican mythology of the left. We don’t meet in coffee shops to express our moral indignation. Most of us are just trying to get by in our own lives. But we have opinions as valid as yours. And my opinion bears absolutely no resemblance to how you have described it. You may as well carry on a conversation with yourself, becuase you won’t find anyone with the straw-man opinions you describe.
I think when we say liberals, we need to specify. On the one hand, there are real liberals like me and my friends and neighbors. Real people with real concerns. On the other hand, there is the hated and feared mythological beast as described on Fox News and talk radio, and by our friend Cannon here.
So when I say “liberal” take that to mean the real kind. And when Cannon says “liberal” or “leftist” take it to mean the imaginary.
Does that help clear things up for you?
May 17th, 2005 at 3:10 pmIf Scott McClellan is looking for things to apologize for, he might start here:
- “Bush Signs Act of Contrition”
- “Bush’s 12-Step Program”
May 17th, 2005 at 3:24 pmIs Cannon writing his posts from a sweltering tent in Iraq? If not why not?
May 17th, 2005 at 4:22 pmWTF?
May 17th, 2005 at 4:33 pmOkay, Yonts, let’s take this point by point:
“Progessives and the Left” are outraged by the Bush administration’s hypocrisy precisely because we do actually care about human beings, and we see these hypocrites getting away with murder – literally – while pointing their fingers at those who have far less culpability and have committed far less heinous crimes. We care about detainees held without due process, our troops overseas, the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dead and suffering Iraqis, and the life and liberty (and pursuit of happiness?) of all people, including – but not limited to – our fellow Americans. (And I’ve never actually seen a human being used as a “rhetorical tool” — I personally use Craftsman products.)
Rather than just being “cynical whosits of a vacant whatsit”, we do strive for more: more honesty, more accountability, more understanding, more compassion, more inclusiveness. And it’s plainly evident to us that tossing Bush and his co-conspirators in jail would go a long way toward making us safer, more prosperous, and most definitely more enlightened.
And are we really so boring? After all, YOU seem interested enough in us to take the time to psychoanalyze us and determine that we are self-loathers and dull cynics (I guess I can cancel that counseling appointment now). Our “selective application of moral indignation and historical context” was the tip-off, right?
But you did say something I wholeheartedly agree with: “You can’t ignore the death of millions, the oppression of millions, the hate factory of totalitarianism that threatens our children and the random evil of our enemies and claim moral credibility.” I say, neither can YOU. Your failure to provide any cogent solutions or alternatives leads me to believe that “there is no sincerity in your indignation and concern – only a shell of hate covering a political identity devoid of real values.”
Pardon us while we “progressives and the Left” add value to the nation that facilitates our freedom by fighting the self-righteous enemies within.
May 17th, 2005 at 5:22 pmI see some talk here about ‘winning the war on terror’. My question is a simple one – when will the ‘war on terror’ (I won’t ask what it means) be won (what objective criteria do you suggest?) and does torturing people contribute to winning it or not?
May 17th, 2005 at 5:38 pmHey Chucklehead Scott! Does that ghostly apparition, Curveball, have anything to answer for concerning the thousands of dead piled up in Iraq? Credit must be given to the Bushies though for going with the profound musings of Ahmad Chalabi. A solid, on the record source of reliable information is there ever was one. WTF indeed.
May 17th, 2005 at 10:18 pmWhen will impeachment day be here? We are ALL waiting for that! It’s about time! Mr. Unaccountable it’s your turn!
May 18th, 2005 at 2:53 amWe are wasting time with Cannon Yonts. We need to be contacting our representatives in Washington and telling them we’d like to start seeing some real action on getting us out of Iraq.
I used to hope a day would come when we could find a way to work with those like him, but it is becoming more apparent every day that they don’t want to work with anybody. They want to RULE!
We need to find a way to bring this country back to its senses before it is too late.
May 18th, 2005 at 7:39 amRepublicans are calling for Michael Isikoff the author of the Newsweek article to be fired or forced to resign. They say that despite the fact that he may have gotten misinformation from “a senior U.S. Government official,” his decision to print the information led to the deaths of 16 Afghanis. But if we follow that line of reasoning isn’t it true that President Bush supposedly decided to invade Iraq based on false information from goverment sources that Iraq had WMDs and that decision lead to the deaths of over 1600 US service members and tens of thousands to possibly 100,000 Iraqi deaths? We’ll ignore for the moment that recent memos out of Britain show that Bush had decided to invade Iraq by July of 2002 and had decided to make the “facts fit the policyâ€? to invade. If Isikoff must be made to resign for deciding to go ahead with bad information from the government why shouldn’t Bush be subjected to the same requirement? His decision lead to thousands of times the number of deaths and upwards of $300 Billion Dollars of US Taxpayers money being spent. Why aren’t Republicans calling on Bush to resign? Because Republicans don’t have to play by the same rules as they demand other people do. That is part of the hypocricy that is the GOP.
Republcians and newscasters are claiming that Newsweek has admitted that their report is false. But the Columbia Journalism Review’ CJR Daily writes, “Most reporters, particularly on television, are reporting that Newsweek has retracted the allegation that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. But that’s wrong: The magazine has said only that it no longer stands by its claim that allegations of Koran desecration appear in a forthcoming report from U.S. Southern Command. That’s a very different point. There have been numerous other reports — mostly from detainees — suggesting that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo did abuse the Koran.â€?
May 18th, 2005 at 7:52 amMagazines don’t kill people, people (and Presidents make other people) kill people
May 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pmOnce again we have to deal with a DOUBLE STANDARD! President Clinton had to deal with the Republicans when he had his affair with monica [not their business] but NOW Bush has lied time and time again. Soldiers and civilians are dying day after day and we have to sit here and listen to all the crap and he doesn’t have to be held responable for any of it! I DON’T THINK SO! When will SOMEONE SPEAK UP AND GET THE BALL ROLLING TO IMPEACH THIS MAN AND HIS POSSY?? If you are not enraged by now then you are not paying attention!! Thank you.
May 18th, 2005 at 5:52 pmI remember an old saying my Grandmother used to use “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. I guess that does’nt apply if you’re a member of the republiqaeda. It’s time to gather up all the pro-war chicken-hawks, both right and left, and ship them to Iraq under trained and under armed just like they have done to our troops! I’ve got two from my state we can start with, Reps. Paul Ryan and James Sensenbrener. Maybe once the chicken-hawks see what it’s like the double standards will stop.
May 27th, 2005 at 8:45 amNO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!
I want progressives and the Left to actually care about human beings– rather than use them as rhetorical tools to validate their own identity.
Google Cannon Yonts. You will find this clown posting his juvenile, BS sophistry all over the damn internets. Most of us are just struggling to feed and care for our own loved ones, thanks to this administration. I will worry about the “poor, huddled masses” in other countries after I take care of my own. It still is a free country, just barely, so you are free to go sell your neo-liberal religion of democratic empire over there, where you ought to be. You seem to be in favor of it everywhere but here. Have a nice trip. Bon voyagee, you ultra-maroon.
May 28th, 2005 at 12:26 pmWe Know Where Osama is but Sovereignty is More Important?
June 20th, 2005 at 7:13 pmSweet Jebus.
sports line
Please take a look at the sites about las vegas show
October 17th, 2005 at 4:02 am459
Take your time to check out some relevant information on 1935
November 4th, 2005 at 8:58 amanime lesbians
Take your time to visit the pages in the field of xxx anime russian teen
November 20th, 2005 at 1:42 pmdollar euro exchange rate
Jensen!Saxon.Ensolite:watered:microscopy afield Lacey!online forex currency trading http://www.realestatehotbuys.com/online-forex-currency-trading.html
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:03 pmIsikoff’s report about how McGreevey broke his leg was untrue, but the real story was never told. McG was NOT with his family when it happened. He was with his lover, who bolted the scene so as not to be caught with both their pants down. Not an urban myth, just a “still-in-the-closet” coverup. Micah Rasmussen has about the same credibility ranking as McClellan. This happens when you try to cover for liars and fools.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:08 amWowow Great info !! Thanks :) http://www.ddiamonds.info
February 20th, 2006 at 3:12 pmthis brings to mind a more recent comment by mcclellan, (yesterday) where he said “”I don’t know how the Washington Post can defend something so irresponsible.”
http://www.pressthenews.com/bio_w_labs.htm
aside from the fact that the Post story was accurate,
(see above link, and the story itself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html?sub=AR
the question is this. the next time the Post, or another major newspaper leaves out facts, or skews the analysis (such as on the NSA wiretap issue: http://www.pressthenews.com/dancing_on_the_edge.html ) in way that is favorable the the administration, as it has routinely done, will Mcclellan similary ask how the Post can defend such irresponsible journalism? Perhaps this a question that others should be asking, and using Mcclellan’s words here when they do. Perhaps also, since McClellan was either being dishonest in attacking the Post, or, clearly didn’t understand the story (see above link), they should be asking if there isn’t a large pattern of here of not seeing a broader view, whether it be pre 9/11, on Iraq, on wiretaping or fighting terrorism, etc.
Ivan Carter
April 13th, 2006 at 8:43 pmhttp://www.pressthenews.com
ristorante casoli ..
January 25th, 2007 at 7:39 pmDelete this spam!
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:12 ammoneyForex
i do agree but i don’t think that’s completely true. I’m so confused!
March 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm