White House Uses Washington Post Editorial To Defend Bush Leak
White House Uses Washington Post Editorial To Defend Bush Leak
This weekend, the Washington Post wrote an editorial defending President Bush’s smearing of Joseph Wilson. The Post editors mangled the facts and failed to note — as their political writers did — that Bush deceptively leaked intelligence information despite knowing it had been disproved months before. (Read a thorough debunking of the editorial).
One might be tempted to dismiss the effect that a mere 575-word editorial can have on the public debate. But it is already being peddled peddled by the White House to misinform the public. Here’s the product of the White House’s efforts –
Kelly O’Donnell, NBC White House correspondent, this morning on MSNBC:
To further support the White House view that the president was simply acting within his legal authority — he is able to declassify material at any time — the White House today is circulating some favorable editorials saying what the president did was perfectly fine and they also say what was disclosed was historical in nature and that it had no harmful effect on national security.
Joseph diGenova, former Reagan administration lawyer, on NPR this morning:
I think the Washington Post said it best on Sunday when it said that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
Scott McClellan, this afternoon in the White House press briefing:
[Bush] did authorize the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate. I think you’ve seen editorials and other comments over the weekend talking about how that was important because it was in the public interest.
And slowly but surely, with an assist from the Washington Post, the White House attempts to turn a falsehood into conventional wisdom.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
52 Responses to “White House Uses Washington Post Editorial To Defend Bush Leak”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
How is overstating Iraq's WMD capability, so you can justify a pre-emptive attack in the national interest?
April 10th, 2006 at 3:34 pmCatapaulting the propeganda.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:36 pmOne proper name describes it all: Orwell.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pmAmazing how Republicans can lie with a straight face. It's a sad, disgusting party, whose members defend even criminal conduct with a sloppy talking point.
They're disgusting.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:40 pmThe WaPo is dead to me. I suggest it become dead to anyone who cares about this country. Dont even comment on it. Just pretend it does not exist. Dont read it. Pity it, and enjoy watching its demise.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:40 pmAs long as everyone is willing to lie or go along with the lie, it will all work out fine for BuchCo in the Washington press. I am not sure Mr. Fitz is willing to go along, and it is pretty clear the American people are waking up as well. This is what makes the saber-rattling WRT Iran so scary. This is likely the only play left in Rove's book for the fall.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:40 pmDidn't you hear? Bush's word is law now.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:41 pmThe Washington Post is disgusting on this one. I stopped reading the paper yesterday morning when I got to that bit of whitewash trash. I get pissed off enough at work - I don't need to get pissed off on the weekend by arrogant editorials in a newspaper that used to be good.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:43 pmThey used the same arrogant tone yesterday as they did when they dismissed the Downing Street memo.
#7,
Don't you mean:
April 10th, 2006 at 3:45 pm"Didn’t you hear? Bush’s word is LIE now." ??
Republicans. Bringing accountability to... um... er... what was the question again?
ITMFA now!!!
April 10th, 2006 at 3:49 pmSee in McLellans world anything is possible. In regards to Sy Hersh's article..the news is somply "wild speculation"..but if the papers butress his morally bankrupt, dry-drunk and constantly facially scarred and wounded president..Well then show me the article.
The press should have boycotted him once he proved to be a known liar aftere stating that "it is ridiculous" to allege that Libby and Rove were involved int he leak that they all no claim they approved.
A liar is a liar and you Fudgie McFattty are a liar.
-GSD
April 10th, 2006 at 3:56 pmThis is so hilarious - its sad...
April 10th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT "THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY" IS A PRIVATELY OWNED, PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATION...
Which naturally has the interests of it's ownership at heart, as do all privately owned corporations, naturally.
And while I do not know who is the single largest stckholder of the corporation (or any of the larger stockholders), it's a matter of public record who forms the Board of Directors of that corporation...
Now, does Warren Buffett have "politics"? And if he does, do they enter into any decision he makes as a Director of The Washington Post Company?
The same is asked of Barry Diller; and while I recognize those names, perhaps you know who Christopher C. Davis is, and what his "politics" are; also, Attorneys George J. Gillespie and Ronald L. Olsen; as attorneys, do they represent their own interests on the Board, or those of someone else; their own "politics", or those of someone else?
It's food for thought, and involves speculation.
But what involves no speculation whatsoever is that The Washington Post Company is a privately owned, publicly traded corporation with the interests of it's ownership at heart, naturally.
And the unsigned editorial, that's a matter of no speculation, other than who wrote it and why.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:59 pmSorry about all of the typos. I am so used to lies and dishonesty I can't see straight anymore.
I hope Fudgie McFatty gets an ulcer.
-GSD
April 10th, 2006 at 3:59 pmtry that again
April 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pmThis is the same playbook BushCo followed to go into Iraq. Cheney, Rummy and Condi all went on TV to cite reports in The New York Times about Saddam's nuclear capability. Nevermind that they planted that info through their willing dupe at the Times, Judy Miller. BushCo blasts the "liberal media" but when that same media is their conduit for lies or supports their bull, they're more than eager to put it front and center. Expedient is the byword of BushCo.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:03 pmGeorge W. Bush is a lying, mass murdering al Cracker mofo...
...he and all who support him are TRAITORS to this country...
...a danger to the world...
...and evil incarnate...
...America MUST be rid of them or perish...
April 10th, 2006 at 4:07 pmF*ck, that's all, just F*CK.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:07 pmWhere are the trolls , I'll chew them up and spit them out on this one , Benadict Bush most likely got agents killed over this . Our agents have a wall kind of like the Veit Nam wall , when an agent is declassified their name goes on , when it's classified it goes blank . Forgive me for not remembering but I believe it may have been Wilson himself that said their are blanks after the discloser of Plame . The Post and that Hck Wolf can all go to hell .
April 10th, 2006 at 4:10 pmNOW PRESENTLY I'VE GOT CNN RUNNING THE BANNER "PRESIDENT DEFENDS LEAK AS IMPORTANT"...
But seeing as I've got the sound muted, I don't know what they're saying.
But it'd be nice to think that someone might ask the President:
"Was the leak important because it supported the FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-invasion intelligence', or was it important because it intimidated or silenced (or was meant to anyway) a critic of that FALSE (or FALSIFIED) 'pre-invasion intelligence'?"
April 10th, 2006 at 4:15 pmI think it's clear that your president is just laughing in the face his citizens and it doesn't look like anyone can do anything about it.
Keep fighting the good fight. Hopefully you guys can boot him out of office.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:17 pmhttp://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm
enjoy.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:19 pmSo, the conservatives are using the "liberal media" to make their point?
April 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pmThere is no liberal media , and it's never fair and ballanced , if I hear that again my head will explode . Bush has been nothing but a media darling since he ran for gov of Texas .
April 10th, 2006 at 4:25 pmWhen you "trust your gut" to make decisions and "God is telling you what to do," it's easy to believe when a newspaper prints an editorial supporting your views, that, "Hell, I must be right!" Geeze, how much longer can America tolerate these clowns?
April 10th, 2006 at 4:26 pmsure looks like they are preparing us for a war in iran
no elections, and the end of our constitution. the people in our government are retiring at record rates, and each appointment for replacement is an unqualified donor.
folks, it is all over except for the sheep saying "what happened"
April 10th, 2006 at 4:31 pmIs Judith Miller now working for the WAPO?
April 10th, 2006 at 4:50 pmWhen I read the Washington Post editorial this morning my immediate thought was that the editor had talked to some White House official, got their spin on the leak revelation, then ran that as an editorial without mentioning who the source really was.
Now seeing this, I suspect that's what happened. I'm reminded of Dick Cheney's office leaking info to Judy Miller and then Cheney citing Miller's work in interviews as evidence supporting the case for invading.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:50 pmHey, that's what propoganda is for...
--
April 10th, 2006 at 5:04 pmhttp://griperblade.blogspot.com - grumblings from the heartland
And slowly but surely, with an assist from the Washington Post, the White House attempts to turn a falsehood into conventional wisdom... again
April 10th, 2006 at 5:12 pmI wonder if there was any Armstong Williams like payoff involved. I dont doubt for a second that this "editorial" is pure WH spin/propaganda.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:17 pmI'm sure just the pure idea of Karl Rove doing a Sith choke hold on them has them cooperating. Remember this is all about Bob Woodward's and the Grey Lady's reputations. They weren't the lucky ones who got to sit on classified info for a whole year were they? Besides look at the 3 sources you qoute above. At least it wasn't Dan Froomkin.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:25 pmWow ... I sense much anger here ... I must be psychic or something.
Really folks, this is easy for anyone to understand ... in fact Jeff Goldstein says it so well that I'll just quote him, "Bush declassified NIE documents at the behest of reporters and in order to provide justification for the Iraq campaign. He was providing information to answer questions like those posed by “Good Morning America’s†Charlie Gibson at around that same time: “President Bush and Iraq. What did he know and when did he know it?â€"
And what was it that Bush knew? From this unclassified NIE we learn the following ...
Consensus Intelligence Estimate's conclusions:
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material
Moderate Confidence
Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.
Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself (and as you will read you will notice that there is no ambiguity to this report ... unlike what some "sources" have said).
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html
April 10th, 2006 at 5:26 pmAny evidence surface yet that Karl Rove wrote the editorial?
April 10th, 2006 at 5:34 pmGiacomo - get a clue and learn how to read.
We are not arguing about what was in the summary NIE given to congress. We also already know that almost every line it is inaccurate, and that it does not correspond to the official NIE and how that portrayed all these "certainties" as highly doubtful. This was a selective, quick turnaround rewrite, purely for the purpose of spinning the congress. And with suckers like King, it worked. Why you wish to still play the role of suckup to this crap is beyond me.
What we are worried about is that this document was spun again, at other times, so as to influence public opinion by cherrypicking certain sections of it which were clearly, to anyone who has read the original NIE, either patently false, or were under serious disagreemtnt between the experts.
Even if they thought this was right when they wrote it (which looks increasingly suspect) they clearly knew at the time of its selective leaking that the findings were bogus. This means that even if they didnt create the lie, they perpetuated it after they knew it to be one.
Perhaps you can lay out your motive for wanting to support such nefarious behavior. Will you justify anything to back these people up? It's pathetic that you dont even understand the arguments against this behavior.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:47 pmThe WaPo will receive an unnamed favor from the White House in the future. And so will Timmy Russert, who claimed yesterday that the WaPo is not conservative.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:02 pmMR. RUSSERT: Bipartisan. Let me show you what’s happening in Washington. Let me show you what’s happening in Washington. This is The Washington Post, hardly an organ for Republican views.
This was the exact same Rovian tactic the Bush Admin used to go to war in the first place. They leaked stories to loyalists in the media. Then the White House would use thep rinted version of the story they, themselves, leaked in the first place as proof that backs up their claims.
This is absolutely no different. This editorial was written by a Bush loyalist and most likely was fed to him from Bush's PR people (ie Rove). When the editorial is printed the White house uses that to back up their own claims.
We now live in a world where the White House makes up a claim (most often a lie), gives it to the media they control, then when the loyalist media prints the story the White House references it as evidence supporting them. In reality they are supporting themselves because nobody else will.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:13 pmYou knew this was coming when Bush said today that he had read a newspaper over the weekend!!
April 10th, 2006 at 6:44 pmRosencrantz has reminded anyone who may have forgotten that this is the Bush&Co m.o. Plant the story, then USE the story for their own purposes.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:19 pmThey aren't trying anything new, they are just counting on the short memory of the public.
Greg Palast raises an interesting point:
April 10th, 2006 at 7:25 pmEven if the info was essentially declassified and therefore not illegal by Bush, why the sham grand jury investigation to find the "leak"
Why has no one asked this question?
Wow, Palast continues to blow me away - he is so tireless! http://www.gregpalst.com - I am a huge fan and his intelligence is unsurmountable. Palast is EXACTLY right!!! OMG!!!!!
Yessss, whyyyy the sham jury investigation then? If it was declassified, then say so, it wasn't a leak then. These guys will continue to attempt to rewrite history, this is no different. My bet is that he is forging whatever documents necessary to "prove" he declassified this information.
If there is any doubt about the motivations for the leak, you should check out "Bush's Brain" (Netflix even has it), a quite insightful documentary that shows beyond a doubt what a sociopath Rove is. Jow Wilson is featured and is quite candid about what happened and there is no way to doubt his side upon seeing his interview. Joe Wilson is a TRUE American who reported the Truth that we all sadly know now: no WMDs. (And if they did have WMDs, we know where they came from anyway. If we'd give them chemical weapons to use on our own people, we'd give them other forms of WMDs. WMDs are not just explosives and the fact that we gave these to Iraq in the first place and it is overlooked - well, it speaks for itself.
The reason for the leak is obvious in "Bush's Brain". Wilson wouldn't lie for their fake agenda. Post #20 has it right on the mark:
“Was the leak important because it supported the FALSE (or FALSIFIED) ‘pre-invasion intelligence’, or was it important because it intimidated or silenced (or was meant to anyway) a critic of that FALSE (or FALSIFIED) ‘pre-invasion intelligence’?â€
INTIMIDATION - a warning to others, like Sybil Edmonds who was an Arabic translator who was forced to alter the translation to support their war-mongering MO.
All of this leads back to the fact that: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1 . If it could happen then in the 60s, they have had 40 yrs to plan nine eleven.
But PNAC called for a "new Pearl Harobor" - written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, usual suspects in 2000. That we needed a massive event to change the direction of this country so the US could dominate the world. So, the rest of us are supposed to believe 19 hijackers with box cutters had more to gain (virgins) than these Traitors (World Domination).
Wake up people, cut through the SpinMachine. Do research on govt'-sponsored-t-e-r-r-o-r and you will see "CUI BONO?" ~"Who Benefits". Who is the biggest benefactor on the WOT? Do you think this is an accident?? Are you going to wait until you're in one of Halliburton's detention centers that they are building AS I TYPE for people who dissent / scrutinize the gov't like a TRUE PATRIOT should?!?
All of this nightmare is due to the decision to "regime change" in 2000, before any of this phoniness happened so WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
April 10th, 2006 at 8:22 pmThe Greg Palast case was made at BuzzFlash on Saturday -- after I slapped myself along side the head, I wondered why none of the smart people in journalism has asked this question.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:56 pmBob Woodward controls the Washington Post now and he is in bed with the Bush family! He writes flattery books about them and uses the Post to defend his financial interest ties to George and his dad! It is ironic because Woodward helped to bring down the Nixon White House, but Dubya is far worse than Dicky ever was! The Post is just a mouthpiece for the GOP !
April 10th, 2006 at 9:51 pmTruly a sad statement that Bob Woodward could be turned after all he did in a former life. It's rather hard to believe what a stooge he has become.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:10 pmThe once-great Washington Post is now an unabashed bullhorn for this administration. Enough is enough. I am reading the Post no longer, and will not patronize those who advertize on its website or in its pages.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:20 pmPerhaps the Washington Post is being considered as a replacement for Scott McClellan--and they put it in writing.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:22 am#33 - It seems that you are willing to take the excerpts as gospel.
Have you ever wondered why only 14 of the 93 pages were released? 15% of a report can be quite persuasive if those are the only portions that support your bias.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:38 amOJ Bush... I will find leaker.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:40 amI believe that it is time to boycott the Washington Post and put that sinister rag for the GOP out of business! Nobody must buy or read anything in the Post, in print, or on the Internet! We must put pressure on everyone who advertises in the Post to cease doing so, or be boycotted as well! Do NOT buy or read any books by Bob Woodward, because he is a Bush loving stooge, and his books are filled with distortions and lies!
April 11th, 2006 at 10:31 amI boycotted the WP long ago. But who are their main advertisers? Will someone please post so I don’t have to add traffic to their site?
April 12th, 2006 at 1:02 amI boycotted the WP long ago. But who are their main advertisers? Will someone please post so I don’t have to add traffic to their site? It would be helpful to know who ranks as the main income sources for the WP.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:04 amScottyMac Attack!...
In a completely confounding attack on the media today, McClellan requested that media outlets who carried a story on W knowingly misrepresenting some junk as WMDs apologise.
Funny thing, to me, about this is one of their biggest fans is carrying the s...
April 12th, 2006 at 3:46 pm