ABC: White House did not object to Iran story.
By on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
ABC: White House did not object to Iran story.
Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo criticized ABC News for reporting on the administration’s covert plan to destabilize the Iranian regime, saying it puts lives at risk. ABC responded with the following statement: “In the six days since we first contacted the CIA and the White House, at no time did they indicate that broadcasting this report would jeopardize lives or operations on the ground. ABC News management gave them the repeated opportunity to make whatever objection they wanted to regarding our report. They chose not to.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sounds like this is information the administration wanted disseminated.
The implication is clear.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pmmaybe now romney will do what he does best: change his position on the subject
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:01 pmIt’s been obvious for a long time that if it suits the administration’s political goals, nothing is sacred. After all, nothing the president does or says is against the law.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/lott-intel-declassification/
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 pmDoesn’t matter, ABC should have used common sense and not boradcast it. Iran does watch our news ya know.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pmBut if the White House had objected, you wouldn’t have run the story, would you ABC?
That’s not how you’re supposed to do your job, remember?
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pmMitt attended the Rove school of media use and abuse. Say shit your audience will like whether it is true or not because they will NEVER see the reporting that shows how untrue it is.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pmthe last few days has been loaded with al Qaeda, Iran, and Bin Laden stories. A definite propaganda blitz by the Corp. MSM., and by the way Iran has been seeing the US covert operations for over 2 years now so the story is meant for public consumption
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pmMr. “I Want to Double Guantanamo!” Romney isn’t dealing with reality or legitimate policy debate. He is dealing in machismo, strong-daddy, tough-guy hyperbole to sell an image to a rabidly mindless, authoritarian embracing, electoral constituency.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pmThey let that cat out of the bag when they called Iran “evil”.
I agree 100% that Iran should be packed with CIA. You should, too. Who knows, maybe they’ll find some wanted bad guys there. Lord knows there’s a shortage of terrorist bad guys in American prisons (*ahem Osama, Zawahiri).
You should, too.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 pmThe Republican pukes know all about putting lives at risk. Uh huh.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pmOne of the best ways liberals can help bring about an end to the war/occupation is to sign this petition in order to remind the pusillanimous Democrats that it only takes one Democrat to bring this war/occupation to a halt.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pmhttp://www.filibusterforpeace.org/
HYPOCRITES always assume they are smarter than others!
Guess What?
The critical thinkers in Iran have already figured this out!
This is only “news” to the 30% non critical thinking Americans who approve of that war criminal Bush!
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 pmI think it’s still too close to 50/50 for the Dems to withhold $$$. It’s win win for them. A continued war will just do more damage to the Republicans. LOL I bet the Republicans actually want a tougher bill. But oh well.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pmTrust me in the back rooms the Rs and Ds are on the same page, for sure.
I agree with the current situation. 100%. More war, fewer neocons, and the Dems keep the $$$ flowing to the troops. Win/Win.
American lives are only jeopordized when democrats say stuff that republicans don’t want them to say or think they can make some political hay.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm.
Yeah, criticalthinker, the Iranians are already rounding up Iranian-Americans and locking them up. Man what a mess it’s gonna be when the Republicans are gone. Jeesh.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pmHow can ABC possibly justify this. I will never watch your station again, except for Lost, Im hooked.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:36 pmpluege you’re quite the wordsmith, there. The very open political debate twixt the Rs and Ds is to send the clear message to Iraq that it’s gonna get CRAZY there pretty soon.
If you live and breathe you know it’s over in Iraq. Bush wants to hand over an abortion to the next administration while he goes out teflon…
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pmIsn’t this an m.o. they have used before? The White House leaks something that they want out, and they then blame the messenger for aiding the enemy with the leaked information?
BTW, I just read that the Repugs are launching an ad blitz against Pelosi and the Democrats. Will they be using the capitulation of the Dems against them politically.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pmYes according to the story yesterday.the directive puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.
Ummm..very interesting….a coordinated campaign of propaganda, and disinformation……couldn’t this ABC story be a part of that campaign now???? Gee d’ya think those media guru’s over at ABC might have taken the bait and true to form Multiple Choice Mitt pounce on it like there really is something legitimate to it. Oh fer chrissakes, haven’t these people learned anything over the past 6 years….Bushco is a master at manipulating the press and they both have NO credibility anymore, that is unless you’re a rabid true believing wingnut.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pmWill they be using the capitulation of the Dems against them politically.
Comment by Marie
They’d be insane not to, wouldn’t they?
Oy…
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pmThis is familiar:
Saddam Hussein: We are going to invade Kuwait.
George Bush I: The US wont be involved in that affair.
Saddam Hussein invades. George Bush I says, hey, thats an outrage!
Very familiar.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pmWin/Win.
Comment by LandSurveyor — May 23, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Except for the soldiers and Marines. But, what the heck, they volunteered for this:
Iraqis say body found of U.S. soldier
Hassan al-Jibouri, 32, said he saw the body with head wounds and whip marks on its back floating on the river Wednesday morning.
And, because of what we have done in Abu Gahrib, and are doing in Guantanamo, and in black sites around the globe, we have no right to claim any moral outrage at the treatment of our women and men who are unfortunate enough to be captured alive.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 pmGeez, doesn’t the administration have one freakin’ clue?! Al Quaeda is a mortal danger to us–just like it’s been since 2001. Iran is going to acquire nukes whether we like it or not, just like Paskistan and India and Israel have. We can use diplomacy with a country. We can not use diplomacy with Al Quaeda. It’s not about attacking sovereign countries anymore.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 pmI heard this scenario today –
if the Dems continue to kick this down the road with little battles that they continuously lose, they will push the war into the election year when Repugs will be more inclined to join them, and Dems will be victorious. Mean while, more GIs will die and billions of $ more spent. But they will gain more effective power in 2008.
If the Dems push real hard against Bush, submitting the same bill over and over, filibustering, and even cutting off funding as of a certain date, the war will be history before the year 2008, and the Repugs will not lose many of the seats they already hold, they may even gain a few because of their fundamentalist constituency who abhor personal freedoms and want a christian nation. So it could mean a much smaller gain for the Dems.
I have to mull this over myself, but I throw it out there for any of you guys who may want to discuss it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pmYou know, in some sense, Democrats already own this war, as well as the war crimes associated with the military commissions act, guantanamo, etc.
Republicans have shown no qualms about filibustering anything they don’t like, be it ethics reform, minimum wage, or even non-binding resolutions.
Democrats could have filibustered long, long ago, but did not. And in allowing those bills to pass, have put a blood curse upon America that will not easily be repaid.
It’s near 3/4 of a million dead, and counting. Karma requires a balance. Her due is coming, and is nearer than nearly all expect.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm“Doesn’t matter, ABC should have used common sense and not boradcast it. Iran does watch our news ya know.
Comment by Chris”
The common sense they should have used is that if the Adminstration wants something leaked it’s not news, its propaganda.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm24 – Marie,
if that is true, then Democrats are guilty of allowing the senseless murder of our troops, merely for their political gain.
Would you want to entrust our country to any political party that does that?
Time to change the rules.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pmDemocrats, Republicans .. all the same.
What this country needs is parties that answer to the population not the top 0.001%
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 pmIran does watch our news ya know.
Comment by Chris
Sure. The government of Iran must paid all its spies a lot of cash to stay at home and watch US channels.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 pmJust remember, following Bush’s logic, Iran would be fully justified in launching a pre-emptive strike against our naval forces in the Persian Gulf.
In fact, they’ve got a stronger case than Bush ever had for a pre-emptive strike.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 pmSickening news from Yahoo:
BAGHDAD – A body recovered by Iraqi police from the Euphrates River south of Baghad Wednesday was identified as one of three American soldiers abducted in an ambush claimed by al-Qaida, relatives and officials said.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pmThat’s the trouble with TV… it never tells you a thing that everybody else didn’t already know.
Every time Iran has agreed to discuss MidEast stability (aka, “Peace in Iraq”) they’ve said that their motivation is in part to get Bush to lay off his intentions, ANNOUNCED MANY TIMES, to take down the government of Iran. And gosh… the US, despite its claims of wanting to have peace in Iraq, somehow finds the Iranian conditions too onerous and the meetings just keep not quite happening.
We got into Iraq NOT because of WMD or oil, but for the larger goal of calling the shots in the MidEast. Never was a short- or mid-term goal, but to re-establish the power that we’ve had since Truman. You think we’re going to play Live-and-Let-Live with Iran just for the sake of a few thousand American lives, a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives, or a few hundred billion dollars?
To me, the real story here is that our government has never given a convincing, clear cut, honest reason for being in the MidEast with all our military force. The dems actually buy into this “projecting American power” line of reasoning, but have belatedly come to realize that Bush couldn’t fight his way out of a paper bag with a flamethrower, and that our goal is receding.
So the potential debate over the real issue is one-sided, and we get these little Page 6 gossip column things that so-and-so semi-celebrity… uhh, Wannabe Leader of the Free World… said something nasty about the kind of four-day-old fish that some TV network dishes out. Almost makes you wish for the McCarthy era when honest-to-God lunatics were up-front about their insanity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm“Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo criticized ABC News for reporting on the administration’s covert plan to destabilize the Iranian regime”
That’s why there’s not a chance in hell either one of those two morons has even the slimmest chance of ever becoming president.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pmABC news does nothing unless Bush Regime tells them to do it. They are owned by the White House cabal.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pmjust like osama, one minute bush wants him dead, the next he wants go give him a blow-job…. of course they wanted to release it, its preconditioning americans for war with iran.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 pmThis is a classical Cheney move, backed by Bubbleboy. Rice is going to Iran for one-on-one talks with her Iranian counterpart. The administration, Cheney in particular, does not like to negotiate and is disdainful of the State Department. So Cheney moves to undercut Rice by releasing this “secret” information. This has the effect of publicly undercutting Rice’s trip by antagonizing the Iranians and allows Conservatives to paint the media as “liberal”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm#27 BnF
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 pmYes, I am having similar thoughts about that scenario I heard today.
We’re talking about people’s lives and the thought of even more political machinations taking precedence over that is repulsive.
Mitt Romney would have been more credible if he had said the obvious: it is this administration’s attempt to destabilize the legally constituted govt of another country that is putting lives at risk. ABC’s dislcosure, called News in an earlier generation, may end up reducing the number of lives at risk. But then, that would have required Romney to exhibit statesmanlikerelated behavior, a commodity about as rare among Republican presidential contenders as finding a senior administration official who has a relative at risk in Iraq.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 pmCan we send romney and McCain to Iraq and leave em in the (greenzone)…safe place till after this 08 election,enough flip a flopping I say…..
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 pmNeed noise to drown out the Monica Goodling testimony, everybody release a story at once.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:18 amWhy do you all worry about a few thousand deaths? We sacrifice 45,000 US citizens a year on the highways just so the rest of us can drive. So if a few hundred thousand Iraqi’s and Persians have to die so you can have cheap gas, be happy. Congress and the Administration is doing this all for YOU!
May 24th, 2007 at 12:52 amMr. Propaganda. I am 99% certain that was irony. Either way, though, we aren’t exactly getting cheap gas.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:01 amIt’s absolutely nothing new to Iran, they know USA suffers from imperial hubris especially from those “crazies” the neoconservatives.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:59 amSo ABC is basically admitting here that they are a shill for the White House?
May 24th, 2007 at 7:51 amNice. The propaganda is coming hot and heavy.
Hi, free press, wtf why should ABC have a concern if the WH doesn’t want them to show something? Oh wait, maybe that’s why their coverage of the CF in Iraq is so bad…
It jeapordizes, blah blah blah. Hey, you know what else jeapordizes the troops? HAVING THEM IN IRAQ OR IRAN.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThe Cheney administration has manipulated information since before Gulf War I and this is just more of the same. The CIA probably has very few assets in Iran and is probably as limp and impotent as it was at finding the WMDs in Iraq. The President, Cheney’s poodle, is a vegetable as nearly as I can tell. It is like he is comatose. He seems to make a pretty good sock puppet with Cheney’s hand in his kiester….
May 24th, 2007 at 4:21 pmIt should be clear that Romney did not say that they were doing anything illegal, and he emphasized they had the right to do it, but said that Media outlets should just make better business decissions. We don’t need to bring in the fact the White House didn’t object or whether they wanted it out. Bottom line is, big media is more concerned with breaking a story than they are about the impact. There is no restraint anymore. Respect and concern over the impacts of stories has gone out the window.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:55 pm