by D. Cupples | Yesterday, the White House demanded that the New York Times change the sub-headline of a story it ran Tuesday about the White House's involvement in the CIA's possibly illegal destruction of torture tapes (The Hill and The Politico). And yet, the White House has not challenged the story itself, which stated that:
1) Earlier media reports stated that the White House was not involved in the tape destruction; and
2) Later, sources told the NY Times that four White House officials had debated the issue, and some wanted to see the tapes destroyed.
That's a big story for the White House to leave unchallenged if it isn't true.
The disputed sub-title was "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said.” White House spokesperson Dana Perino said that she never commented on White House involvement in the torture-tape destruction; thus, the headline is wrong.
Think Progress points out the following statements, made during a press briefing:
Q Was there any White House involvement in approving or commenting upon their [the tapes'] destruction?
MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has no recollection knowing about the tapes or about their destruction, and so I can't answer the follow-up. (White House)
Actually, Press Secretary Perino did comment: she said that President Bush "had no recollection." Technically, that means the President either wasn't briefed or was briefed but forgot about it.
The implication of Ms. Perino's statement is that the White House denies involvement. A CNN reporter pointed out to Perino that anonymous White House sources had privately told reporters that the White House had urged the CIA to not destroy tapes -- to which Ms. Perino retorted that she is not responsible for what anonymous sources say, because she speaks only for the President. (Think Progress has video).
Ms. Perino may not be responsible, but someone at the White House likely is responsible for anonymous leaks. There have just been too many "leaks" over the years that were not followed by the firing of leakers.
Three days ago, I was troubled by this as the Bush Administration decided that Afghanistan may be more deserving of our nation's attention than Iraq over the long term. That's a big shift in policy, yet some of the information came from anonymous sources.
If those sources weren't allowed to publicly speak, whom did they betray by talking to the press? And how credible is the information they gave?
If the Bush Administration would start openly and honestly addressing the public and press -- there's no law against it, you know -- the White House would face lower risks of being misunderstood, misquoted or otherwise "victimized" (my word, not the White House's) by the press.
Perhaps we will ultimately get to the bottom of the torture-tape issue, because the CIA recently announced that it will turn over documents about the tape destruction -- despite the Bush Administration's desire last week to "defer cooperation" with Congress (Washington Post).
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions.
Related BN-Politics Post:
* Nameless Official: Some White House Staffers Wanted Torture Tapes Destroyed
* Judge Stands up to Administration re: Torture Tapes
* Mukasey's Bizarre Reason for Refusing to Share Info w/Congress
* Bush Demands Freedom to Torture, Retired Generals Disagree
* CIA Lawyers Authorized Destruction of Tapes? The Plot Thickens
Comments