White House press secretary Dana Perino, in response to this morning's report in the New York Times that the involvement of White House officials in the destruction of CIA torture tapes may have been more extensive than the administration has admitted:
The New York Times today implies that the White House has been misleading in publicly acknowledging or discussing details related to the CIA's decision to destroy interrogation tapes.The sub-headline of the story inaccurately says that the "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said", and the story states that "...the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes...was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged."
Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush's immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter. Furthermore, we have not described - neither to highlight, nor to minimize -- the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.
The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story.
Shorter Dana Perino: You can't say that the White House role was wider than we said it was because, officially, we haven't said anything.
In other words, the White House role was wide.
Predictably, the NYT revised its head and subhead immediately on White House demand. But the line-up of lawerly mugshots is still there, along with tasty tidbits like this:
One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
"Vigorous sentiment" -- I think that means that Dick has been shouting again. Or maybe that was Addington -- I understand that he also shouts a lot. There has also apparently been a fire this morning in ceremonial VP offices right next to his. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though. Got my tinfoil hat on, I do.
I think that means that Dick has been shouting again
Dick doesn't shout. He just invites you on a hunting trip. With an odd smile on his face.
Oh, and I left out the talking-through-clenched-teeth option. Maybe that's more Cheney and Addington, although I just read somewhere that a number of people can testify to how noisy Fitzgerald's interview with Cheney was. Apparently you could hear it down the halls and all.
Watch Perino.
Gah. It's all about her. Gah. Need smarter reporters, real fast.
That's smart politics if the press will let her get away with it. I realize that some tried, but they should be pressing harder for a statement on the substance and instead they're allowing her to keep bringing the focus back to her role and her so-called integrity. So she and the administration look like the injured parties and the press, as usual, look like idiots.
PS: I realize that's just a longer version of what you said. ;-)
I don't think we should worry about the documents in Dick's office. I hear he keeps them all in a "man-sized safe" ;-)
I wish these creeps would go ahead and start with the soma. I can't take much more of this.