Skip to comments.
Smear Without Fear (NY Slimes/Krugman Hit Piece on President Bush)
NY Times ^
| 4/2/04
| Paul Krugman
Posted on 04/03/2004 7:22:33 PM PST by NYC Republican
A funny thing happened to David Letterman this week. Actually, it only started out funny. And the unfunny ending fits into a disturbing pattern.
On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.
CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.
On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."
But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?
On Tuesday, I mentioned remarks by CNN's Wolf Blitzer; here's a fuller quote, just to remove any ambiguity: "What administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically, that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting there are some weird aspects in his life."
Stung by my column, Mr. Blitzer sought to justify his words, saying that his statement was actually a question, and also saying that "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today." Silly me: I "alleged" that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described "so-called unnamed" officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.
Mr. Blitzer now says he was talking about remarks made on his own program by a National Security Council spokesman, Jim Wilkinson. But Mr. Wilkinson's remarks are hard to construe as raising questions about Mr. Clarke's personal life.
Instead, Mr. Wilkinson seems to have questioned Mr. Clarke's sanity, saying: "He sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden, and bin Laden has a mystical mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of `X-Files' stuff." Really?
On Page 246 of "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke bemoans the way the invasion of Iraq, in his view, played right into the hands of Al Qaeda: "Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed. . . . It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush." That's not " `X-Files' stuff": it's a literary device, meant to emphasize just how ill conceived our policy is. Mr. Blitzer should be telling Mr. Wilkinson to apologize, not rerunning those comments in his own defense.
Look, I understand why major news organizations must act respectfully toward government officials. But officials shouldn't be sure as Mr. Wilkinson obviously was that they can make wild accusations without any fear that they will be challenged on the spot or held accountable later.
And administration officials shouldn't be able to spread stories without making themselves accountable. If an administration official is willing to say something on the record, that's a story, because he pays a price if his claims are false. But if unnamed "administration officials" spread rumors about administration critics, reporters have an obligation to check the facts before giving those rumors national exposure. And there's no excuse for disseminating unchecked rumors because they come from "the White House," then denying the White House connection when the rumors prove false. That's simply giving the administration a license to smear with impunity.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cnn; davidletterman; nytimes; whitehouse; wolfblitzer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
To: Steven W.
Spot on.
It is insane for Krugman not to be talking about the jobs report today. It must be driving him crazy.
21
posted on
04/03/2004 8:04:41 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: McGavin999
I take it, he dosen't like our president...
April 2, 2004
Smear Without Fear
Administration officials shouldnt be able to spread stories without making ...
March 30, 2004
This Isnt America
The Bush administrations reliance on smear tactics against its critics is ...
March 26, 2004 $
The Medicare Muddle
In advance of Tuesday's reports by the Social Security and Medicare trustees, some ...
March 23, 2004 $
Lifting The Shroud
From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the ...
March 19, 2004 $
Taken For A Ride
''Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.'' So George Bush declared ...
March 16, 2004 $
Weak On Terror
''My most immediate priority,'' Spain's new leader, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, ...
March 12, 2004 $
No More Excuses on Jobs
As job growth continues to elude the U.S. economy, we're hearing two main excuses ...
March 9, 2004 $
Promises, Promises
Despite a string of dismal employment reports, the administration insists that its ...
March 5, 2004 $
Social Security Scares
The annual report of the Social Security system's trustees reveals a system in pretty ...
22
posted on
04/03/2004 8:04:44 PM PST
by
kcvl
To: NYC Republican
Hey, Krugman
308,000
Eat it.
To: NYC Republican
The New York Times, The Weekly World Review, The Star, the National Enquirer and the rest of that ilk can run with this kind of drivel all they want. As long as the legitimate press maintains a modicum of integrity and stays away, it will never get legs.
To: Lancey Howard
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
KRUGMAN LOSES THE WAR
Paul Krugman is about to face the sum of all his and the Democrats' fears -- a President Bush who has gambled and won, who withstood every sling and arrow the opposition could throw at him, and still emerges victorious from the war in Iraq with enough political capital and personal credibility to achieve anything he wishes. So now all Krugman can do is try to think of something -- anything! -- about which he can say, to quote the last sentence of his New York Times column today,
"If that happens, we will have lost the war, whatever happens on the battlefield."
Ah, but Krugman came up with such a poor "that" today. The best he could do was to criticize the Republicans for criticizing John Kerry for criticizing George Bush.
25
posted on
04/03/2004 8:14:24 PM PST
by
kcvl
To: prairiebreeze
How does Krugman conclude that the X-Files comment from the WH official refers to Clarke's "personal life?" (is the tv show more popular among people of a certain persuasion?)
Did I miss something?
Clarke is weird enough without getting personal.
Or are the Dems and their media handmaidens disappointed that the White House hasn't touched Clarke's "personal life?" So Krugman is trying to do it for the WH.
26
posted on
04/03/2004 8:15:10 PM PST
by
Spotsy
(Bush-Cheney '04)
To: kcvl
In his bitter attempts to try to smear Dubya, this guy Krugman has taken to beating up Wolf Blitzer and citing confusion over a David Letterman joke?? How utterly pathetic. I am more convinced than ever that Dubya is invincible.
To: Spotsy
Apparently, "lifelong bachelor" Dick Clarke is as weird in his "personal life" as he looks and sounds on TV. I don't know anything about it, though.
I wonder what the "weird aspects to Clarke's personal life" could be? Any rumors or ideas?
29
posted on
04/03/2004 8:27:25 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(Vietnam veteran against John Kerry, proud to be a "crook" and a "liar.")
To: kcvl
You have to go all the way back to March 12th to even find an article on "economics" by Krugman, the NY Times' economic columnist.
The new jobs report comes out, flatly disproves everything that Krugman has uttered about economics, and Krugman writes a column about a boy yawning and Richard Clarke's secret (presumed gay) life.
But hey, it's Saturday and people in NYC need fresh liners for their bird cages. What else could be the point of Krugman's and Dowd's space fillers today?!
30
posted on
04/03/2004 8:40:29 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: prairiebreeze
Sounds like a grade school fight
31
posted on
04/03/2004 8:45:59 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?)
To: Verginius Rufus
I do my best to avoid reading any of the four regular Bush-bashing columnists in The New York Times, but my impression is that Krugman is the most extremely fanatical of the four.Even more so then Maureen Dowdy Doody?
To: NYC Republican
Krugman is PennyStupid the Clown
33
posted on
04/03/2004 9:05:29 PM PST
by
Tamzee
(Donate monthly... $3 per month is only a dime a day!)
To: Lancey Howard
Clarke has never married, and little is known about his personal life. An only child, Clarke's father died of a heart attack just seventeen days before the boy's 15th birthday. From seventh grade until graduation, Clarke attended the prestigious Boston Latin School and did well there. He wrote for the school newspaper, attended forums on world politics and spent many hours preparing for debates in which he argued the conservative point of view. One of his high school chums said that Clarke read the Congressional Record and followed foreign affairs on his way to school. "He was obsessed with politics, fascinated with foreign affairs, and deeply interested in history." When President Kennedy called young Americans to serve the country, Clarke made his career choice to enter public service. As a senior, he won a scholarship to attend the University of Pennsylvania and graduated four years later in 1972 with a bachelor of arts. In 1978, he earned his M.S. degree in defense policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2000 he and Anthony Lake wrote an e-book entitled "Six Nightmares" Real Threats in a Dangerous World and How America Can Meet Them."
During his three decades in Washington under four different presidents, Clarke was widely respected and widely disliked. Former colleagues remember him as a determined pit bull who often alienated his superiors but who was always loyal to those who worked for him. One person called him a "hands-on bureaucratic guerrilla" with a "gung-ho approach." Another colleague said, "Dick would just get into a foul mood sometimes and say things that made enemies of people forever, because he belittled them publicly." About his reasons for writing "Against All Enemies," Clarke insists that he just wants the American people to know the truth.
Quotes:
In his high school yearbook, he quoted Dante, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in a time of great crisis maintain their neutrality."
He lives, according to his book, in an "old Sears-catalog house."
"When you get him one-on-one in a room, he's very personable and has a great sense of humor," said Keith Schwalm, a former Secret Service agent who worked with Clarke at the White House and now is vice president of his consulting company . "He likes to drop little hidden jokes all the time. If you don't have his sense of humor, you won't get 'em, and he'll laugh under his breath."
Clarke, who is single, is known as a voracious reader, from science fiction to history to the latest tutorial on al-Qaida, and as someone who enjoys relaxing with friends over dinner. The native New Englander loves seafood, follows the Boston Red Sox and the Washington Capitals, enjoys jazz and has a room in his Sears catalogue home packed with duck decoys and prints. He describes himself as a political independent registered as a Republican.
Despite Clarke's bulldog reputation, "he is a normal person," Simon said. "He likes to go on nice vacations. He likes good wine. He is your fairly typical cultivated upper-middle-class Washingtonian with cultivated upper-middle-class tastes."
*****
Downing, a retired Army general, had replaced Richard Clarke, a Clinton administration holdover, in October 2001.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58934-2003Mar20 In the role of counter-terrorism czar, he will be replaced by retired four-star Gen. Wayne A. Downing. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge will serve above Clarke and Downing in the new role as the presidents Homeland Security adviser.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisors_clarke.html
34
posted on
04/03/2004 9:13:13 PM PST
by
kcvl
To: kcvl
Fairly impressive resume. It makes you wonder how he could have been caught in so many lies, and been involved in so much subterfuge and disloyalty toward Bush. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy (if you believe the profile above) who would do these things just to sell a book.
I mean, he generally laid off Clinton, who saw several serious terrorist attacks and had eight years to engage the enemy, but went after Bush who was in office barely eight months when 9/11 struck. This finger-pointing was so obviously irrational that it is hard to concieve that the guy praised in the above bio would do it. I suppose some people simply have no shame, no moral compass.
You think the Clintons got to him? Some dirt, maybe?
To: Lancey Howard
He is a Democrat. He has always been a Democrat. He only voted for John McCain in the primary (like so many other Democrats did) to defeat George Bush. He voted in the general election for Al Gore (that is what he said).
He is a partisan Democrat, who has been in government (aka public service) for 30 YEARS. He worked EIGHT YEARS for CRIMINALS. Don't ask me how these people think, I don't want to know.
I don't mean to scream at you, it is just that the so-called media is not going to tell the truth, even if they were threatened with their lives.
When you have a revolving door from "government service" to "reporters" to "news" anchors to talk show hosts, back to "government service", etc., it seems they become inbreeds. Don't take ANYTHING they say as truth, unless you check out where they have "worked" before and with whom they associate. That will give you a good idea about their credibility. Working for CRIMINALS doesn't leave him with much credibility. George Bush didn't want to change "public servants" after the Florida fiasco because he wanted a continuity in our government so that other countries wouldn't think we were weak, while he got his people in place. We can all thank Al Gore for that.
36
posted on
04/03/2004 10:12:54 PM PST
by
kcvl
To: kcvl
What about Clarke's mother?? I didn't notice any mention of her. She might hold some clue as to his bizarre behavior.
Also, and I hate to sound mean, but an only child whose father dies when he is a teen (while he is at a private high school no less) seems to me to possibly be someone prone to carrying heavy emotional baggage, possibly guilt or anger or something.
I also consider a person who never married to be very self centered, likely egotistical.
37
posted on
04/03/2004 10:13:13 PM PST
by
Edit35
To: kcvl
We are most definitely on the same page.
Regards,
LH
To: dyno35
Nobody in the press talks about it much (except the gutsy and beautiful Ann Coulter, of course) but there seems to be a strong case that Clarke is a misogynist and possibly a racist. I think he simply couldn't stand that his boss was a black woman.
To: Lancey Howard
From the Corner at National Review Online:
PAUL KRUGMAN SURPASSES HIMSELF [Rich Lowry]
As readers of NRO know, Paul Krugman has established himself as perhaps the single most partisan voice on the New York Times Op-Ed page, no mean accomplishment. Krugman the other day wrote a column criticizing Wolf Blitzer for allegedly passing along a White House smear of Richard Clarke. Krugman wrote, On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well.'"
Blitzer on the air Tuesday corrected Krugman, pointing out that he said those words in the course of asking a question of White House correspondent John King. As Blitzer put it Tuesday, Finally, this clarification. Last Wednesday, while I was debriefing our senior White House correspondent, John King, I asked him if White House officials were suggesting there were some weird aspects to Richard Clarke's life. Clarke, of course, is the former counterterrorism adviser who has sharply criticized the president's handling of the war on terror. I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I was simply seeking to flesh out what Bush National Security Council spokesman Jim Wilkinson had said on this program two days earlier [when he pointed out what he thought was a weird passage in Clarkes book].
Krugman today takes Blitzer to task for this clarification: Silly me: I alleged that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described so-called unnamed officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.
But Krugman clearly distorted the original Blitzer statement. Blitzer was asking John King a question, and right after the bit that Krugman quoted he said, Is that the sense that youre getting, speaking to a wide range of officials? King responded, None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarkes personal life in any way. Lets repeat: None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarkes personal life in any way. If Krugman really wanted to know the truth about whether the White House was smearing Clarke or not, he should have considered Kings reporting more important than a passage in Blitzers question to him. But since Kings definitive factual statement didnt fit Krugmans agenda, he left it out. Wheres Daniel Okrent when you need him?
Here is the Blitzer-King passage in its entirety:
BLITZER: Well, John, I get the sense not only what Dr. Rice just said to you and other reporters at the White House, but what administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president. Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?
KING: None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarke's personal life in any way. But they offer a very mixed picture. They say that he was a very dedicated, a very smart member of the senior White House staff, that he was held over because of his expertise in the Clinton administration on terrorism issues and the Bush administration, these officials say, wanted a smooth transition. They also say, and many top Clinton administration officials support this, that Richard Clarke could be irritable. He could sometimes get angry at those who did not agree with him. That is an opinion shared in both administrations. And, in the end, of course, he did not get the No. 2 job at the Department of Homeland Security and he decided to move on.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson