Maybe the tapes weren't done in secret. The oped below is really interesting. Maybe the NY Slimes got roped a doped again by President Bush:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/02/are-we-sure-wead-tapes-were-recorded.html
Althouse
Politics and the aversion to politics, law and law school, high and low culture, and the way things look from Madison, Wisconsin.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Are we sure the Wead tapes were recorded secretly?
The NYT reports that Doug Wead secretly recorded private conversations he had with George Bush back when Bush was planning his run for the presidency:
Mr. Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr. Bush as a historic figure, but he said he knew that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal. As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes.
"Might"? But of course it would be a flat-out betrayal to make secret recordings of a conversation with someone who came to you as an old friend and sought advice, as Bush purportedly did with the man he called "Weadie" or "Weadnik."
The NYT puts the story of the tapes on its front page, and the first few sentences hint that there may be some juicy morsels in the tapes. But:
The private Mr. Bush sounds remarkably similar in many ways to the public President Bush. Many of the taped comments foreshadow aspects of his presidency, including his opposition to both anti-gay language and recognizing same-sex marriage, his skepticism about the United Nations, his sense of moral purpose and his focus on cultivating conservative Christian voters.
The similarity between the private Bush and the public Bush is so great, in fact, that I suspect the Times is being taken for a ride and Bush actually knew he was being taped:
When Mr. Wead warned him that "power corrupts," for example, Mr. Bush told him not to worry: "I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check."
Bush comes across as a remarkably consistent, morally grounded man. Look at the material about gay rights:
Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.
But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"
Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."
"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."
Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."
As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.
If the tapes are what they purport to be, respect for Bush should grow. But how do we know Bush and his friend didn't stage the tapes? The Times tells us "The White House did not dispute the authenticity of the tapes or respond to their contents." Did the White House confirm the tapes were made secretly? That they were made at the time they are said to have been made?
The New York Times hired Tom Owen, an expert on audio authentication, to examine samples from the tapes. He concluded the voice was that of the president.
Well, good. But how did the Times convince itself that the tapes were made secretly? To me, they seem too good to be truly confidential conversations with an old friend.
I think that theory is stupid and offensive.
Bush is not going to let his spokesman say the conversations were thought to be in confidence if they were in fact taped with his knowledge.
This theory has been crafted by the left to explain why Bush is the same in private as he is in public. They do not like how well the tapes reflect on him and so started spinning an alternate scenario much akin to the CBS attack.
Bush, instead of being the victim of treachery (in this case a "friend" secretly taping him, in CBS the presentation of fake documents) is re-cast as the architect of pulling one over on the hapless media.
The media then becomes the victim of the machiavellian Bush administration.
What a crock.
The fact that the NYTimes had to pose the question is the best proof that there is nothing they could use to hurt Bush in any of the tapes.
I guess it it time to back to the TANG issue!! LOL!!
Of course there couldn't be the teeniest, tiniest possibility that the Private Mr Bush is remarkably like the public governor Bush and later President Bush because they ARE exactly the same person?
I'd say what you see is what you get, but the left collective doesn't SEE him, usually to their serious embarrassment.
"Well, good. But how did the Times convince itself that the tapes were made secretly? To me, they seem too good to be truly confidential conversations with an old friend."
No, Althouse, he really is that much better than you are.
All liberals lie all the time, true, but that doesn't mean everybody does.