Posted on 02/14/2002 8:55:32 PM PST by Timesink
From the February 25, 2002 issue of National Review, page 8:
The story line proved irresistible: Justice Department's Top Prude Drapes Naked Statue. Two large semi-nude statues adorn the department's Great Hall, where the attorney general holds big press conferences. In the past, a large blue curtain was rented to provide a TV-pleasing backdrop. An aide responsible for staging such events, on her own initiative, hoped to economize by requesting the purchase of a curtain. She may have been admirably conscious of costs, but she was definitely oblivious to the ways of Washington. A phony story then ran on the website of ABC News attributing the decision to the straitlaced attorney general, who supposedly couldn't bear the bare breast of Ms. Spirit of Justice. Other reporters happily echoed the fabrication, many no doubt lamenting that a permanent curtain would end their fun in going for the "gotcha" shots that framed the breast and the beast.
Conservative as I am, I found nothing wrong with an Attorney General standing up for his principles--I found it all the more wrong that other people did. Now it turns out it was only in the Liberals' fabricated reality that he did those "wrong" things. Quite revealing.
[D]id she do this intentionally to embarrass the Bush Administration?
Of course she did. That's what Liberalism is all about.
And if so, should we take any Freeping action?
We damn well should. And I don't just mean take action in response to this one incident--what I mean is that something MUST be done about the extreme Liberal bias in the press. And WE are the ones that should do it, because Bill Clinton will not do it for us.
So we should all get freeping rich and FUND CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPERS!!
Maybe thank her?
This totally draws the media idiots out into the open.
Maybe we should start a 'sport' from this?
Can anyone else think of any 'fake' stories we can get the press to run with?
Bush kills own mother? Then bury the fact that she's still alive at the bottom of the text?
Hehehe.
Dang, you beat me to it. That story is one of my pet peaves. I email Chris Matthews every time he mentions it. His repeated use of the story tells me all I need to know about his loyalities. I seem to recall him 'admiring' Begalla one night over getting the Bush story into the NY Times (like that was hard).
What's really sad is when I hear conservatives in the media mention it. Our local talk show guy, Jerry Agars, mentioned it on his show this week.
Judging by their defeaning silence on this thread, I would agree. It might be interesting to do a search on some of their comments....
Let's see - here is a sampling of some:
"LOL. We'll hold people in prisons for indefinate periods of time without charging them with crimes but it would be wrong to see a breast. There's more than alittle wrong with that picture."
31 posted on 1/26/02 12:24 PM Pacific by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
"I keep forgetting -- Which is the Taliban. Im sure there are a few Burkas we can borrow to save on the cost of draperies."
40 posted on 1/26/02 2:16 PM Pacific by mindprism.com
"what are you saying?? Don't you know that boobies are evil? It's for the children, for God's sake!"
46 posted on 1/27/02 10:21 AM Pacific by WindMinstrel
"And to be intimidated by a nude statue to this degree is stupid also. I hope I never see anyone with Ashcrofts mentality on the USSC."
58 posted on 2/6/02 12:16 AM Pacific by mindprism.com
"It's about time someone declared war on breasts, and Mr. Asscroft is just the man to do it."
7 posted on 1/29/02 11:14 AM Pacific by NC_Libertarian
Yep. Even the required Taliban comment. Well, guys, looks like you were a little too eager to jump the gun on this one. And I found these just in 3 minutes.
It seems that one leftist scum Andrew Tobias printed it in a web-based attack column condemning Ashcroft because he doesn't support the euthanasia of old, sick people.
I quote from the article:
Shortly after becoming Attorney General, John Ashcroft was headed abroad. An advance team showed up at the American embassy in the Hague to check out the digs, saw cats in residence, and got nervous. They were worried there might be a calico cat. No, they were told, no calicos. Visible relief. Their boss, they explained, believes calico cats are signs of the devil. (The advance team also spied a statue of a naked woman in the courtyard and discussed the possibility of its being covered for the visit, though that request was not ultimately made.)
When questioned about the veracity of the article...
Any sense of journalistic integrity dictates that when making a claim such as this, you must cite some sort of credible reference [like Time or Newsweek or the New York Times]. A random website currently does not constitute such a reference.
He wrote another article in an attempt defend his allegation and said:
A very fair question. I've written for a variety of magazines over the last 30 years, including a column in TIME for several years, and have some appreciation of the need not to publish allegations as true unless I've checked them out. I got this odd story from someone who was definitely in a position to know and then confirmed it with someone else, also in a position to know.That said, it's certainly possible that Ashcroft doesn't actually believe calico cats are signs of the devil, even though his aides said he does. And it’s possible that his aides were kidding, or overly sensitive, when they discussed covering the naked statue.
Hmmmm...well, I guess since he won't quote any credible sources we have to judge the veracity of this allegation based upon Tobias's demonstrated biases, obvious agendas, and allegiances.
How obvious can you get?
Just do a search for Ashcroft and "Calico Cat" and see how the moronic leftists have been passing this fabrication around. Looks like Tobias takes his lessons from Carville. I wonder what he's going to say next - that Ashcroft eats children alive? It wouldn't surprise me at all given the left's ability to create such blatant fabrications to smear the current Bush Administration.
The reporter who wrote the original story had asked what they were for, was refused any answers, and drew his own titilating conclusions (no pun intended of course).
This is supposed to prove the story was "fabricated" how exactly? This non-sourced, blurb in the National Review is credible why? LOL.
Tell me why Bush is asking congress to back off investigating 9/11 and why some folks had prior knowledge apparently. I mean that would tend to be a bit more important than whether or not some curtains were used for tv backdrops or drapes to conceal breasts on a statue....wouldn't it?
That is the entire article. It's from the magazine's "The Week" section, which consists of one-paragraph news stories.
Also, anyone heard anything about the Ashcroft & Calico Cats thing? She loves to harp on that. Is there any truth to what sounds like a leftist fabrication?
It is false. The originator of that lie is Andrew Tobias, who is best known as a financial writer, but who also happens to be the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. He wrote a column containing that allegation (the very same column, as it turns out, where the "cover the statue" lie started, even before Beverly Lumpkin), and provided no attribution or backup whatsoever. Ashcroft's office promptly denied it.
Forgive me for voicing a juxtaposition that is topical. I was not aware this was on the forbidden speech list.
If any future government authority asks the statues be covered or simular, can I expect to be attacked if I state my thoughts when they involve the Taliban?
The original story was shaky, and I made comments given it were true -- the real question is, who is responsible ultimately for an image problem that makes it relatively easy for many to believe Ashcroft capable of such a thing.
Plenty of blame goes to the press and the left of course, but when Ashcroft takes the podium, I see what I see.
Perhaps demeanor is non-substantive, perhaps my instinct lie to me, but the unease I feel with Ashcroft is astounding considering he hasn't done anything on the scale Reno did.
Well, excepting the US PATRIOT act.
When members of 'the party' claim the apologist strategy is a moral means that are justified by the end -- that of party unity -- they are condoning the most dangerous political correctness there is.
I'll stick to the old fashioned standard where lies are lies, betrayal, betrayal, and treason is treason, despite party affiliation.
It is the only way I know of to retain my personal integrity and my political sanity.
I know that Ms Lumpkin reads whatever I post about her on the FR forum. In fact I think she is secretly in love with me because of all the attention I have drawn to her. Unfortunately, Ms Lumpkin went way too far in the spicing it up department. Anyway, here is my advice to Ms Lumpkin that I posted here on January 21, suggesting she spice her stories up:
Some of you may have wondered why no Beverly Lumpkin alerts in a long time. The answer is simple: Ms Lumpkin has committed the ultimate journalistic sin of all---she has become boring. At least back in the Janet Reno era we were able to get a fascinating insight into DOJ thinking via information that was spoonfed to Ms Lumpkin from her liberal pals, Eric Holder or Marie. Now that Lumpkin has been denied her insider status, her reports have become downright dull.
Yours Truly is also partially responsible for this. At the beginning of the "evil" reign of John Ashcroft, Ms Lumpkin resorted to absurd attacks on the new AG because (GASP! SHOCK!) he prayed in private. When I pointed out the absurdity of such attacks which contrasted with Lumpkin's glowing reports on Reno during her corrupt era, it seemed to be a wakeup call to Lumpkin (and I KNOW she reads my Lumpkin alerts posted on the FR). As a result she actually does stick pretty much to the facts nowadays but the problem is that she has a deadly dull writing style (a rare exception being this brief report) that I don't want to burden my fellow Freepers with.
Beverly, I actually miss our previous frequent forays but I just can't post your stuff on the HOTTEST forum on the Web unless you come up with something INTERESTING. If you want, why don't you pass your material over to ol' PJ here for review and I will punch up your copy for publication. Hey, I'll even keep your liberal bias in the final copy as well. All I ask in return is an occasional steak dinner from you courtesy of your ABC News expense account that you used for dining with Eric & Marie.
And now I hope that the National Review reports the COMPLETE story about the TRUE SOURCE of inspiration for that DOJ statue story (Yours Truly via Beverly Lumpkin).
Um, hyperbolize much? Your speech is not forbidden. Your comments were not deleted.
If any future government authority asks the statues be covered or simular, can I expect to be attacked if I state my thoughts when they involve the Taliban?
If it's a specious comparison, probably. Maybe even if it's not specious. Come on, you know that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. That's the sort of argument the ultraleftists make when they get attacked for their hate speech.
In all fairness, they always burried the truth about the Clintonoids too. Lots of times they burried it so deep it didn't even make the bottom of the story. ;~))
When she smiles. Unfortunately she must be frowning today since I forgot to send her a Valentine's card. Please don't sulk, Bev. Your PJ still wuvs you (despite your exaggerated story).
No, Taliban is not forbidden. But there has been a nasty tendency of the libertarians (not all) to use that when referring to devout Christians. That is what I was referring to. I am hardly a devout Christian - I am a Roman Catholic who needs to get more devoted to my religion. But whenever I see someone comparing a fundamentalist to the Taliban, I know that it will eventually burn back to me. I do not mean any personal offense.
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.