Skip to comments.
Ex-Bush aide apologizes for 'groundless' remarks
Washington Times ^
| 12/03/02
| Joseph Curl
Posted on 12/02/2002 10:11:52 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:59:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
John DiIulio, the former director of the White House faith-based initiative office, yesterday apologized for saying that President Bush's domestic priorities are determined exclusively by political considerations.
Using words uttered hours earlier by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who called Mr. DiIulio's remarks in the January edition of Esquire magazine "baseless and groundless," the first high-ranking Bush official to leave the administration asked for forgiveness and vowed never to speak or write again about his short White House stint.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last
To: nopardons
They read what they want, the same way liberlas and spinning press do. They don't even see it.
To: kattracks
It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis DiIulio (and Suskind) reveal their arrogance and elitism in this disdainful remark. They are so out of touch with reality it's just plain nutz. Anybody thinks he can suggest this president is an inept "rube" and make it stick is delusional. IMHO.
To: lepton
That's the one. I wonder where he is now?
To: Thebaddog
At Liberty Post.
To: betty boop
My thoughts exactly. This was an exasperated left-wing snot blowing off some steam, using the same snotty BS that leftists continually recycle. It's the "gravitas" angle, again.
To: kattracks
Holy S***!
Somebody popped the whip on this fellow.
To: BLR2000
Smile. Thanks.
To: kattracks
Shouldn't the title be:
Ex-Bush aide apologizes for 'groundless' remarks, hoping the damage is already done"
To: kattracks
"My criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words" Yeah? I had classmates in junior high school like you.
To: kattracks
An aide at the University of Pennsylvania, where Mr. DiIulio is a professor, said he had taken sick leave and could not be reached for comment. Yep, the guy has a screw loose. What a pathetic performance.
50
posted on
12/03/2002 1:51:35 PM PST
by
Torie
To: Torie; Yardstick; betty boop; Excuse_My_Bellicosity; Post Toasties
Have you read DiIulio's original memo on
The Drudge Report? He has high praise for Bush as someone who, unlike Clinton, genuinely cares for people. He has praise for Rove, "basically a nice and good-humored man". He has a fairly worded complaint that the administration is furthur to the right than DiLulio likes (hardly surprising a Democrat would think so), and a complaint that the administration doesn't spend enough time in policy meetings.
I hardly think it is DiIulio's fault that a biased reporter picked out only the harshest possible quotes from a basically positive memo and tried to discredit the aministration with them. Actually, comparing the memo to the article is a text book example of media bias.
To: kattracks
Hunh. A backbiting, graceless Democrat. Imagine that.
Look, most knew he was a bad egg at the time. Big surprise.
Dan
52
posted on
12/03/2002 6:05:32 PM PST
by
BibChr
To: TennesseeProfessor
Well, yes, I did read the letter before I posted, and it seemed to me like a "the prez is a nice guy, BUT..." kind of thing, with the the "nice guy" part included mostly to lend his criticisms more weight, so that it didn't seem like he just had an ax to grind.
But after reading your post and then rereading the letter, I think you have a point. Much of the letter is very complimentary of Bush and seems genuine -- and, like you said, that fact was ignored when this story was reported.
Still, the "Mayberry Machiavelli" line is snotty, and I detect a whiff of the "gravitas" thing. Mostly, though, it was just fun to pile on ;-)
To: TennesseeProfessor
I just read it, and the substance of the memo as a whole doesn't appear objectionable. However, DiIulio seems, for some reason, to have felt obliged to make public some personal grievances using pejorative catch phrases that he must have known would tend to obscure the worthiness of his message.
To: Post Toasties
I think he tried to give a "fair" critique of the White House -- what he liked and what he didn't like about the administration. I agree it was bad judgementhe should have known that the media would use it out of context to bash Bush.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 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