Wednesday, December 19, 2007

NY Times Strikes A Raw Nerve In The White House

When the powers that be get angry at something one does, you know you are on the right path. Well the New York Times is definitely on a speedy track to finding out the Bush Administration's role in the destruction of the 'torture tapes' the CIA made as they waterboarded terrorists in their custody.

Dana Perino blasted the newspaper for printing a story that showed the Administration was more involved in the destruction of the tapes than they let on. The White House at least wants the sub-heading changed, from "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said" to.....well, probably something that reads like "What tapes?" or "Bush saves cat from tree!"

From Yahoo News:

The Times cited "conflicting accounts" as to whether any of the lawyers supported destroying the tapes, but cited one former top intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter as saying that "there had been 'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes."

Other officials told the Times that no-one at the White House called for destroying the tapes -- but that no White House lawyer ordered that they be preserved or warned that destroying them might be illegal.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino angrily denounced the Times's sub-headline -- "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said" -- in a highly unusual written statement that demanded a formal correction.

"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," she said.

Perino said that the White House has simply refused to comment on the matter beyond saying that US President George W. Bush did not recall being aware of the videos or the decision to destroy them prior to being briefed recently.

Well of course we are going to get a "no comment" out of them now, we wouldn't want poor Dana to perjure herself or anything. Not that anyone in the White House would commit a crime like that.

Unfortunately for the Times and journalism as a whole, the Times submitted to their pressure and caved in, changing the heading.