Sunday, October 01, 2006
Advisor denies Bush in 'state of denial'
From my article at Raw Story, President's Advisor denies Bush in 'state of denial;' Woodward didn't 'connect his own dots':
On a Sunday morning talk show, one of the president's closest advisors, Dan Bartlett, denied that Bush was in a "state of denial," and suggested that investigative journalist Bob Woodward "had already formulated some conclusions even before the interviewing began."
Appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Bartlett also said that he had spoken to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier that morning about a reported "impending terrorist attack" warning she allegedly "brushed off" two months before the 9/11 attacks. Rice told Bartlett that the account by former CIA director George Tenet in Woodward's book was a "very, grossly misaccurate characterization of the meeting they had."
Stephanopoulos noted that Bartlett had endorsed Woodward's previous book, Plan of Attack, then said, "I take it you're not going to do that with State of Denial."
"Well, George, it is a book that we participated at various levels within the administration, both in the White House and other parts of the administration and the Department of Defense, and State," Bartlett responded. "But I must say, George, I think as we worked with Bob on this project from the very outset it was unfortunate that we felt he had already formulated some conclusions even before the interviewing began."....
"You're saying that Bob Woodward, been around Washington for an awful long time, went into this with an agenda and basically wasn't an honest reporter," said Stephanopoulos.
Bartlett said that he wasn't calling Woodward's honesty into question, and he refused to use "biased" to describe the Pulitzer-winning journalist, but insisted that he didn't "connect his own dots" in the book.
Before my head is bitten off, let me note that "misaccurate" is Bartlett's mistake, not mine.
Also, my article about the Rice/Tenet July 10, 2001 meeting has been updated:
Saturday night at Think Progress, former Counsel to the 9/11 Commission Peter Rundlet guest-blogged a post called "Bush Officials May Have Covered Up Rice-Tenet Meeting From 9/11 Commission."....
Rundlet suggests that the "withholding of information" from the Commission may constitute a crime, and scoffs at Cofer's excuse in Woodward's book.
"Was it covered up?" asks Rundlet. "It is hard to come to a different conclusion."....
"Very possibly, someone committed a crime," Rundlet concludes. "And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot."....
In the latest edition in its "Setting the Record Straight" series which uses official statements and media accounts it favors to counter articles in the press or Democratic arguments, the White House lists "Five Key Myths in Woodward's Book." The first "Setting the Record Straight" posted in February of 2005 took on a Washington Post article which reported that a Bush plan would result in participants forfeiting part of their retirement account profits, an assertion the White House blasted as "flat wrong."
To counter the third "myth," the White House presents the "fact" that "according to State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack, the recollections portrayed by Woodward do not reflect Tenet and Black's 9/11 Commission Testimony," then quotes from another Times article written by Sanger.
(Note: I haven't given up the Musharraf watch, but I've been forced to use an old, crappy computer because my laptop is in the shop, so, as always, Bill Roggio's blog is the best place to go for Pakistan updates)