What we learned from the White House yesterday.

White House Briefing
Dan Froomkin, Washington Post

Exceptions to the Rules
Thursday, Mar 25, 2004; 10:52 AM

Okay, students of the White House, what did we learn yesterday?

1) Senior administration officials can make remarks on a not-for-attribution basis to the press -- but the White House can later decide to make the attribution public if it can help discredit said senior administration official-turned-whistle-blower.

2) When you're a special assistant to the president, your job is to tell the press the truth -- but only the parts that reflect well on the president.

3) When you're the national security adviser, it's really important for the public to understand your position so you give lots of interviews to the press -- but you can't answer questions under oath before a legislatively-chartered body because that would be a violation of the Constitution.

4) It's not okay to suggest the president has credibility problems -- unless you're the president, and you're at a black-tie correspondents dinner, and you're being really, really funny.

Full article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/

It's the very best rundown of WH coverage. The BEST.

The wheels are starting to come off the wagon.

We need to keep this up. The WH will try to distract Americans and the press with bogus terrorist alerts and finding Osama.

*

The NSC/WH can arbitrily declassify a CLASSIFED email when it suits their political purposes - this is very bad.

It is so easy to do when it benefits the WH..it remains classified when it makes Bush* look bad.

Condi lobs first bomb;

Condi released a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail Clarke sent to her that said, 'When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and other domestic law enforcement authorities.'

"He attached an earlier memo from before Sept. 11 in which Clarke warned such agencies that 'a spectacular al-Qaida terrorist attack was coming in the near future.'

And Chief of Staff Andrew Card's rebuttal;


"We did not anticipate the kind of attack that happened on September 11. I don't think anyone could have. But if Dick Clarke had a way to understand that that attack was going to come and didn't say anything about it, he was irresponsible and he did not live up to his oath of office."


PRICELESS