BUSHCO Asks NYT: "If we haven't acknowledged anything, how could the NYT account be different?"

White House to NYT: Take It Back!
By Paul Kiel - December 19, 2007, 10:19AM

It's not every day you see the White House spokesperson going out of her way to respond to a news piece, but they really didn't like this morning's piece in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19intel.html?ei=5088&en=5a5d0b9810ad569a&ex=1355720400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all on the involvement of administration lawyers in discussions on the CIA tapes. In particular they objected to this line:



Dana Perino says administration officials haven't "publicly commented on facts relating to this issue" -- so if they haven't acknowledged anything, how could the Times account be different?

Of course, given the amount of reporting that's been done on this story based on anonymous sources, it seems likely that the Times was referring to background discussions with administration officials, not their public comments. And we agree with the White House that the Times' story is "pernicious and troubling" -- but it seems like that's better applied to the CIA tapes fiasco overall rather than the Times' reporting.

Full statement:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004941.php

Wow they really are that stupid