Missing the Forest for a Single, Immaterial Tree

Marty Lederman

This is actually quite humorous. The White House has been extremely reluctant to say anything at all about the CIA tapes scandal -- except that the President knew nothing about the tapes -- for a couple of weeks now. But today's New York Times story prompted an immediate, impassioned official response, which you can read here.

The Times story, as you'll recall, explained that there was plenty of discussion about the tapes' possible destruction at the White House, and that the highest ranking attorneys in the White House either insinuated to the CIA that the tapes should be destroyed or gave tepid and equivocal advice that the tapes be retained, without actually ordering that they be preserved, and without doing anything once they learned that the CIA had destroyed the tapes. Either way, it's not a pretty picture.

So what's the White House so exercised about today? That the Times story got it wrong? That in fact no one in the White House had such discussions? That it never reached the level of Gonzales and Addington? That no one in the White House indicated that the tapes should be destroyed? That White House lawyers did, in fact, order the CIA to preserve the tapes? That upon learning of the tapes' destruction, that the White House took appropriate action to investigate and punish the wrongdoers?

None of the above.

The White House's vigorous defense this morning is that, in fact, it has never denied the facts in the Times story:

The sub-headline of the story inaccurately says that the "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said", and the story states that "...the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes...was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged."

Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush's immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter. Furthermore, we have not described - neither to highlight, nor to minimize -- the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.

Now, there's nothing actually inaccurate about the Times story: "the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes" was, in fact, "more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged" -- precisely because they have not acknowledged any involvement at all beyond Harriet Miers.

The Times did not write that the White House has lied about WH officials' involvement -- merely that they haven't yet come clean with the full story, which is true. There was some information coming from the White House about its involvement -- they tried to insinuate that the responsibility should be pinned on Harriet Miers alone, a story that was basically inaccurate. (Note the careful wording of the Press Statement: "Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue." One point of the Times piece is that the carefully orchestrated nonpublic leaks from the White House have been importantly incomplete and possibly misleading.)

But all this is beside the point, which is not whether the White House has been misleading in its "public" comments over the past two weeks, but whether the White House has been complicit in crimes and other wrongdoing over the past several years. And on that question, what's most notable about today's Press Statement is that it does not deny the substance of the Times story.
Posted 10:24 AM by Marty Lederman [link]