Darrin Kagan (CNN) Give's Apology/False Statement/Letterman/Bush/Kid Tape!

[KoKo]

Just saw her give a "halting" apology to the Letterman show saying that "White House" did not tell the tape was doctored! She says she was told that but it isn't true. She seemed nervous and not very apologetic but said she would come on to Letterman's show and "perform a two step or something like that"...(didn't get what it was) to make up for what she said.

[Gothic Sponge]

1. She had a gun at her back

:wtf:

[Skidmore]

2. Sorry, I don't watch Letterman--

have to get up to go to work early in the morning, so my bedtime's early too. What's the deal with this tape? Is it doctored or not? Someone update me.

[K-W]

4. Letterman showed a tape of a kid yawning at a bush speech.

CNN reported first that the white house claimed the Kid was digitally added. THen reported that the kid was at the speech, but not behind the president. Letterman called them out on the complete lies.

THe tape wasnt doctored.

[htuttle]

5. It's not doctored, but CNN said the WhiteHouse said that it was

And now CNN is saying the WhiteHouse did not say that. That would mean CNN lied about the WhiteHouse statements about it -- either now, or then. Take your pick. (I think they are lying now...I think the WhiteHouse DID say it, and CNN is now covering for them).

[KoKo]

16. htuttle, that might explain why she seemed so nervous about it....and she

started her statement with "Well...now this is something we have to do."

That's an exact quote because I was doing something and immediately turned around to my tv screen. "...this is something we have to do?"
Sort of like she was forced or CNN was forced, but yes to admit she had told a lie...and who told her to tell the lie is the question and is it a lie at all or are they covering.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

10. pictures of it are posted on wonkette.com

go have a look

[Cocoa]

3. CNN reports a White House statement without checking it?

Bullshit. The White House DID tell CNN to say that. CNN is lying NOW.

[RoundRockD]

6. This is troubling stuff...

If CNN and the WH lie about something as trivial as this, what else are they lieing about? I don't understand why half of America still approves of this administration.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. So much for the claims of Liberal media!

There was a putz on their morning show that claimed that we didn't need Liberal media because all the major networks were Liberal and he even went to claim that CNN, the "Clinton News Network" was also Liberal. Does anybody know the old gizzer from the morning show on CNN? Whatzhisname?

[Jacobin]

9. Yeah. Jack "Run'emDown"Cafferty

The old fart who ran his Cadillac over a jogger and then took off.

Claimed he didn't know he had hit anyone.

I think they gave him a parking ticket for his crime.

[AP]

15. And, don't forget, they didn't bother to check with Letterman to see if

the white house was lying (and, if you ask me, any fool could tell the tape WASN'T doctored).

That's another one of the many interesting angles here: CNN will say whatever the WH wants them to say without checking the facts. Do you think this is the first and only time they've done that? I don't.

This sort of remings me of Al Capone going down for tax evasion. Can you believe CNN's credibility has been (almost irrefutably) destroyed beyond repair over a comedy segment on the David Letterman Show????

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Add this to Blitzer's nonsensical on-air explanation,

in response to Krugman's piece, about WH sources and Richard Clarke's personal life, and I think CNN has a "credibility problem" --

[DeepModem Mom]

19. From a previous post, transcript of Wolf backtracking --

Eschaton's CNN transcript of Wolf's response to Krugman's column:

BLITZER (3/30/04): Last Wednesday, while I was debriefing our senior White House correspondent, John King, I asked him if White House officials were suggesting there were some weird aspects to Richard Clarke's life. Clarke, of course, is the former counter-terrorism adviser who has sharply criticized the president's handling of the war on terror. I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I was simply seeking to flesh out what Bush National Security Council spokesman Jim Wilkinson had said on this program two days earlier.

WILKINSON (videotape): Let me also point something. If you look in this book, you find interesting things such as reported in the Washington Post this morning. He's talking about how he sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden and how bin Laden has some sort of mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of X-Files stuff. And what I'd say is, this is a man who was in charge of terrorism, Wolf, who was supposed to be focused on that. And he was focused on meetings.

BLITZER: Other than that, John Kerry (sic) reported White House officials were not talking about Clarke's personal life in any way. Lou Dobbs Tonight starts right now.


(Note, this from transcript above: "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called UNNAMED WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.")


Now the transcript of Wolf's original statement that Krugman referred to in his column:

BLITZER (question to King, Wednesday, 3/24/04): What ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president. Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?


Must have been Wolf's nervousness trying to pull off that lame excuse that caused him to misspeak and refer to WH correspondent John King, as John Kerry --

[tridim]

11. I hope Letterman exploits this fully

He hasn't disappointed yet. We're going on three days now of Letterman calling CNN and the WH liars, which they are. He's also joking that he'll probably be 'taken out' by WH thugs. The best part of this whole thing is that there would have never been another word spoken about the tape if Rove hadn't had his little hissy fit and called the CNN brass to complain. Rove is an idiot.

[GregW]

12. Dupe

[KoKo]

20. yes, sorry..alg0912 types faster than I do....

:D

[AP]

13. It's amazing that CNN, in the coverup, is willing to sacrifice their own

credibility in order to protect the white house.

Of course, they've been doing this since 2001 (and before that, they sacrificed their own credibility to attack the white house), but it's still stunning to see.

It's amazing that they are claiming they said something on the air that wasn't true at all, and it's amazing that they're so clearly lying when they say that.

Bend over, huh?

Defining "media whore" 24 hours a day, sevend days a week.

[Jacobin]

17. I didn't realize they had any credibility left to sacrifice.

:shrug:

These whores have no virginity left to be lost.

[AP]

18. Yeah, I guess the stakes weren't very high in the first place.

But the fact is, they do trade on a perceived credibility. If they didn't, they'd just play Friends reruns all day long.

The value in CNN is that peopel believe what they say.

[tandot]

14. I really would like to know WHO told her that the WH called

That person should be asked why he/she is making up sh*t or, name the person from the WH who called.