More lies! Some want SC nominee disinformation leaker outed by reporters

[DeepModem Mom]

Spun Silly
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 21, 2005; 8:39 AM

Did the Bush team put out misinformation on that crazy Tuesday to steer reporters away from John Roberts?

We can't answer the question definitively because the journalists involved have a Matt Cooper problem -- they promised their sources anonymity, regardless of motive. But I can tell you that some of them are ticked and feeling misled....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072100452.html


Mystery Leakers

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 22, 2005; 8:36 AM

Hey, kids, is it time to out some more confidential sources?

While the John Roberts confirmation battle is turning out to be, shall we say, not as inflammatory as might have been expected, another debate is heating up over all those reporters who relied on their informants in telling us the nominee would be Edith Clement, or Edith Jones, or whoever.

Since my column on the subject yesterday , questioning whether the Bush team was deliberately putting out disinformation, cyberspace has been buzzing about this, with some bloggers saying the reporters should blow the whistle on their inaccurate sources. (Keep in mind, though, that some of these outside Republican advisers may have been misled themselves, or just misinformed.)

Some noted a comment by NPR's Don Gonyea: "Late in the morning, a lot of reporters got calls from a confidential but persuasive source about Judge Clement." And MSNBC's Dan Abrams, while dealing with the Clement buzz, said he didn't "buy" it and speculated "that someone's leaking this, maybe as a diversion."

Kevin Drum says in the Washington Monthly: "It's obvious that a 'confidential but persuasive source' systematically called a bunch of reporters and deliberately misled them about who George Bush was planning to nominate to the Supreme Court. In fact, the calls were so systematic and deliberate that it was obviously part of a White House plan. (A fairly clever and effective one, I might add.)...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html


NOW, throw into the mix this NYT article of today, with the pretty amazing info that the WH has been working for a full YEAR to sell Roberts to "social conservatives." Was the whole decision-making process, including a long LAT article, sourced by Scotty and Dan Bartlett, on Bush's personal interviews and decision process, a charade?

NYT: A Year of Work to Sell Roberts to Conservatives
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/politics/politicsspecial1/22lobby.html

LAT: Aides Describe How President Arrived at His Choice
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-tictoc20jul20,1,5037415.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[spanone]

1. Lying is standard operating procedure for the Bush* administration.

I felt all day tuesday that they were doing their 'bait & switch' routine.

[applegrove]

2. Children - often retaliate. When they are about 5 years old.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tanyev]

4. Rip Van Winkle media.

The Bush gang has been playing them for 5 years and now they are finally waking up and realizing it. Oh, the outrage!

[Nite Owl]

5. These reporters must be more

than a little slow to be just realizing that they are being used and abused by this WH. They discount any info from the left as 'wild accusations' and now they are hopefully seeing that the wild stuff is from the right.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Or info from the left as "politics" - as if the Bush gang isn't political!

n/t