The President's Blame Game Comes Tumbling Down

[paineinthearse]

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000237.htm

Blogged by JC on 09.13.05 @ 03:37 PM ET

The President's Blame Game Comes Tumbling Down

You may recall that late last week I asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to evaluate whether the State of Louisiana made the necessary and timely requests required under federal law to receive federal disaster relief resources. As you know, in the aftermath of Katrina, we have witnessed a string of shameless attempts by the White House and right wing spinners to pin the blame on the Louisana Governor and thereby evade accountability for the President's inaction. Included in this litany has been the blatant falsehood, reported as fact by the Washington Post, that Blanco had belatedly declared a State of Emergency.

The Congressional Research Service provided me with their answer last night. The Governor did everything she was supposed to do and did so in a timely fashion. Jesse Lee of the DCCC and Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo have more.

Why all the spin over the last few days about Katrina? Why all the deceit over the past few years about so many things? From Day One, this Administration decided that they would spin, lie and smear rather than admit a mistake. Harsh? Maybe. But I didn't say it first -- conservative NY Times columnist
David Brooks did.

View video at http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120003

September 11 edition of NBC's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, New York Times columnist David Brooks revealed that he has learned from private conversations with Bush officials who "represent" what "Bush believes" that from its earliest days, the Bush administration adopted a policy of shielding itself from political damage by never publicly admitting any mistake -- even if it meant lying to the media and the American public. The fact that Bush doesn't admit mistakes has been reported by the media for years. For instance, in the September 11 edition of The New York Times, David Sanger reported, "Mr. Bush, his aides acknowledge, is loath to fire members of his administration or to take public actions that are tantamount to an admission of a major mistake." Brooks himself has previously noted the Bush administration's unwillingness to admit to mistakes. But what Brooks's September 11 account adds is that Bush is being intentionally dishonest -- in Brooks's words, "totally tactical and totally insincere" -- in resisting such public admissions and in blaming others when failures are too obvious to deny.

Moreover, on the Matthews Show, Brooks disclosed that "from Day One," the Bush White House "decided our public relations is not going to be honest," and that "privately they admit mistakes all the time." Brooks's revelation would appear to be of major significance, particularly in light of recent attempts by Bush administration officials to shift culpability in the Hurricane Katrina disaster away from the White House. But while he claimed on the Matthews show to have debated this strategy with administration officials "since Day One" -- indicating that he has known about it from the beginning -- a review of his columns and television appearances since Katrina struck reveals that Brooks has refrained from telling viewers and readers that the administration's campaign to rehabilitate its public image over the poor handling of the Katrina crisis by blaming others was apparently another manifestation of this dishonest strategy.

Knowing this strategy earlier might have provided readers and viewers with additional insight into an incident regarding a September 4 Washington Post article that prompted Media Matters for America president and CEO David Brock to write to the Post ombudsman. In that letter, dated September 6, Brock questioned the September 4 article's reliance on a quote from an anonymous "senior Bush official" falsely claiming that "s of Saturday , Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency." The Post ran a correction noting that Blanco had in fact declared a state of emergency on August 26. But in that correction the Post did not explain why it had relied on an anonymous administration source to report a fact that could have been easily checked, nor did it note reports that blaming Blanco was part of an administration strategy to deflect blame off of Bush and the federal government for the catastrophic situation in New Orleans.

In his September 11 column, acknowledging Media Matters' letter and "hundreds of critical e-mails, many of them undoubtedly provoked" by the letter, Post ombudsman Michael Getler wrote, "The outlines of the criticism were valid." But, responding to Media Matters' suggestion that the senior Bush official's lie might have constituted a justification for disclosing the source, Getler quoted assistant managing editor Liz Spayd saying, "It's impossible for us to read the person's mind to really know" if that person was "intentionally misleading us." Had the Post been armed with Brooks's September 11 revelation that lying was part of the administration's PR strategy, the paper would have had a pretty strong reason to think that the source was, in fact, lying.

more......

[paineinthearse]

1. Perplexed

"Recommend Topic for Greatest Page (3 votes)", yet not one comment.

Very odd.

[Nye Bevan]

2. I do that sometimes

when I think a post is interesting enough that it deserves more exposure (like this one) but either do not have anything worthwhile to add or do not have time to post a reply (often when I am at work).

[Coexist]

5. me too. eom

[Stephanie]

9. If you throw in a question, you will get more responses.

[dooner]

13. It's so disgusting that there's really nothing more to add!

No huge surprise, yet the arrogance and deceit leaves one speechless.
What more is there to say? Yep, we always knew they were a bunch of lying asshats?




edit by dooner to fix typo

[paineinthearse]

3. Write the NYT public editor

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

Word From the Public Editor: Everything readers send to our mailbox will be read by me or my associate, Joseph Plambeck. If a reply is appropriate, you will hear from us shortly. If you do not wish your message to be relayed to other editors and reporters or published, please let us know. When referring to a specific article please include its date, section and headline.

Unfortunately, because of the volume of mail from readers, we cannot do research for the public or provide general contact information. You can find the e-mail addresses for many reporters, editors and departments by sending a request to [e-mail] or [e-mail]. Readers are welcome to send reports of errors that warrant correction directly to the newsroom at [e-mail], but such e-mails may also be sent to the public editor's e-mail address below.

You can find the answers to many questions about The Times from the FAQ's below. If you are having technical problems with NYTimes.com, please send your inquiries to [e-mail]. If you are having a problem with a subscription to The Times please call customer care:
1-800-NYTIMES/1-800-698-4637.

CONTACT
• E-mail: [e-mail]
• Phone: [phone]
• Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959

[paineinthearse]

4. See Catrina's poignent post at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4759483#4760648

[Nothing Without Hope]

6. Recommended - and also see this supporting thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1778603
thread title: Memo -Chertoff delayed federal response

The non-relief effort was run out of the White House. Brown had to go, clearly - he shouldn't have been there in the first place - but we can't let them get away with only scapegoating him and saying it wasn't Bush's fault. One by one, we will have to block efforts to point the finger away from the White House, where it belongs.

This time there are documents, tracks, evidence that can't be buried. This time the crime was so widespread, with so many witnesses and so much step-by-step record-keeping that they WILL NOT ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY if we all continue to press.

John Conyers Jr. continues to show us all what just one US representative can do with will, integrity, spirit, and support.

[fooj]

7. Recycled "talking points"...they have no shame.

"I would simply say this: First place, I'm not going to participate in the blame game, nor is Governor Chiles. What we're trying to do is help people."

George H.W. Bush, New York Times Page 1, 28 August 1992.
Spoken at news conference in response to criticism of the relief efforts in the aftermath of hurricane Andrew.


Peace.

[Marnieworld]

8. kicking

[EVDebs]

10. Being irresponsible is not taking responsibility seriously. Ergo...

The Republicans will not take criticism or responibility for their actions, however ill conceived even at the planning stages let alone completion stages !

Irresponsible petulant fools come to mind as adjectives for this crowd in power right now. Any other descriptive adjectives, DUers, feel free to add to the list !

[Catrina]

14. I'm torn between thinking of them as

grossly and criminally incompetent, or accepting the horrible fact that when Bush asked Nancy Pelosi 'What went wrong'? he was genuinely puzzled, forgetting for a moment, that she might not be privy to the neocon ideology of 'creative destruction' and then the even more creative reconstruction. Iow, that it was none of those things when the entire administration 'stood down' while NO was drowning, but rather part of a plan, aided by the hurricane, for the Gulf Coast, and all they had to do was wait long enough for anarchy to break out, which would give them the support of the American people to move in the military, and take over the whole region.

What Bush means by what went right (the disaster itself) and what went wrong (it dawned on him that the 'natives' didn't act as they were supposed to and they were getting sympathy, not in the plans) is probably not at all what rational people would naturally think he means.

The OP refers again to Brooks revelations on the Chris Matthews Show that they will never admit to making mistakes yet, never wrote about this in his various columns.

That is puzzling, although it seems, assuming that Brooks is a neocon himself, or at least an admirer of their ideology, that from time to time, they are open about their tactics. I'm thinking of Wolfowitz, eg, admitting that they 'settled on WMDs' because it was the most likely excuse that would be accepted regarding going to war in Iraq.

While Brooks may not have written about what he now says he knew, other neocons have not been shy about telling the world what they believe ~

Wolfowitz'a revelations should have caused outrage in the press, but they were barely mentioned. Ledeen's writings, being that he is a close adviser to Bush, should frighten the press into at least making the public aware of them. But none of this has happened and the question is 'why'?

Imo, the press (maybe not all reporters) works with and for them ~ either that or they are frightened to reveal what they know, fearful of the reaction of the American people were the whole truth to be told?

I disagree, if that's their reasoning and lean more towards the media being owned by big business ~ still, surely there are some who are as frightened by this administration as we are? I really don't know the answer ~ but in light of all we, ordinary people, know, I assume they know a lot more. Maybe it's what we don't know, that explains the silence and, maybe fear? Maybe it's much worse than we know ~ I hope not ~ but I can't explain why these major stories have not been covered!!

[cliss]

15. Nice post. I agree.

I used to wonder about their real modus operandi a lot. It used to drive me crazy: Are they really as incompetent as they seem, or is it really a plot to fool us into thinking they are stupid, but in fact they are cunning? I used to get enraged, just trying to figure it out. I'm willing to estimate about 25% of my posts have dealt with this issue.

I know a lot of other people have puzzled about it too. That was the real beauty of finding the DU: I discovered I was not alone.

Now as far as them being Idiots or Idiot Savants: They're idiots. Trust me on this one. They may seem cunning, clever, full of tricks. How do I know? I looked into their past. It was the only way to know for sure.

Cheney is no genius. He's made a ton of mistakes. But he has the tenacity of a cockroach: you can't get rid of him. Same thing with RumsFailed. he's no Einstein, but he does have A TON of greedy contractors behind him, pushing him up to the crest of the wave of success. he's actually quite mediocre.

NOW on to Bush. Need I say more? How about, brain-damaged alcoholic, coke sniffer, severely mentally impaired evil sleazoid. If Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum (Cheney & Rum) have the war machine propelling them to success, Bush has a life preserver.

They are simply maintained by the war machinery that is feeding at the public trough.

[EVDebs]

16. Yes, the dear media. Operation Mockingbird readily comes to mind

as does the Army's PsyOps with CNN (see CNN and PsyOps by counterpunche's Alexander Cockburn and google Op Mockingbird, the CIA's media manipulation project).

You'd think the CIA and the military would be prohibited from doing most of these domestic operations, huh ? Oh, silly me, they already are but no one does anything about it.

[Independent_Liberal]

11. Kick!

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. That's why he prefers to

investigate what went right! He and his sidekicks make ostriches seem visionary. "Simplistic" doesn't begin to characterise their thought processes, does it? My, but what leaders of men they make! As the the saying goes, when things get tough, the tough get going! Trouble is, it's in the opposite direction.