When in doubt, blame Clinton

When the Bush White House was confronted with questions about an unprecedented purge of eight U.S. Attorneys, one of the key responses was, “Clinton did it, too.” It was false, Bush aides knew it was false, but they used it anyway.

Now the same officials are confronted with questions about an unprecedented initiative from Karl Rove’s office to give blatantly partisan campaign briefings to 15 federal agencies, on government property, shortly before the 2006 elections, despite a federal law prohibiting these kinds of activities. What’s the new excuse? Take a wild guess.

During yesterday’s press briefing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino resisted answering any questions about why the administration thought it necessary to give political briefings to appointees at federal agencies, and whose idea it was to hold them.

When one reporter asked Perino whether the briefings were a “White House idea, initially, or was it the agencies,” Perino dodged the question and replied that “the Clinton administration had similar briefings.”

Perino’s “Clinton did it too” is wrong. Bush White House officials went to federal agencies on at least 20 occasions and conducted private briefings for large groups of political appointees. They gave presentations focusing on “Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election.” The Hatch Act explicitly prohibits the use of federal property for partisan political purposes.

Fortunately, ThinkProgress has better sources than I do, and contacted Doug Sosnik, Clinton’s Director of Political Affairs, directly. Sosnik explained, “We never went to agencies and briefed political appointees.” In fact, no one in the Clinton administration — from Sosnik’s office or anywhere else — ever conducted similar briefings for federal employees.

It appears that, for the second time in as many weeks, Perino simply made it up, fabricating a story to get herself out of a jam. It’s called “lying.”

Ironically, on Monday, Perino praised Alberto Gonzales and Kyle Sampson for their testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the dozens of questions they couldn’t answer due to an allegedly faulty memory. “[W]hat would have been dishonorable is if they had made [answers] up,” Perino said.

Dishonorable, indeed.

Lest anyone think I’m taking Perino out of context, here’s the relevant portion of yesterday’s briefing from the official White House transcript.

Q Okay, on the political briefings, there seems — there’s no shortage of political information out there. Why does the White House feel it’s necessary to give these employees these briefings in the first place?

MS. PERINO: I think that’s kind of ridiculous question. I mean, there’s — sorry, I usually don’t say those things, but I do think that that one was. Look, there is nothing wrong with political appointees providing other political appointees with an informational briefing about the political landscape in which they are working.

Q I understand. That’s not an answer, as ridiculous as the question was.

MS. PERINO: What, you think that we should just look at the CBS/New York Times poll and make our decisions based on that?

Q It’s 20 briefings –

MS. PERINO: Jim would agree.

Q Well, I’m trying to get to the motivation for this, and it’s 20 briefings –

MS. PERINO: The motivation is to provide people information.

Q But why? Why do they need this information –

MS. PERINO: Why are you asking me these questions? You’re asking information, as well.

Q No, no, but –

MS. PERINO: My point was that you’re asking –

Q Was there any intent to try to tell people that they need to do something about the election, and to take some action?

MS. PERINO: These are information — they’re informational briefings about the political landscape.

Q Okay, so there was — there was no intent to do that? Who — did they ask for the briefings, or was it the White House that decided they wanted to give these briefings?

MS. PERINO: I think it sort of goes both ways. I do know that political appointees around the government — I used to work at an agency, and you are interested in — the reason that you’re here working for the President is that you want to support his policies and his agenda, and so it’s good to get information from time to time.

Q Well, who’s idea — it was the White House idea, initially, or was it the agencies?

MS. PERINO: I think that these briefings — well, I know the Clinton administration had similar briefings. Where did they originate? I don’t know. I couldn’t give you a date.

The Bush White House has an honesty problem.

“The Bush White House has an honesty problem.”

I’m shocked, shocked, to hear of dishonesty from this administration.
I do a much better Claude Rains than Bogart.

  • Perino’s habit of talking out of her a** when a question arises that she has no answer to is going to get this WH in more trouble than it already is in.

  • This WH crowd is truly pathetic. They represent the ilk that actively worked through the 90s to bring forth all that seemed “Clinton as Anti-Christ,” and now, they wish to use him as a benchmark excusing their ill-begotten political behavior. And, what bad behavior these dudes at the WH have been involved! I know their parents, if they were around, would take them out to the wood shed and knock some common sense into them. As Tenet noted earlier today, they have no honor! -Kevo

  • Seriously. Did she expect us to believe that, after an era that had Dan Burton investigating the White House for using staffers to answer fan mail addressed to Socks the cat, we wouldn’t all have heard about the Clinton briefings before, if they’d existed?

    Dana needs to bring up her game a couple notches – she’s not even up to Scott McClellan level.

  • Dana “squirrel eater” Perino: “…I know the Clinton administration had similar briefings…”

    Time for carp-breath to fork over an example. I’m betting she’s using a definition of “similar” that is exclusively reserved for Republicans. See, if you stretch the word properly, you could include Clinton doing a campaign speech in a neighboring state.

    And she would never lie to us, nosiree. That would be dishonest!

  • I’m so tired of this administration that hates the people of this nation so much for our desire to just get some truth. What I want to know about Perino is did she say ANYTHING at the press gaggle that anyone could say is honestly the truth? I have serious doubts about that.

  • MS. PERINO: I think that these briefings — well, I know the Clinton administration had similar briefings. Where did they originate? I don’t know. I couldn’t give you a date.

    Where did they originate? Who knows?! Whose idea was it to purge the AGs? Who knows?! Saddam didn’t have any WMD. Who knew?! Haiburton is feeding our troops rotten food and tainted water? Who knew?!

    When it comes to responsibility and accountability, they don’t know shit. But when it comes to shredding evidence, they’re the best in the business. IMPEACH the scum! http://www.a28.org

  • Rage and frustration tend to be my usual reaction to this administration. Lately, though, I’ve found solace in the hope that they’ve gone too far. My vision is of a GOP with no credibility. The word “Republican” will cause derisive laughter and scorn, while being synonymous with “despicable piece of shit”. The R party may never recover from the damage, and I expect a lot more fetid little episodes will be uncovered in the weeks to come.
    I kinda like to wrap my mind around the thought that these people sought single-party rule 4-evar, and may get it yet… Just the wrong party- ha ha!
    (I’d post more often, but I only get the answer right about half the time.)

  • I certainly agree with my fellow CB bloggers, the George W. Bush administration has a credibility problem that is situated at its core. It, I hope, would lead to indictments and prison sentences for those guilty of acts of malfeasance. This administration is rotten to its core and should be held accountable.

  • We all agree I think that Republicans are slime….but all one has to say to the “unwashed” voters is…gay marriage… and they vote for the slime!

  • The most compelling bit of evidence that the Clinton administration was not as cravenly political as the Bush administration: I’ve never heard of “Doug Sosnik, Clinton’s Director of Political Affairs” until just now.

    But we’ve all heard of his counterpart, Karl Rove.

  • When are Democrats going to get behind a bill that holds the press more accountable?

  • “[W]hat would have been dishonorable is if they had made [answers] up,” Perino said.

    Ummmm, Dana… It would have been ILLEGAL for Sampson and Gonzales to have made answers up. It was unquestionably dishonorable for Alberto Gonzales to claim faulty memory throughout his testimony.

    Here we see again the Bush Administration confusing ethics and honor with criminal conviction.

  • By constantly blaming the Clinton administration, the Bushies are not only pretending to mask their own illegal actions but they are reminding the public of the bad side of the Clinton administration. It is a very convenient lie.

  • “MS PERINO: Look, there is nothing wrong with political appointees providing other political appointees with an informational briefing about the political landscape in which they are working.”

    No, you look. There is something very wrong and highly illegal when they use Government facilities and resources during the workday when they are supposed to be conducting Government business to do so. It is even worse when they use a Government agency to conduct it’s business in a manner that deliberately rewards Rs and punishes Ds as they obviously intended to do. And if they are willing to do this with GSA, why would we believe that they wouldn’t do the same with DOJ?

    As disgusted as I am by the craven lies and misdeeds of this misadministration, I am equally disgusted with the inability of the White House Press Corps (Helen Thomas excepted) to simply ask the right questions to expose the lies.

  • What I find most offensive is the Tony Snow dodge Perino uses – ‘Why are you asking me these questions? You’re asking information, as well.”

    There’s no reason for the head of the GSA to be receiving a poltical briefing. The GSA is not an extension of the RNC. Their job is not to win elections for the RNC.

    Perino’s approach here, similar to Tony Snow’s, is classic bullsh**. She doesn’t know if what she’s saying is true. She’s probably pretty sure it’s not. But’s she’s going to say it anyway. She just wants to hold the press at bay and scuttle out the door.

    As for ““[W]hat would have been dishonorable is if they had made [answers] up,” Perino said.” as Plooger points out, that would have been illegal. What’s striking is she and the White House are trying to depict Gonzlaes showing up and giving evasive answers as some great, grand, noble concession. “Come on, guys! What do you want? The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from the Attorney General of the United States? You never held Clinton to those standards!”

  • She must have known it was a lie. A lie that would be exposed within hours. H.Clinton is running for the presidency, after all. And if, by fat chance, her lie wasn’t intentional, she should expose the person who lied to her, and apologize to the American people for giving them a bum steer. The American people, mind you, and not to the yipping chihuahuas of the ridiculous White house press corps. Finally, if she possesses a shred of integrity, she will thereupon resign.

    Which brings us back to the fact that she must have known it was a lie….

  • Speaking of the AG, when is anyone going to catch on to the implication of their infamous statement that the US attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the President” . Doesn’t this imply that the PRESIDENT fired these people and make him responsible for this unethical, if not illegal action? Isn’t this alone an impeachable action?

    If the Pres. didn’t authorize them to be fired, then Alberto fired them without the authority to do so and should be fired for that alone.

  • Comments are closed.