‘The credibility about position changes is kind of suspect’

November 13, 2006

I don’t mean to belabor the point about Bush lying to reporters on keeping Rumsfeld around — the president got caught in a whopper, but it’s a personnel question, where whoppers are largely expected — but there’s one last point to consider here: ongoing credibility problems.

Bush had told the AP that he wanted Rumsfeld to remain on the job until the end of his presidency. We later found out that the president had already decided to replace him when he said that, and he acknowledged that he lied to reporters in order to “get you on to another question.”

Similarly, in May, Bush was asked if then-Treasury Secretary John Snow intended to resign. The president was unequivocal: “No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he’s doing a fine job.” Five days earlier, Snow had already resigned, and the president had already chosen his replacement.

Kevin makes a very reasonable case that there’s basically an understanding between the establishment and the media that personnel issues are distinct from policy issues — bogus denials about pending resignations aren’t unusual. It’s a fair point, and it’s likely the Rumsfeld-dismissal lie has been overblown a bit.

But I think the interesting angle is that, going forward, the White House press corps is now skeptical about everything the Bush gang says about personnel matters. Consider, for example, the most recent press briefing.

Q Tony, in the last couple of days I asked you about change in the makeup of the White House. Now there are reports saying that Alphonso Jackson is slated to be removed (inaudible) someone else….

MR. SNOW: The question is whether — there are rumors that Alphonso Jackson is going to be removed as HUD Secretary; they’re absolutely false.

Q So has the President talked to Alphonso Jackson to tell him he has every confidence in him?

MR. SNOW: Alphonso has been reassured that he is going to remain the HUD Secretary.

Q Hold on, Tony, I’m not finished, I’m sorry. With — I hate to say —

MR. SNOW: So I — well, let me — but this is important because this is a rumor that is utterly baseless, it was making the rounds, a lot of people were chasing it around, and it has no foundation in fact.

Q But, Tony, I hate to say this, but the credibility about position changes is kind of suspect. So —

MR. SNOW: I don’t think so.

I think “the credibility about position changes is kind of suspect” is, perhaps, the most diplomatic way of saying “you guys lie about personnel changes” possible. And for Snow to argue that they don’t have a credibility problem is rather amusing. He seems to lie about personnel issues and lie about lying about personnel issues with equal ease.

Yesterday, NBC’s David Gregory acknowledged that Bush “deliberately misled those reporters.”

I don’t imagine the press corps will forget it.

The press corps needs to learn a new word. It’s a really easy word to learn. It’s an even easier word to use.

That word is “VERIFY.”

Example: “Tony, can you verify that?”

Another example: “Tony, can the President verify that?”

A third example: “Tony, we’ll print it once you verify it.”

Just one, teensie-weensie word—and they back SnowFlake into a corner.

Can you say “checkmate,” boys and girls?

Good. I knew you could….

  • From down east humor to the southwestern brag, lying is part of our heritage. We don’t like it, but we flirt with it all the time – arriving late, missing a date, doing the wrong thing – all times we may take liberty with the truth. As lies become more effective, we employ them even more. Remember the mushroom cloud over a major American city proffered by Ms. Rice leading up to the Iraq debacle? What a lie! Now that one should really bother us as we have now wasted time, money, energy, not to mention lives (both combative and civilian). Yes, lying is wrong, but it is what I’ve come to witness from our policy-makers for along time now. Not having sex with that woman is inconsequental compared to the lies that led us into Iraq.

    I guess you know my position on impeachment. -Kevo

  • Steve,

    How does one “verify” a representation that a given cabinet member does not intend to resign? What sort of verification would be expected? Do you release a written memo to that effect, or what? And how would such a memo be any more reliable than the president’s (or Snow’s) word?

    That aside, this doesn’t strike me as a particularly big deal. We might question the president’s strategy in holding off on Rumsfeld’s departure until the day after the election (CB had a great post on that last week), but we can hardly expect any administration, Democratic or Republican, to abstain from the occasional falsehood to deflect an inconvenient question that would derail the strategic timing of a planned announcement. Bush might have been better off simply declining to comment (though that in itself would have had virtually the same effect as an acknowledgment of Rumsfeld’s imminent departure), but before we get too indignant that he would dare to mislead the American people in such a manner, let’s remember that no president is going to feel comfortable announcing the pending resignation of a cabinet member in response to a reporter’s unexpected question. We don’t want to make such an issue of this that the Republicans can suggest hypocrisy when the next Democratic president does something similar in a few years.

  • Why can’t Tony Snow tell the truth and say

    “It is the policy of this administration, and of virtuall all previous administrations, to not comment about personnel changes. Obviously, the President is giving his full backing to all of the people working for them at this point and we will announce changes in personnel when we feel it is appropriate.”

    Why should the press corp expect any administration to tell the truth about private decisions?

  • This demonstrates something I mentioned in relation to the Rumsfeld lie, which is that that blatant lying has a corrosive effect. Suppose there’s some official in the White House whose credibility is being undermined by a rumor campaign saying that official is about to be fired. The White House needs to be able to shoot down the rumor campaign or that official will be weakened. But they can’t do it because they openly lied about other similar situations in the past.

    This White House’s credibility is in an advanced state of decay, leaving them with few options for pushing their preferred narrative. They mouth it, reporters write it down, but no one believes it. It’s kind of like the last days of the Soviet Union.

  • On the surface it looks a bit silly, but it’s also a good way to finish marginalizing the worst president ever. Keep pounding the meme that Bush is a LIAR, because that’s the one thing he can’t overcome, except by telling the truth for an extended period of time, which we all know he can’t do.

    Simple examples like Rumsfaild’s resignation are the best, because even the hacks can’t bring themselves to say it wasn’t a lie. Next time Bush says anything, just ask if he’s lying this time or not. (No, there’s no way for him to prove he isn’t, that’s not the point of the question)

  • I’d like to see Snow kick it up a notch – deny he ever said “I don’t think so” – that would make it lying about lying about lying about personnel issues. That’s when I stand up and applaud.

  • It’s great to see what would ordinarily be considered an expectable lie turned into something big. I think it allows the press to subtly call Bush a liar. Because let’s face it, he lies, but no one wants to be the one to call him on over something vital. Now they can and it’s sinking in. The press knows it and that’s why it’s getting so much air time.

  • The thing is, I’m fairly sure that Bush was still lying about this, as I don’t think they were going to replace Rumsfeld unless they lost Congress. But Bush couldn’t explain that the reason they wanted to keep him was because they didn’t want a new guy nosing around unnecessarily, but realized that a Dem Congress was going to investigate the stuff anyway, and that they’d rather not have Rummy around once the subpoenas start flying. So they decided to take a gamble and do nothing until after the election.

    Just because I like to pimp myself so much, here’s my link where I explain this in more detail.

  • Yes, James—make the bastages put it in writing. There’s an old military axiom” “AVO.” It stands for “Avoid Verbal Orders.”

    If it’s in writing, then they cannot deny it.

    But it has to come in writing directly from the administration. Nothing works when “someone else” 9in this case, the media) puts it in writing for them. They just bail with the “I never wrote that.” They play the game with nuances, vagaries, and shadows.

    This administration is about as dependable as a mechanical fortune teller. You put in your dime, and gat a card that can be interpreted any one of a dozen or so ways—and Tony Snow is that extremely vague fortune-card His only reply to the “can *** verify that” query is to say “no.”

    If it cannot be verified, then it ought not be reported as factual. However, what SHOULD be reported is that Tony Snow can not verify what he himself is presenting to the press corps—and this, in turn, can be presented as Tony Snow not knowing whether he’s telling the truth.. At the simplest of levels, it disenfranchises the White House Press Secretary—and, in turn, disenfranchises “mr. bush….”

  • Re: #1

    > A third example: “Tony, we’ll print it once you verify it.”

    Or, how about this: “Speaking on the record to reporters, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow today claimed xyz. When asked to verify this statement, Mr. Snow did not respond.”

  • This type of lie (personnel changes) seems pretty familiar to me because I encountered its ilk often in the work world – keep staff changes on the QT until the move is made. So, I do not find myself terribly exercised about it. IMO there are many meatier, more important lies that the press corps should pursue and constantly bear in mind. One example that leaps to mind is the Downing Street Memo. Finally, I have to say, CB, my imagination must be more active today than yours. I can easily imagine the press corps forgetting this lie. Or, perhaps more accurately forgetting that they remember it.

  • I don’t think lying about Rumsfeld is such a big deal (though I also think that Rummy would have stayed on, had the Repubs won in the elections). What tickles my fancy is that, at the *same time*, Bush promised job security for the next 2 yrs to *two* people — Rummy and Dead-eye. Now Rummy’s gone…

    • Comments are closed.