When it comes to the CIA’s destruction of video footage of U.S. torture of detainees, the White House, on the advice of counsel, has stopped commenting. At yesterday’s press briefing, Dana Perino wouldn’t budge.<\/p>\n
The president, however, is in charge, and can comment on anything he wants to comment on. ABC News asked Bush<\/a> a few questions about the controversy.<\/p>\n ABC News’ Martha Raddatz Reports: In an exclusive interview with ABC News President Bush said Tuesday he did not know about the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations.<\/p>\n The President said he was told just a few days ago.<\/p>\n “My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they were destroyed was when [CIA Director] Michael Hayden briefed me,” Bush said.<\/p>\n “There’s a preliminary inquiry going on and I think you’ll find that a lot more data, facts will be coming out,” he said, “that’s good. It will be interesting to know what the true facts are.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Regrettably, I think it’s fair to say we’ve reached a point in which most of Bush’s comments should reflexively be perceived as false, particularly when it comes to controversies that are currently under investigation, as this one is.<\/p>\n But even beyond the simplistic “Bush is dishonest” tack, there’s ample reason for skepticism here. Indeed, the Bush gang was integrally involved<\/a> in this process.<\/p>\n Lauer asked Kiriakou where the permission was given to carry out torture. \u201cWas the White House involved in that decision?\u201d Lauer asked. \u201cAbsolutely,\u201d Kiriakou said, adding:<\/p>\n “This isn\u2019t something done willy nilly. It\u2019s not something that an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he\u2019s going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner. This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, I suspect most reasonable people can agree that Bush is probably not much of a micro-manager. Just because his senior aides and top intelligence officials knew about the torture and the torture tapes doesn’t necessarily mean the president knew anything about them. (Even if he was told, he likely would have said, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now<\/a>….”)<\/p>\n
\n
\nFor one thing, Bush may claim to have just learned about the existence of the torture tapes, but his White House — and his White House counsel<\/a> — has been aware of them for years<\/a>.<\/p>\n