Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports
May 18, 2001 9:23 AM   Subscribe

No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports "The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted. "
posted by owillis (18 comments total)

 
I'll just bet that somehow the major news organizations manage to not report this part of the story. Follow-up news is exceedingly rare in the first place, and with the free ride Dubya and Crew are getting, this'll only get small play.
posted by briank at 9:52 AM on May 18, 2001


And I was hoping to find some W keys on ebay.
posted by Doug at 9:57 AM on May 18, 2001


Its riduclous. I can remember several people swearing this story was true.
The rumors spread quicker than the truth.

It remind me of the Proctor and Gamble is Satanist hoax that Amway (big friends of Repubs) reps were spreading about the company in a hope to boost sales among Christians.

Or the rumor that spread that Janet Reno said anyone who believed in God was a "cultist"
posted by brucec at 9:58 AM on May 18, 2001


I don't know. The "free ride' story itself is starting to get some legs, even though it's still mostly inside baseball.

Fox is egregious, embarassing. It was less obvious when Clinton was in because, after all, they were playing a more legitimate role of criticizing the government. Now as the chief suckhole network in charge, with the increasingly ridiculous job of slandering the previous administration by way of providing favorable contrast, Murdock's team of smear artists look more and more outrageous.

Tony Snow is no more a journalist than Karl Rove is.
posted by steve_high at 10:07 AM on May 18, 2001


The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.

Why doesn't that read "The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a bald-faced lie concocted by the President of United States and his lackeys in an effort to distract the American people from the controversial fashion in which he ascended to the Presdiency"?

...oops, I'm sorry. Did I say that out loud?
posted by jpoulos at 10:08 AM on May 18, 2001


GSA didn't bother to nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive.

stikes me as being a fairly dismissive blanket statement. odd, no? or maybe not.

and i'd expect this to get about as much coverage as the media's recount results.

a bald-faced lie concocted by the President of United States and his lackeys

i'd find it interesting if you could dig up some support for that statement. or is the president suddenly responsible for every word that comes out of his supporter's mouth? hell, the last president wouldn't even take responsibility for his own actions.
posted by fuzzygeek at 10:31 AM on May 18, 2001


jpoulos: as a side effect of the unfreezing process, you have no inner monologue. It will return with time.
posted by OneBallJay at 10:32 AM on May 18, 2001


Bob Barr, who instigated the GSA's investigation, has issued a full-page retraction in the Washington Post, with an apology for wasting the taxpayers' money on frivolous scandal mongering.

Yeah, right.

As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, Bush is apparently innocent of spreading the rumors. In fact, according to the Post's story, he maintained all along that the allegations were false.
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:18 PM on May 18, 2001


I can remember several people swearing this story was true.

I think we should give credit where credit is due: Aaron and Dreama bought this dubious story hook, line and sinker even after Bush himself denied it. Congratulations, my Republican buddies ... you've been drudged.
posted by rcade at 12:45 PM on May 18, 2001


I'd just like to say "boo-ya!". Thank you. :)
posted by owillis at 1:24 PM on May 18, 2001


Yeah, because when normally reputable news sources publish stories, I know I'm inclined to dismiss them out of hand. Thank goodness my liberal omniscience allows me to be smug along with everyone else here!

I still remember the first time I voted liberal. The second I filled in that empty circle on the ballet, I suddenly knew EVERYTHING that was going on, and was able to completely disregard the normal ways of learning what's happening in the world.

Phew!
posted by cCranium at 1:54 PM on May 18, 2001


I think we should give credit where credit is due:

We've all believed some dubious story hook, line, and sinker. And we all know what it's like to have people point at us when we did. It's not very pleasant. I'm going to bet everyone in here has been wrong before. I hope no one's keeping tabs like this on me.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:58 PM on May 18, 2001


Yeah, because when normally reputable news sources publish stories, I know I'm inclined to dismiss them out of hand.

First off, Aaron posted the story here based on items in the Drudge Report, not a "normally reputable" source.

When Dreama jumped on board along with every conservative and almost every pundit in America, the mainstream media was basing the entire story on quotes from nameless Republicans in the White House. No one was willing to go on record with any of these claims (and, as it turned out, there was a good reason).

Nothing personal (well, a little), but people were willing to accept highly dubious news reporting on faith because it suited their politics and helped Bush score some points with the unwashed masses.

I hate that, and if people want to serve up some crow for any of the times I've been suckered by a dubious news item, be my guest. It shouldn't be too difficult -- I voted for Ross Perot in 1992, which speaks volumes about my gullibility.
posted by rcade at 2:25 PM on May 18, 2001


Stupid things I've said here (first in a series -- collect them all):



So, um, when is aaron going to post his retraction or apology?


Or how about how so many Clinton-haters bought- hook, line, and sinker- that nice bit of spin from Ari Fleischer, saying they wouldn't prosecute because they were trying to change the tone in Washington? Isn't this a classic Bush (Senior and Junior) maneuver- someone else does the dirty work, spreading rumors or making attack ads, then act "above the fray"? To his credit, Bush did say at the time that they reports were exaggerated, but that's the point I suppose- with the heavy conservative media bias, the President doesn't need to ever say anything himself...


Man, now I'm in full frothing-at-the-mouth mode... must be this whole Olson debacle going on....
posted by hincandenza at 9:36 PM on May 18, 2001



with the heavy conservative media bias

hee-hee!
posted by jpoulos at 6:20 PM on May 19, 2001


rcade: , the mainstream media was basing the entire story on quotes from nameless Republicans in the White House.

First, I'll happily acknowledge that the Drudge Report isn't a good news source. But I do remember hearing the stories on the radio, seeing it on the nightly news, and reading it in many newspapers, so I don't think it's especially astounding that anyone believed it.

I'd list the stupid things I've done or said here at MeFi too, but that would take me a good week.

So, um, when is aaron going to post his retraction or apology?

For what? For posting a link?
posted by cCranium at 7:20 AM on May 20, 2001


attempting to close the UL.
posted by cCranium at 7:20 AM on May 20, 2001


« Older The Flip Side of Radical Environmentalism...  |  'Pope hit by meteor' sculpture... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments