Post uncritically reported Norquist's claim that Abramoff did not attend May 2001 meeting with Bush
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article -- on the White House's decision not to release photos of President Bush with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- uncritically reported a claim by conservative movement leader and Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist that he does not recall Abramoff attending a 2001 White House meeting between representatives of American Indian tribes and Bush. In fact, a photo is reported to show that Abramoff attended the meeting.
In a January 24 article on the White House's decision not to release photos of President Bush with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, The Washington Post uncritically reported a claim by conservative movement leader and Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) president Grover Norquist that Abramoff apparently did not attend a May 9, 2001, White House meeting between Abramoff clients and Bush. The article, by Post staff writers Jim VandeHei and Susan Schmidt, reported as fact that it was Norquist who "arranged the event," and then uncritically noted: "In an interview, Norquist said he does not recall Abramoff being at the White House session." In fact, as the Think Progress weblog has noted, a photograph taken at the event is reported to show that Abramoff did actually attend the meeting with representatives of the Choctaw, Coushatta, and Kickapoo American Indian tribes, among others. Moreover, the Post's characterization of the meeting as arranged by Norquist is contradicted by substantial evidence that Norquist was acting at Abramoff's behest.
Contrary to the Post's uncritical reporting of Norquist's claim, apparently in an unreleased photo of the event, "Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians," according to a January 22 article in Time magazine. Time reportedly had access to the photos from an undisclosed source who declined to provide them for publication. Time went on to note: "Three attendees ... recall that Abramoff was present [at the May 9, 2001, meeting], and three of them say that's where the picture of Bush, Abramoff and the former Kickapoo chairman was taken." In addition to Time's article, the Washingtonian also reported having viewed five photographs of Bush and Abramoff together, and described one photo as showing the "President and Abramoff shaking hands at a meeting in the Old Executive Office Building, where a bearded-Abramoff introduced Bush to several of the lobbyist's native-American clients."
The Post also failed to inform readers of evidence indicating that Abramoff was the key facilitator in setting up the event. In the January 22 article, Time described an Abramoff email to the lawyer for Coushatta leader Lovelin Poncho, one of the clients who attended the meeting, in which Abramoff assured him that "[w]e'll definitely have a photo from the opportunity, which he [Poncho] can use," and gave advice on what to wear to the meeting ("probably suit and tie would work best"). In addition, according to a June 10, 2005, article in The Texas Observer, Abramoff reportedly charged two of his clients $25,000 each for the lunch and meeting with Bush. According to an Associated Press report, the tribes may not have known that their money was in part paying Abramoff for organizing the event. The report cited an attorney for the Choctaws who said Abramoff had solicited the money as a contribution to support ATR, a group that Norquist founded in 1985. The attorney also stated that, in emails sent to the Choctaws regarding the sum, there was no mention of a White House meeting. A letter from the ATR to the Coushatta tribe sent earlier this year reportedly clarified that the meeting had been an "Appreciation Event," where they could meet with Bush and House and Senate leaders.
Norquist and Abramoff have a long history of political collaboration, which reportedly began more than 25 years ago, when Norquist, a student at Harvard Business School, managed Abramoff's successful campaign for the chairmanship of the College Republican National Committee. Abramoff also acknowledged his role in Norquist's K Street Project in a May 1, 2005, New York Times Magazine article:
He [Abramoff] played a major role in ''The K Street Project,'' a Norquist-designed initiative that pressured lobbying firms to slant Republican in their hiring and donations. Public-interest watchdogs were appalled at the new level of coordination between Congress and business lobbyists, but Abramoff makes no apologies for it. ''It was my role to push the Republicans on K Street to be more helpful to the conservative movement,''
From the January 24 article in The Washington Post, titled "Photos of Bush With Abramoff Are Withheld":
In May 2001, several of Abramoff's tribal clients joined state legislators at a White House event arranged by Grover Norquist, an anti-tax lobbyist and friend of Abramoff. In an interview, Norquist said he does not recall Abramoff being at the White House session.
The item's summary cites only the Washington Post as the source of misinformation, and then quotes only two sentences of an article, of which only the phrase...
Norquist said he does not recall Abramoff being at the White House session
...is highlighted, as being, I guess, the misinformation in question.
The Washington Post article being cited is headlined (and subtitled)...
Photos of Bush With Abramoff Are Withheld White House Calls Pictures Irrelevant to Ethics Inquiry
...and rather than finding the article 'misinformative', I found just the opposite. Please allow a few excerpts for your consideration:
'White House officials have been briefed about pictures of President Bush and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff...but will not release them on grounds that they are not relevant to the ongoing money-for-favors investigation'
'Abramoff...was with Bush about a dozen times when pictures were taken by the official White House photographer or other participants'
'Abramoff has more than half a dozen photos with Bush, including one of the two men shaking hands'
'administration officials...have been caught up in the scandal, including the top procurement official. The federal probe is expected to zero in on Abramoff's dealing with the Interior Department as it unfolds in coming months'
'public photographs could damage Bush's efforts to insulate himself from a scandal that has scorched numerous other Republicans. A vivid image of Bush shaking hands and smiling with Abramoff would provide fuel for news coverage and commentary'
'Abramoff was no stranger to the Bush White House. He had served as one of Bush's top fundraisers and assisted the Interior Department during the president's transition to power in 2000'
...well, that's enough; it's a good piece, the type of stuff the administration hates to see, and typical of most of what the Washington Post publishes; I was glad I read it, and glad MMFA linked me to it.
Headline says "Norquist claims...." and then notes that Norquist does not recall. Big difference between "claim" and "recall". Ruboff is in big trouble for his illegal acts, but here, I believe, MMFA has used a pretty wide brush, fairly liberally used, to make a point.
...that Abramoff did not in fact attend the May 9th meeting with George W. Now I know where that information came from: Übber crook, Grover. You know, when you hear someone say “I don’t recall” that’s just another way of lying while maintaining verifiable deniability: i.e.: “I didn’t say he wasn’t there, I only said I didn’t recall him being there.”
And how many times over the years have we heard "I don't recall" from people from both sides of the political spectrum as well as apolitical people?
Almost two hundred times from Reagan during just one Congressional session on Iran-Contra. Hundreds of times from other GOP liars. That's how many.
Send out Grover to say he doesn't remember Abramoff being at the meeting. Then do not allow release photos of the meeting and claim they are "not germaine".
Normally, I would agree that the photos are not germaine. The President does not need to release them to the public. Especially because they only serve to damage the image of the President for completely partisan purposes.
The problem I have with that argument in the current context is that the Republicans and their fawning pundits are closely coordinated. Norquist may be counting on the administration refusal to release those photos, so he can influence public opinion falsely.
The administration is having it both ways, they are saying the photos aren't germaine, but I believe their coordination with right-wing pundits undermines that argument. The photos are in fact, germaine because of that coordination.