Wash. Post ignored own reporting in repeating Freeh allegation
In a December 15 article by staff writers John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum about funding for the Clinton Presidential Library, The Washington Post reported: "In an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal last year, former FBI director Louis J. Freeh said Clinton 'hit up [Saudi Arabia's head of state] Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library' during a meeting in which Freeh wanted Clinton to ask about the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing." Though the Post acknowledged that former President Clinton disputes this account, the newspaper ignored its own previous reporting in a 2005 article on Freeh's allegation about the Khobar Towers investigation that Freeh was not present at the meeting in question and had no firsthand knowledge of it. Indeed, Freeh acknowledged that "I was not in the room" for the meeting during the October 16, 2005, edition of NBC's Meet the Press. Further, beyond omitting the fact that Freeh was not in the meeting, by describing the meeting as "a meeting in which Freeh wanted Clinton to ask about the ... bombing," the Post affirmatively suggests that Freeh was there. Nor did the Post note that, as Media Matters has previously detailed, Freeh has given contradictory descriptions of the people who supposedly told him about the meeting.
Former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta rebutted Freeh's accusation -- first made in his book My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror (St. Martin's Press, 2005) and repeated in a June 25, 2006, Wall Street Journal op-ed -- in a June 30, 2006, letter to the Journal:
Mr. Freeh's major claims are that President Clinton failed to press the Saudis for cooperation in investigating the attack; that his National Security Adviser Sandy Berger objected to evidence of Iranian culpability; and that the administration was unwilling to take action against Iran.
These claims (among others) are false, and were roundly refuted when his book was released last fall. Several senior Clinton administration officials, including Mr. Berger, pressed their Saudi counterparts to assist our investigation. And on Sept. 24, 1998, President Clinton delivered a forceful message in the Oval Office to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah that the future of U.S.-Saudi relations depended upon the kingdom's cooperation -- a message that was reinforced in Vice President Gore's own meeting with Prince Abdullah later that day. Five days later, on Sept. 29, the Saudis began to cooperate, leading to the granting of access, the acquisition of information and the eventual indictments of 13 Saudis and a Lebanese national.
Louis Freeh touts a request he made to former President Bush for assistance, and though I am grateful for President Bush's commitment on this, I am convinced the Saudis responded to the sitting president who was not only very tough on the subject, but who had the power to determine the future of the relationship. Mr. Freeh's allegation that the president used the conversation to seek a presidential library contribution is pure bunk. Those who were in the room find this claim to be particularly galling as Mr. Freeh wasn't even present for the meeting.
From the December 15 Washington Post article by Solomon and Birnbaum:
Clinton has been criticized for asking for donations, including from Saudi Arabia, at questionable moments. In an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal last year, former FBI director Louis J. Freeh said Clinton "hit up [Saudi Arabia's head of state] Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library" during a meeting in which Freeh wanted Clinton to ask about the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. Clinton has publicly disputed Freeh's account.
From an October 9, 2005, Post article by Howard Kurtz:
Under strong pressure from former president Bill Clinton's advisers, CBS's "60 Minutes" has agreed to read a statement denying an explosive charge being made on tonight's program by former FBI director Louis J. Freeh.
In the statement, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, challenges Freeh's assertion that Clinton failed to press then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to cooperate with an investigation of the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and used the occasion to ask for a contribution to his presidential library. The Saudis made such a donation last year -- six years after the 1998 meeting.
Berger, who was at the meeting, said: "The president strongly raised the need for Saudi officials to cooperate with us on the investigation into the attack on Khobar Towers at the time when the FBI was attempting to gain access to the suspects. The president did not raise in any fashion the issue of his library."
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said he told CBS's Mike Wallace that he had supportive accounts from five other former officials who were at the meeting, including those briefed about a private conversation between Clinton and Abdullah. Freeh was not there, and Carson said Wallace told him he had not spoken to the source upon whom Freeh relied for his account.
So Solomon and Birnbaum become scribes for an attack on Clinton by former FBI director Louis J. Freeh. What an amazing loop of deception, lies and confusion.
I've been hoping that a troop of U.F.O.s would land on the White House Lawn and set things aright, 'cause with the press we've got, it's going to take extraterrestrial help to set the record straight and get some positive action going.
John Solomon lies. A lot. He lied when he worked at AP. He lies while working for the Post.
I say "lie" because his stories frequently contain falsehoods and quotes cropped to change their meaning. All of these actions reflect badly on Democrats, but never Republicans. In other words, he's not incompetent, and he's not making occasional mistakes. He's spewing falsehoods on purpose, and that makes him a liar.
How a disgrace to journalism like John Solomon maintains his employment with supposedly reputable institutions like the Washington Post is beyond me, unless his employers approve of falsehoods that smear Democrats.
Liberal media bias, my ass.
'...supposedly reputable institutions like the Washington Post..."
- which is rapidly becoming an obviously disreputable institution. Indeed, over the past few years the WAPO's shift to the right is unmistakable. What has happened? One might think it has been secretly bought out by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. But then, why should Murdoch spend more money when he doesn't have to?
what happened was the death of katherine graham in 2001. she saw the paper through the watergate period and stood behing her reporters. nowdays the white house would issue a denial of involvement and that would be it.
For a news source to ignore it's own reporting is hardly new; I remember writing a letter-to-the-editor of my local paper some years ago objecting to an editiorial; the letter cited several articles and ended with "You guys ought to learn to read your own paper."
The thing is, this is one important way that falsehoods and fantasies pass into common parlance, sometimes entirely innocently: lack of context and background. The real problem is that lack of context and background is also the most common failing of the mainstream media.
Before the "this was just a joke crew arrives", I would like to say that leaving this type of lie in mid-air will only reinforce the sheep who follow the Con goose-step verbatim. Next week, Limbaugh or Hannity or one of the Con mouthpieces will repeat this, as a joke naturally, and then the parrots will be shouting this lie from the roof tops. Mr. (I can't debate anyone because I know nothing) Hannity is great for this.
Anyone notice how tough it is to carry on a conversation with a Republan without the Limbaugh-type reference being made. No facts except that Rush said it. When I ask what Rush said about his drug dealings, the YOU HATE BUSH CARD is played. Like I said, you can't talk to these people. And by the way, most of them are RIVO's...Repubs in Vote Only
In the article cited on this topic, it is stated that:
The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.
While MMFA nitpicks on some insignificant details, I have only one question - is this true that the Clinton library got TEN MILLION DOLLARS from our "eternal friends"?
By choosing to ignore this central issue and harping on some tripe about the "Free allegations", it's becoming pretty clear how MMFA is mostly trying to support Hillary in '08.
How about a little honesty, MMRA?
T E N M I L L I O N D O L L A R S
INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS????? I would say when reporting a claim made by Freeh it is DEFINITLY significant whether or not he was actully THERE to know what he is claiming is true. That is VERY significant. IF he had been there he is reporting what he witnessed if he WASNT he is reporting a RUMOR as if it were fact. Try to keep up.
T E N M I L L I O N D O L L A R S
Is that an insignificant amount? Do you have any view at all on Clinton getting that much money from our "eternal friends"?
Why do you guys always want to change the subject? Clinton is gone he hasnt been president for years. This isnt a site about politicians its about the media. The TOPIC, the SUBJECT is about how this was misreported. With you guys its always look over there or over there or anywhere but at the misinformation WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Why did you try to minimize it? IT WAS misinformation and it WASNT trivial misinformation.
You never answered my question: Was the TEN MILLION DOLLARS "misreported"?
Are the Clintons just as much in bed with the Saudis as the Bushes were and are?
I'm telling you that when it comes to Hillary v. Obama, this is an important distinction.
YOU dont get to tell me ANYTHING. YOU are trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. There are tons of political sites out there. THIS SITE is about MEDIA. THIS topic is about the misrepresentation of THIS story. I am not following you off topic. YOU said it was insiginficant that they misreported whether or not Freeh was even AT the meeting he was talking about. THAT is the topic. YOUR obsession with Clinton is your OWN burden to bear
Solon:
I'm not asking you to do anything except comment on the article that was cited by MMFA.
If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and start humming "mee mee mee mee mee", that's OK.
But next November it is this kind of inflexible politics of the past that is going to get stomped in the general election.
And if you want to continue to troll around telling us we need to look over there or over there or anywhere but WHAT THE TOPIC IS feel free. I am not intereted. The TOPIC IS FREEH and the pos,t did they or did they not print as fact something their own paper had shown was questionable in the past? Did Freeh make claims about a meeting he didnt attend or didnt he.
NotAnother2252, I have only one question. How do Freeh know something he knows nothing about? And to nitpick a little further, why can't MMFA claim that Freeh wasn't there when he REALLY wasn't there? Go nitpick that. Your comments remind me of someone who would say that people who are upset over the fact that WMD's were not found in Iraq were NITPICKING.
Is it true about the $10 million?
Probably.
But it's a little odd that you're focused entirely on the $10 million the Saudis gave to Mr. Clinton, while ignoring the $10 million the Saudi's gave to the Bushes.
Given that Bush's son is the current President (while Clinton's wive a mere Senator), isn't that contribution actually the more shocking one?
Is it true about the $10 million? Who cares?
Is it true that Freeh was NOT there and did not know for sure what happened in the meeting? That is WISH...(WHY IT IS HERE)
Could've been $20 million...go find that on some CON website and hack away at the Clintons...So much CLINTON HATE for the past 17 years..why don't you cons just grow up and smell the death and destruction caused by the CONS?
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at... but I'm amused at your description of me as 'you CONS'
When the Clinton/MMFA crew goes into full-hillary-protection-mode it is pretty funny:
Example -
- Ken Schellenberg said this on Monday -
But it's a little odd that you're focused entirely on the $10 million the Saudis gave to Mr. Clinton, while ignoring the $10 million the Saudi's gave to the Bushes.
But on Sunday (the day before) I said this:
Are the Clintons just as much in bed with the Saudis as the Bushes were and are?
In other words, I'm not happy about the old-style corruption at all. And I hope that someone like Obama or Edwards can clean up the mess. But whenever you point out the problems with the Clintons, MMFA goes nuclear. This is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that gives conservative critics of MMFA so much good ammunition.
When the HIVEMIND goes into full attack MMFA mode they just dont let factual reality get in their way. Ya got nothin. This is NOT a Hillary site. It isnt true just because you were TOLD to believe it. You can repeat it another several dozen times, all the while AVOIDING THE TOPIC, and trying to change the subject, it wont make it true.
As if I know or care what you said on Sunday.
As if I you said on Sunday somehow disproves your own oartisan hackery.
BTW, I'm not a Hillary supporter. Just a supporter or fairness, unlike you.
The Saudis have actively greased every president since Truman. EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET OVER THAT! Wake up and smell 60 years of Saudi manipulation of the American political process. What do you think $10 Million is to Abdullah? Is that a check, or does he carry that in his pocket? Do you honestly think those donations changed anything, whether they be to Bush or Clinton? Do you think we wouldn't be in bed with the Saudis now if they weren't such active funders of presidential libraries? The Saudis probably gave more to Al Qaeda, and they didn't buy much influence there, now did they.
Louis Freeh was incompetent as the head of the FBI. He diddled away time resisting computerization for the FBI, then wasted millions of taxpayer money in investing in a useless FBI software system. He allowed his Opus Dei buddy a pass on the initial internal investigations into treasonous leaks to a foreign power, his failure to act prolonged the loss of US secret information.
Meanwhile, he was and remains relentless in his self-righteous attacks on Bill Clinton for "morality" reasons. Like the Bushies after him, he appears to be incompenent and venal and vicious. These are folks who won't let truth or the good of the country stand in the way of self-serving, sactimonious hypocrisy. He apparently has a good mouthpiece in the Washington Post, a paper taken over by conservatives and neo conservatives some years ago.
Ken, Wasn't meant as a reply to your post, sorry. :)
No prob!!!
So what if the Saudis gave 10 million to Clinton for his library? It doesn't matter. Anyone can give money to the Presidential library that's how they're built. I'm pretty sure that they gave a lot of funds to GHW Bush, and I'm sure that they'll give a lot of money to GW Bush for his once his term is over. Whether or not the Saudis gave Clinton money for his library, is irrelevant really, especially about this topic, which says that Freeh was not in the room when they were talking about the bombing of the towers.
The topic was not funding or giving money to Clinton's library, but indeed, it was about a terrorist attack and how the Saudi's needed to help us out with that one.
I suggest you go and read State of Denial by Woodard, you'll see how much influence that the Saudis wield, and will wield over US foreign policy in the mid east for a long time to come, no matter who the President is. And I highly doubt, that they are Hillary supporters. Read the book, you'll see. If they were American citizens, they'd be straight up hard core republicans, they LOVE the Bush family, and have for years, along with Regan, and others.
Media Matters has reduced Solomon and Birnbaum...
to nothing more than a pair of babbling, lying, corporate hacks. The Washington Post's credibility is absolutely in the toilet once again.
tmcc,
"The Saudis have actively greased every president since Truman. EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET OVER THAT! Wake up and smell 60 years of Saudi manipulation of the American political process. What do you think $10 Million is to Abdullah? ... The Saudis probably gave more to Al Qaeda, and they didn't buy much influence there, now did they."
You are quite correct. It's well known that al Quada was finacially supported in most part by Saudi nationals with the tacit approval of the Saudi government if not by the Saudi government itself.