NY Sun mischaracterized Russert question -- which contained a falsehood -- at Dem debate
SUMMARY: A New York Sun article stated that at the October 30 Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was "questioned about language in the 2002 letter that discussed the possibility of withholding some records about the former first lady." In fact, in the debate question, Tim Russert falsely claimed that the letter "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012" before asking Clinton, "Would you lift that ban?"
In a December 19 New York Sun article, staff reporter Josh Gerstein mischaracterized NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert's question to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) during the October 30 Democratic presidential debate regarding a 2002 letter written by former President Bill Clinton to the National Archives and Records Administration. Gerstein wrote that at the debate, Hillary Clinton was "questioned about language in the 2002 letter that discussed the possibility of withholding some records about the former first lady." Gerstein continued: "Mr. Clinton later called the questions 'breathtakingly misleading' and complained bitterly that his wife had been sandbagged." In fact, addressing Hillary Clinton during the debate, Russert falsely claimed that the letter "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012" before asking Sen. Clinton, "Would you lift that ban?"
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here and here), contrary to Russert's claim, President Clinton's letter did not ask that such communications "not be made available" but rather listed them as one of several categories of information in which documents should be "considered for withholding" [emphasis added]. In a November 2 statement, as reprinted on the blog Daily Kos, William J. Clinton Records representative Bruce Lindsey said that rather than prohibiting the release of communications between Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a "subset" of presidential records "that should be reviewed prior to release."
From Gerstein's December 19 New York Sun article:
The National Archives is withholding from the public about 2,600 pages of records at President Clinton's direction, despite a public assurance by one of his top aides last month that Mr. Clinton "has not blocked the release of a single document."
The 2,600 pages, stored at Mr. Clinton's library in Arkansas, were deemed to contain "confidential advice" and, therefore, "closed" under the Presidential Records Act, an Archives spokeswoman, Susan Cooper, told The New York Sun yesterday.
An official who oversees the presidential libraries operated by the federal government, Susan Fawcett, said in a recent interview that the records were withheld in accordance with a letter Mr. Clinton wrote in 1994 exercising his right to hold back certain types of files and another letter in 2002 about narrowing the scope of his earlier instructions. Asked by National Journal whether Mr. Clinton had "total control" over the closure of records under the confidential-advice provisions of the law, Ms. Fawcett said he did.
At a presidential debate in October, Mrs. Clinton was questioned about language in the 2002 letter that discussed the possibility of withholding some records about the former first lady. Mr. Clinton later called the questions "breathtakingly misleading" and complained bitterly that his wife had been sandbagged.
"Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document," the former president's official representative on records issues, Bruce Lindsey, said in a written statement last month aimed at defusing criticism in the press and by one of Mrs. Clinton's rivals for the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama of Illinois. Spokesmen for Mrs. Clinton's campaign and Mr. Clinton's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Ms. Cooper said she was not aware whether any of the 2,600 pages of withheld advice records pertain to Mrs. Clinton. Asked about Mr. Lindsey's statement, Ms. Cooper said, "Not all of those pages were closed by Mr. Lindsey, in fact, the National Archives does the first set of processing. ... At least some of those materials were closed by our archivists."
An attorney who specializes in the Presidential Records Act, Scott Nelson of Public Citizen Litigation Group, said Mr. Lindsey's statement may have meant that neither he nor Mr. Clinton had singled out any specific document for withholding, even though Mr. Clinton's "general instruction" caused certain records to be closed. "It's possible that all the statements were made in perfect good faith, but in truth, the result is that the Archives -- they are withholding material and that's because of President Clinton's election in 1994," Mr. Nelson said.
Ms. Cooper said the 2,600 pages of advice are part of about 24,000 pages of Clinton White House records closed on national security, privacy and other grounds. The bulk of the closures likely involve records found in domestic policy and health care files that Mr. Clinton authorized for processing before the library began accepting record requests from the public in 2006.
Big deal - virtually everything in the New York Sun could be considered misinformation.
Sorry, bro'.
MM has been busted on this one. For weeks they've been parsing this issue and trying to pin a falsehood on the media.
Now we know the media was right on this one all along.
Basically, those documents that the President asked to be "considered for withholding" are now being withheld.
The NY Sun is correct on this one, and MM is trying to squirm out of being wrong.
MM is just digging themselves deeper on this one, IMHO and 2 cents.
Too eager to call MMFA a liar, you are yourself at the threshhold of joining bungle in the group that cannot tell the truth. (Remember that little brainteaser?)
So you have learned to copy-and-paste, and now you cite the very article that MMFA is criticising - in fact the precise portion of that article that is very different than the Clinton letter upon which all this is based. The letter hasn't changed - still says exactly what the Clintons claim it says. The only change is that you disregard the source material in hopes of inducing a sense of spin that will hide your deception.
Worked, too - I have no suspicion that you are wrong, nor any that you have deliberately misrepresented the facts. You might use this on your resume, to get a job with Bungle, or maybe FoxLies, since you have so cleverly escaped detection.
Hey, Shoes - here's a link to an article in teh NY Times about his subject. Please read it and learn a few facts about the subject being discussed before responding again, OK?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/us/politics/04dems.html?ref=politics
Ah - the second tier kicks in. This will keep the lie alive for resuscitation by "pundits" in the Corporate Media when that is desired. In a week or three, someone will rediscover this as being "kicked around in the press" and will "innocently" recite the lie as though it were brand new. Then it will be debunked once again, but, collectively, the half of our national braindead Repugnants who had not heard it will have this second chance . . . third chance . . . fourth chance . . . and two decades from now, it will join "How - EXACTLY - did Vince Foster die?" as one of those ugly questions plaguing Chelsea's campaign.
I'm sorry to preemptively derail this thread, but I found this little nugget and couldn't help but to share it with you all.
Here's a direct quote from Rush Limbaugh:"Remember what I've been trying to point out here for the last month or so? Ignorance is the single most expensive thing we pay for in this country, particularly when ignorance is disguised as educated and informed. This was pure... What would you call it? Talking points. It was nonsensical. "
The link is here.
Can someone who listens to him explain this to me? I really want to know how ignorance is disguised as educated and informed. I mean really. I really really want to know.
Too funny.
Well, you do know that infomred and eductaed people have a liberal bias, don't you?
Well, you do know that infomred and eductaed people have a liberal bias, don't you?
Has anyone else noticed that the rise of the neocons occurred after a period of years during which SAT scores dropped? More proof of my theory that most conservative positions are borne from a combination of ignorance, selfishness, and paranoia.
i don't expect you to accept or acknowledge the truth, as it may already be too late for you, but rush was pointing out the most dangerous of ignorances... that is the ignorance of ignorance. those who 'have all the answers' parade around in cloaks of 'education', all the while they are wearing the famed emporor's new cloak. i wouldn't expect you to pick up on the socratic reference being that you are too smart for that.
Something along the lines, of any education or opinion that rush can make abogus issue of. Right thinkers always agree with the words of this rustic sumbitch, regardless of their level of education this makes them better than those, lost in the sky, educated folk.
Classic neocon. Strength becomes weakness, weakness becomes strength. It still works, maybe not as well as it used to. Which means it will continue to be used till their cold cramped hands are physically removed from their sources of power. Be it a microphone, camera, or political position.
Today the NY Sun reports that 2600 pages of Clinton documents were closed. (Of course, in Clinton-ese, that's not "a single" document.) Here's the quote from the Sun, "Asked by National Journal whether Mr. Clinton had "total control" over the closure of records under the confidential-advice provisions of the law, Ms. Fawcett said he did."
But here's the Clinton 'spin.' "...Bruce Lindsey said that rather than prohibiting the release of communications between Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a "subset" of presidential records "that should be reviewed prior to release.""
Poor Bill, he keeps getting sandbagged by the truth.
EdR, take a deep breath and try again. You're almost comprehensible.
To cheer you up hopefully, two recent pols in Iowa, one put Edwards in front, the other Obama. That give your endorphin levels a surge?