Kurtz: Fellow Wash. Post reporter's anonymous quote of White House official praising Bush "probably wasn't worth a grant of anonymity"
SUMMARY: In a washingtonpost.com discussion, Howard Kurtz said that a Washington Post reporter's grant of anonymity to a "senior White House official" -- who expressed the belief that there are "a number of things that will get done" in the remainder of President Bush's term in office -- "probably wasn't worth" it.
In a May 6 online discussion at washingtonpost.com, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz said that a Post reporter's grant of anonymity to a "senior White House official" -- who expressed the belief that there are "a number of things that will get done" in the remainder of President Bush's term in office -- "probably wasn't worth" it. As Media Matters for America noted, in a May 3 Washington Post article, headlined "For Bush in Last Year, It's the Principle," discussing President Bush's plans for his last year in office, staff writer Dan Eggen wrote that "Bush and his aides say his difficulties have been overstated" and quoted "a senior White House official" saying, "Don't ever underestimate the leverage of the presidency. ... Many of us here still believe there are a number of things that will get done." Eggen wrote that the official "requested anonymity in order to speak candidly." During the May 6 discussion, Kurtz was asked by a reader identified as "Hong Kong": "Why do Post journalists give anonymity for even such motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiments as expressed above?" Kurtz responded, "I had the exact same question when I read that. The short answer is because most White House aides won't speak on the record. It's one thing if an aide is being more candid than he can be on the record, revealing inside information or even deigning to criticize the boss. But that one probably wasn't worth a grant of anonymity."
From the May 6 washingtonpost.com online discussion with Kurtz:
Hong Kong: In Dan Eggen's piece on the White House on Sunday [sic: Saturday] he said: " 'Don't ever underestimate the leverage of the presidency,' said a senior White House official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. 'Many of us here still believe there are a number of things that will get done.' " Why do Post journalists give anonymity for even such motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiments as expressed above?
Howard Kurtz: I had the exact same question when I read that. The short answer is because most White House aides won't speak on the record. It's one thing if an aide is being more candid than he can be on the record, revealing inside information or even deigning to criticize the boss. But that one probably wasn't worth a grant of anonymity.
Hey, Howie got it right. Hooray.
But, the aide maybe needed anonymity to cover his butt in case the Bush Admn. doesn't do a darn thing the rest of W's term. I mean anything right. Not royal screw ups. We know they can accomplish those. And I'm sure they'll be more screw ups. Anybody think Cheney is up for invading Iran before our next president gets into office. I'm taking bets.
Why should Cheney be the only one profiting from the next war?
Anybody think Cheney is up for invading Iran before our next president gets into office. I'm taking bets.
I sure as hell hope we do. Invade, eliminate military, level Tehran, steal oil, threaten to do the same to all Opec, say adios.
1492,
I seriously hope you are just being sarcastic saying that?
If you are..... bad joke...but I understand.
If you are not..... just exactly would be proven by us laying waste to Iran?
Will it make you feel like a bigger man?
Will it make the world a safer place?
Do you not think that Russia and or China won't retaliate in Iran's defense?
Are you in the fantasy world that somehow because we just happen to be America that we can take them all on and not one or all of our cities would be destoyed as a result of that lunacy?
Are the troops to be hated that much by allowing them to be slaughtered in Iraq because of a precieved hatred of Iran or is negotiation to hard for the average conservative to handle?
As powerful as our military may be...... attack Iran and see how fast we lose whats left of our status in the world!
Only contemptable dimwits would be so stupid!
You and your kind, who start wars, support wars, yet never personally fight wars, finish the two fu_king wars you've started before you even consider a third?
I sure as hell hope we do. Invade, eliminate military, level Tehran, steal oil, threaten to do the same to all Opec, say adios.
If you're serious about this, Columbus, then get yer butt down to your local recruiting office and enlist today. Let's see how much of a big talker you are when your life is on the line.
He's been posting here for a long time, under various names and one thing that all of his incarnations have in common is his desire to see the world in flames as American troops march from one country to the next. Settling imagined scores for gutless wonders like him.
And no, he'd prefer that someone other than himself do the fighting and the dying.
He'll just bask in the glory attained by those who've sacrifice their lives so that assholes like him can wrap themselves in the flag and urge others to die.
why was there even a "request" for anonymity? what next? sources tell us the prez likes puppies?
Maybe people in the White House realize that they'll be looking for work soon and no one will hire anyone who thinks Pretzelboy is doing a good job - a person like that is obviously mentally unstable.....
McCain quickly denied the allegations, and his aide called her "a flake, and a poser, and an attention seeking diva."
"a flake, and a poser, and an attention seeking diva."
Are you saying that his assertion is incorrect? lol
McCain quickly denied the allegations, and his aide called her "a flake, and a poser, and an attention seeking diva."
They didn't say nasty things like that about Arianna when she was a conservative; only after she saw the light and joined us good guys did they get venomous.
I'm wondering if TS actually saw the post at huffpo, or read about it from some right wing site. I don't know whether it's true or not, but Salter wasn't calling her a "poser" (really? poser? what is this, 1994?) back in 2000 when she hosted a book party for "Faith of my Fathers."
I think the right has selective memory when it comes to Arianna.
Yeah, you just can't trust first-person accounts.
Give me an anonymous source passing through a reporter's filter any day.
"Probably"? I guess that is the best you can expect from Kurtz. "Probably" wrong means Kurtz is not entirely sure it is wrong. I wonder what good ole Howie is having trouble with here?
The WaPost is not really making me feel all that warm and fuzzy with their "probably"s. Seriously, I would think this is about as clear-cut as it gets.
Is Howie"Reliable Sources" Kurtz making a turn to the left?
Perhaps he sees which way in the wind is blowing, that it has shifted from right to left?