About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Memory lapse: Politico asks, "What if Bush had done" things he actually did

October 27, 2009 1:16 pm ET — 12 Comments

In support of his dubious argument that the press is treating President Obama more favorably than President Bush, Politico's Josh Gerstein falsely suggested that unlike David Axelrod, Karl Rove was never involved in national security meetings. In addition, Gerstein advanced the falsehood that the Bush administration did not attack MSNBC and other news outlets.

Politico falsely suggested Rove, unlike Axelrod, never participated in high-level national security meetings

Bush aide Feaver: "Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if" Rove was part of high-level security meetings. Politico reported that "[t]hroughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government" and that consequently "some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs and Obama's political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy." Furthering its suggestion that Rove did not participate in high-level national security meetings, Politico quoted former Bush White House aide Peter Feaver asserting: "Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic." [Politico, 10/27/09]

But Rove and other political advisers reportedly were involved in national security meetings. According to The Washington Post, "regular participants" in the White House Iraq Group -- which "met weekly in the Situation Room" during the run-up to the war and whose purpose was "to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad" -- included Rove and communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, and James R. Wilkinson. [The Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Politico parroted Rove's criticism of Axelrod. Politico's characterization of Axelrod as "[p]oliticizing the White House" parroted Rove's reported criticism of him. According to The New York Times, "in his new role as commentator, Mr. Rove has criticized Mr. Axelrod as politicizing the White House." [The New York Times, 3/8/09]

Politico quoted Bush ice men in claiming Obama "[f]reezing out" Fox News

Politico suggested Bush administration never attacked MSNBC. Politico quoted former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer claiming in response to the Obama administration's charge that Fox News is not a "legitimate news organization" that: "Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on." Fleischer went on to say: "I instinctively would have known ... the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I'm shocked it's not happening now." Additionally, Politico quoted "press veteran" Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle, asserting: " 'If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?' "

Gillespie: "The watchdogs are curled up around [Obama's] feet, sleeping soundly." After listing several episodes conservatives are complaining Obama has gotten away with but Bush would not have, including that the Obama White House is "[f]reezing out a TV network," i.e. Fox News, Politico quoted former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie: " 'We have a joke about it. We're going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com." Gillespie added, "The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. ... There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.' "

But the Bush White House -- Gillespie in particular -- did attack MSNBC. In his capacity as Bush White House counselor, Gillespie sent a letter in 2008 to NBC News president Steve Capus publicly accusing the network of engaging in "deceitful editing" of an interview reporter Richard Engel conducted with Bush, and alleging a "blurring of ... lines" between "'news' as reported on NBC and the 'opinion' as reported on MSNBC." He concluded: "I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division." NBC responded that the segment in question accurately reflected the interview with Bush, and criticized Gillespie's letter.

Politico ignored Fleischer's statement to press that Americans "need to watch what they say." In quoting Fleischer's charge that "the media uproar would still be going on" if he had "said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox," Politico ignored Fleisher's prior comments as press secretary. Indeed, at a White House press briefing, in response to the question, "As commander-in-chief what was the president's reaction to television's Bill Maher and his announcement that members of our armed forces who deal with missiles are cowards while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards," Fleischer said that "[t]here are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." [White House press briefing, 9/26/01]

Bush White House and GOP have a history of attacking the media. As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, the Bush administration and the GOP more broadly have conducted numerous organized attacks against media outlets based on groundless complaints of bias. Those attacks have included boycotts or threatened boycotts of media outlets, efforts to revoke journalists' credentials or ban them from press planes, and even calls to have journalists prosecuted.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by marco21 (October 27, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
      3  
      I read this article at Shillitico in disbelief. I could not find my login info to comment, so thanks MMFA for doing it for me.

      What a joke.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Appleboy (October 27, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
      6  
      Just think of the howling and screaming that would have happened if Bush had started a war with Iraq based on very shaky reasoning, and for reasons that later turned out to be wrong. Just think what the media would have done to him....oh wait, never mind. I guess this actually did happen and the media cheered him on. Bush started a war with absolutely ZERO scrutiny from the media, and some conservatives want us to believe the media was somehow tough on him. Maybe if during the Bush administration the NY Times would have invented a scandal such as Whitewater then maybe they would have something to hang their hats on.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by only_myschly3567 (October 27, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
      2  
      I read a couple of paragraphs but the shoddy "reporting" just made me sick. Do they want to be taken seriously?!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (October 27, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
        3 1
        I get the feeling that being taken seriously is not their agenda only_myschly3567... they know perfectly well that the other worthless right-wing lunatics will pick up on this inflammatory joke and run with it...

        Not much different than the crazies running with the made up "Obama wrote an essay disparaging the Constitution" which as we all know... was FAKE!!

        What is hilarious or maybe beyond maddening? is that many of the already convinced will believe anything sold to them by these corporate owned nutcases!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (October 27, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
      2  
      hello? if we want to talk about national security, after karl rove was talking to reporters about the identity of undercover agent valerie plame, his security clearance was not pulled and he was still allowed access to classified material, which plame's identity was. the agreement that he initially signed, to be allowed that access, said that he was expressly forbidden from discussing anything that he did not specifically know to be declassified. even if you want to claim he made a "mistake", he was responsible for helping destroy a spy network that had taken years to build. [nor did scooter libby leave the white house until he was indicted.]

      as far as letting things go, it was bush who repeatedly said during his time in office that he had to invade iraq because saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors in". this is clearly a lie, they were there and finding nothing for months before we invaded, and i have yet to see anyone, paul krugman excepted, who has pointed out this continuing lie by bush.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Marker (October 27, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
      2  
      Politico is repug-lite. I tried reading there a couple of times but it was apparent, they want to be considered a straight-up newsite, it's not.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kathysanan (October 27, 2009 8:19 pm ET)
      2  
      Politico is a K Street tool! During the 08 election, they were somewhat balanced and informative. That was then. Today Politico has sold out to the nattering naysayers of the wacked out, right wing of the Republican Party. They are so enamoured with imitiating the likes of Rush and Glen. Politico has obviously chosen to forget the tragic consequences of 8 years of having Dithering Dick and The Shrub at the helm to pimp themselves out.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DogOfDooM (October 28, 2009 8:48 am ET)
        2
      So, in your understanding of the events, when Ari F identified MSNBC in a single instance of a report they disagreed with is the same as the FOX news attack. Are you delusional or stupid?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rsinebada7366 (October 28, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
           
        dog; Obama WH has responded to reporters' questions about the single (perhaps, two) instances in which WH communications dept. has cited Fox as a non-news organization. All the rest of the frazzled commentary has come from Fox or the right wing. We all know what Fox is. I watch for about 5 minutes on occasion just to see their hilarious spin on the latest issue.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fedup52 (October 29, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
         
      The White House has released facts that our electrical grid is a disaster, antiquated, dilapidated and no one has challenged this. I personally have to say that I'm impressed with the delivery and maintenance of my electrical power. But if this is the case why is the White House pushing electrical cars? It isn't safe, it isn't dependable. You have to charge that car from the grid! I spoke with my states Public Service Commission (which by the way is charged with protecting the public from utilities) and they were a little taken aback. They kind of saw that they had just been denigrated by those statements. I also pointed out that these stimulus grants for the rehabilitation of our power grid are matching grants dollar for dollar, Did they approve of the rate increase to match those funds? They hadn't heard of this so they did not have an answer to that. So if our grid is actually superior to almost all electrical delivery systems, what's the White House beef with it? Could it be that actually they want how the electricity is billed and received to be changed? Meters that flow information to an entity that sees how the electricity is actually used? Like laundry, hot water, heat or air-conditioning? Like maybe they will cut your power off when they deem it in the best interest of society to do so? Not as your personal decision? So who has the memory lapse, the public or the government?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.