This is a very revealing look at the wordplay and manipulation going on behind the scenes at the White House...
************************************************** *
'Background' Checks
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page A19
As President Bush flew to St. Louis on Air Force One last week, press secretary Ari Fleischer, giving his usual on-the-record briefing, was asked about popular support for Bush. "If you're interested, I'll be happy to go on background and discuss more data with you," he said.
Huh? Bush aides such as Fleischer routinely condemn the practice of quoting White House officials on a "background," or unnamed, basis. Fleischer has said he tells Bush's top aides they are free to speak to the media as long as they use their names, and he often challenges background attributions in news briefings to discredit reports on sensitive subjects.
But in the use of unnamed sources, the White House is on record for having it both ways -- not unlike previous White Houses. More often than not, the anonymous "senior administration officials" in stories are the same spokesmen and spin doctors -- Fleischer among them -- who normally speak on the record. They routinely speak unnamed, or "on background," with the full knowledge and blessing of the White House.
Sometimes there are genuinely unauthorized "background" quotations, often identifiable by their negative tone. Using broad definitions, there are perhaps 100 "senior administration officials" in the White House and many more throughout the bureaucracy -- a few of whom object to their boss's policies. Generally, though, the unnamed officials are speaking anonymously with the knowledge of their colleagues, to float a trial balloon or to convey an informal message or nuance -- sometimes political dirty work -- that they don't want on the record.
After Fleischer asked to go "on background" on Air Force One last week, the White House sent out two transcripts, one of Fleischer's briefing and one by an unnamed "senior administration official" who went deep into the political nitty-gritty. "I'm happy to talk to you about polls," the official said, "but White House policy is background."
White House policy is not always in favor of "background." In April of last year, when an unnamed official suggested in a report that the administration might support a coup in Venezuela, Fleischer challenged: "What's the name of the official? . . . The person obviously doesn't have enough confidence in what he said to say it on the record." And two months ago, when an unnamed official said Bush would issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, Fleischer dismissed the "anonymous quote from somebody who didn't even put their name behind it."
In a meeting with reporters last week, Bush political adviser Karl Rove said Bush's plan to abolish the dividend tax was evidence that he's "a populist. Give him a choice between Wall Street and Main Street and he'll choose Main Street every time."
As evidence, Rove argued that "45 percent of all of the dividend income goes to people with $50,000-or-less incomes, family incomes. Nearly three-quarters of it goes to families with $100,000 or less family income."
Not exactly. It is true that 43.8 percent of tax returns with dividend income are from households with less than $50,000 in income and 73.8 percent of such returns are from households with less than $100,000. But that doesn't mean the little guy earning less than $50,000 gets "45 percent of all the income" or that the Main Street earners below $100,000 get "three-quarters" of dividend income.
In fact, those earning less than $50,000 get 14.7 percent of dividend income, and those earning less than $100,000 get 32.7 percent, according to a Brookings Institution/Urban Institute analysis. The former would get 6.8 percent of the benefit of Bush's dividend plan, while the latter would get 20.9 percent.
"The United Nations resolution did not put the burden of proof on the United States or the U.N. to prove that Iraq has these weapons," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week. "The U.N. resolution put the burden directly on Iraq to prove that it is disarming and that it does not have these weapons."
In other words, Iraq must prove a negative, and is refusing to do so. Almost a year to the day before Rumsfeld's remark, Fleischer was asked why the administration would not release details about meetings with energy companies such as Enron Corp. to prove that nothing untoward occurred. Fleischer replied: "You're asking us to prove a negative, and that's a road that we're not traveling."
During the Q&A last week, a reporter noted to Rove that "depending on the day your boss may refer to you as 'boy genius' or 'a flower that grows in cow patties.' "
Replied Rove: "More the latter than the former."
From a press pool report describing Bush's appearance last Wednesday at a roundtable meeting in St. Louis: "Bush asked Kathie Zuroweste, who runs a restaurant with her husband, 'What's your biggest problem?' She replied: 'Keeping people. They know they can make more on welfare than from working.' Bush then talked about the need to make the elimination of the death tax permanent."
************************************************** *
'Background' Checks
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page A19
As President Bush flew to St. Louis on Air Force One last week, press secretary Ari Fleischer, giving his usual on-the-record briefing, was asked about popular support for Bush. "If you're interested, I'll be happy to go on background and discuss more data with you," he said.
Huh? Bush aides such as Fleischer routinely condemn the practice of quoting White House officials on a "background," or unnamed, basis. Fleischer has said he tells Bush's top aides they are free to speak to the media as long as they use their names, and he often challenges background attributions in news briefings to discredit reports on sensitive subjects.
But in the use of unnamed sources, the White House is on record for having it both ways -- not unlike previous White Houses. More often than not, the anonymous "senior administration officials" in stories are the same spokesmen and spin doctors -- Fleischer among them -- who normally speak on the record. They routinely speak unnamed, or "on background," with the full knowledge and blessing of the White House.
Sometimes there are genuinely unauthorized "background" quotations, often identifiable by their negative tone. Using broad definitions, there are perhaps 100 "senior administration officials" in the White House and many more throughout the bureaucracy -- a few of whom object to their boss's policies. Generally, though, the unnamed officials are speaking anonymously with the knowledge of their colleagues, to float a trial balloon or to convey an informal message or nuance -- sometimes political dirty work -- that they don't want on the record.
After Fleischer asked to go "on background" on Air Force One last week, the White House sent out two transcripts, one of Fleischer's briefing and one by an unnamed "senior administration official" who went deep into the political nitty-gritty. "I'm happy to talk to you about polls," the official said, "but White House policy is background."
White House policy is not always in favor of "background." In April of last year, when an unnamed official suggested in a report that the administration might support a coup in Venezuela, Fleischer challenged: "What's the name of the official? . . . The person obviously doesn't have enough confidence in what he said to say it on the record." And two months ago, when an unnamed official said Bush would issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, Fleischer dismissed the "anonymous quote from somebody who didn't even put their name behind it."
In a meeting with reporters last week, Bush political adviser Karl Rove said Bush's plan to abolish the dividend tax was evidence that he's "a populist. Give him a choice between Wall Street and Main Street and he'll choose Main Street every time."
As evidence, Rove argued that "45 percent of all of the dividend income goes to people with $50,000-or-less incomes, family incomes. Nearly three-quarters of it goes to families with $100,000 or less family income."
Not exactly. It is true that 43.8 percent of tax returns with dividend income are from households with less than $50,000 in income and 73.8 percent of such returns are from households with less than $100,000. But that doesn't mean the little guy earning less than $50,000 gets "45 percent of all the income" or that the Main Street earners below $100,000 get "three-quarters" of dividend income.
In fact, those earning less than $50,000 get 14.7 percent of dividend income, and those earning less than $100,000 get 32.7 percent, according to a Brookings Institution/Urban Institute analysis. The former would get 6.8 percent of the benefit of Bush's dividend plan, while the latter would get 20.9 percent.
"The United Nations resolution did not put the burden of proof on the United States or the U.N. to prove that Iraq has these weapons," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week. "The U.N. resolution put the burden directly on Iraq to prove that it is disarming and that it does not have these weapons."
In other words, Iraq must prove a negative, and is refusing to do so. Almost a year to the day before Rumsfeld's remark, Fleischer was asked why the administration would not release details about meetings with energy companies such as Enron Corp. to prove that nothing untoward occurred. Fleischer replied: "You're asking us to prove a negative, and that's a road that we're not traveling."
During the Q&A last week, a reporter noted to Rove that "depending on the day your boss may refer to you as 'boy genius' or 'a flower that grows in cow patties.' "
Replied Rove: "More the latter than the former."
From a press pool report describing Bush's appearance last Wednesday at a roundtable meeting in St. Louis: "Bush asked Kathie Zuroweste, who runs a restaurant with her husband, 'What's your biggest problem?' She replied: 'Keeping people. They know they can make more on welfare than from working.' Bush then talked about the need to make the elimination of the death tax permanent."
Comment