White House Web Scrubbing : Offending Comments on Iraq Disappear From Site

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec17.html

White House Web Scrubbing
Offending Comments on Iraq Disappear From Site
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page A05


It's not quite Soviet-style airbrushing, but the Bush administration has been using cyberspace to make some of its own cosmetic touch-ups to history.



White House officials were steamed when Andrew S. Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said earlier this year that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay more than $1.7 billion to reconstruct Iraq -- which turned out to be a gross understatement of the tens of billions of dollars the government now expects to spend.

Recently, however, the government has purged the offending comments by Natsios from the agency's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished.

This is not the first time the administration has done some creative editing of government Web sites. After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word "Major" before combat.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, administration Web sites have been scrubbed for anything vaguely sensitive, and passwords are now required to access even much unclassified information. Though it is not clear whether the White House is directing the changes, several agencies have been following a similar pattern. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer. And the Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the Natsios case is particularly pernicious. "This smells like an attempt to revise the record, not just to withhold information but to alter the historical record in a self-interested way, and that is sleazier than usual," he said. "If they simply said, 'We made an error; we underestimated,' people could understand it and deal with it."

For months after the April 23 Natsios interview on ABC's "Nightline," USAID.gov displayed the transcript. "You're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?" an incredulous Ted Koppel asked Natsios.

"Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do," Natsios said. "This is it for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada and Iraqi oil revenues. . . . But the American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

A White House spokesman, asked later about these remarks, responded vaguely that he had not seen the statement in question. Then, sometime this fall, USAID made it easier for the administration to maintain its veil of ignorance on the subject by taking the transcript off its Web site.

For a while, the agency left telltale evidence by keeping the link to the transcript on its "What's New" page -- but yesterday the liberal Center for American Progress discovered that this link had disappeared, too, as well as the Google "cached" copies of the original page.

USAID spokeswoman Lejaune Hall, asked about this curious situation, searched the Web site herself for the missing document. "That is strange," she said. After a brief investigation, she reported back: "They were taken down off the Web site. There was going to be a cost. That's why they're not there."

But other government Web sites, including the State and Defense departments, routinely post interview transcripts, even from "Nightline." And, it turns out, there is no cost. "We would not charge for that," said ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider. "We would have no trouble with a government agency linking to one of our interviews, and we are unaware of anybody from [ABC] making any request that anything be removed."

[Gimpy]

Typical right-wing behavior............the three D's......Deceive, Distort, Deny........sooner or later some of the public will be worn down into accepting their "drival" and forget the actual facts!

[SuperScout]

Oh, how dastardly, amending a website to inform the viewers that condoms are not foolproof, are not a valid protector against sexually transmitted diseases, and that abstinence will not only prevent pregnacies, but STD as well. Gasp!, what pernicious manipulators of the truth, to reveal to the unsuspecting public that there is a distinct, provable and medical link between abortions and breast cancer, when the previous panderers of porn, aka the Clinton administration, alleged to the contrary.

I was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the denizens of dimly lit places would interpret the article as more food for their ever increasing paranoia. My hope is that there will still be enough light so they can still drink from the Grape Kool-aid trough.

[Keith_Hixson]

Isn't that the Presidents right? I don't understand what the point is.

Gimpy your spinning again! They all do it: liberals, democrats, republicans, and conservative. To say that is a characteristic of only republicans and conservatives is not right.

Clinton did that sort thing all the time. Everyone wants to put their own focus on their government. I'd probably do some cleaning up on web sites if I was President. So as to focus on my agenda and ideals.

I guess I missed something here.

Keith

[Gimpy]

something Keith. I wasn't doing the "spinning" (even though I agree with some of the so-called spin the author refered to), the AUTHOR was "spining".......................not ME! I didn't even POST this.........Mortardude did. ....Thanks Dude!

As for the comment from the "denizen of deception", AKA SuperSilly, refering to " grape kool-aid trough" just confirms my reports of how these individuals can harbor such thoughts and misguided perceptions of others who may be inclined to have different view points than their own warped and distorted opinions, bias and tolerance. I don't think you've seen anyone of a more "liberal" or "libertarian" view around here make comments like that about having the "conservatives" or "right-wing-radicals" partake of such drastic and horrific "solutions" as mass murder or mass suicide like the "solution" offered up by said neo-con-right-wing-radical as just posted, do you???

No.................that's JUST the type of "behavior" and "comments" one would expect from such an individual who continues to add justification to my "factual" protestations.

He continues to exhibit eveything that is W-R-O-N-G with the current "brand" of so-called 'compassionate conservatisim"!

Full of H-A-T-E, prejudice, bias and MOST of all .........CRAP!

There is sure as hell enough "light" around here to filter out the "denizens of deception, distortion, and denial"...Thank goodness!

[SuperScout]

Apparently, the Grape Kool-aid is already taking effect!! Instead of properly interpreting the metaphor of the grape kool-aid as the lemming-like process that has enveloped the Democrat party, our little Rasputin of Radicals seems to think that I espouse mass suicide or mass murder. Sorry, there Gimpster, but yours is a self-inflicted wound! Next time, I'll try not to be so obtuse, so you can comprehend more easily. And remember, Skippy, it was you who called the mother of the President a "bitch," so kindly refrain from preaching to me about hate - the log in your eye appears to be getting larger!

[Gimpy]

I thought you were supposed to be so almighty "educated" and "well read" there SuperSleuth"??

If you're refering to me calling the Pres.

"sonofabitch"....then you're absolutely CORRECT! However, according to the latest "version" of the Cambridge Dictionary you're SADLY mistaken when attempting to conjure up "false images" of me calling Barbara Bush a 'Bitch"...........not gonna happen............I happen to have the utmost respect for the lady. She can't help it if her son turned out to be such an asshole and idiot!
*****************************

Cambridge Dictionary:

Definition:

son of a bitch, (plural sons of bitches) noun [C usually singular] (ALSO sonofabitch, ABBREVIATION S.O.B.) MAINLY OFFENSIVE;
an unpleasant man:
EXAMPLES:
What low-down son of a bitch took my clothes?
I'm going to beat that sonofabitch if it kills me

? Cambridge University Press 2003. Privacy Policy



**************************

You REALLY need to get out more and read a little more "relevant" and "accurate" periodicals that may have some recomendations for purchasing a "current" dictionary!

And, your denials of your "intent" RE: the comment about the "grape-kool-aid" are just so much more of your horse$hit.

You meant EXACTLY what I was refering to! I hope that wasn't to
"obtuse" for YOUR "comprehension"??

[Keith_Hixson]

I just happen to like the both of you!

Keith

[SuperScout]

According to my "Random House Dictionary of the English Language," the noun 'bitch" is defined thusly: a female dog.... a lewd woman. Now, Skippy, let me see if can help you along this logic path, an alien plce for you: by calling the President what you did, you by implication, called his mother a bitch. But by your slimey version of spinning, I suppose you can ooze your way off this logic path, and retreat to your dank spot under that rock.

[Gimpy]

HE STILL can't R-E-A-D.............I never called Barbara "a bitch"............YOU DID!

I just called GEE-FREAKIN DOUBLE-U what HE is........a "sonofabitch" ..............which, acording to the "definition" that is suppilied by the most reputable and respected Dictionary in the WORLD (Cambridge) is this.....

Cambridge Dictionary:

Definition:

son of a bitch, (plural sons of bitches) noun [C usually singular] (ALSO sonofabitch, ABBREVIATION S.O.B.) MAINLY OFFENSIVE;
an unpleasant man:
EXAMPLES:
What low-down son of a bitch took my clothes?
I'm going to beat that sonofabitch if it kills me

? Cambridge University Press 2003. Privacy Policy

Which is EXACTLY what he IS: MAINLY OFFENSIVE, and an "unpleasant man!"

You wouldn't be able to ascertain the true meaning of MY intent if it bit you on your cowboy butt!

PS........... Keith, I really like you too. Don't know if you'll EVER get ole SuperMouth to see his ways need "mending" somewhat however.