July 7, 2008 -
July 14, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 41 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
An Indecent Decision
by Matthew Continetti

SCRAPBOOK
Buckminster Fuller, Justice Anthony Kennedy

ARTICLES
Closing the Enthusiasm Gap
by Stephen F. Hayes

Very Retiring Republicans
by Fred Barnes

McCain, Obama, & the Catholic Vote
by Ryan T. Anderson

History's Fall Guys
by Dean Barnett

Shaken and Stirred Up
by Reuben F. Johnson

A Heaping Bowl of Mush
by Philip Terzian

Laughter at the Supreme Court
by Lee Ross

FEATURES
L'Affaire Enderlin
by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet

BOOKS & ARTS
Talking Politics
by Christopher Hitchens

Isn't That Special?
by Andrew Roberts

Boris the Good
by Andrew Nagorski

After the Fox
by Edward Short

Unholy Thoughts
by Stefan Beck

Speak the Speech
by Judy Bachrach

Rhymers' Dictionary
by John Simon

Keeping Score
by James M. Banner Jr.

Here's My Plan
by Matthew Continetti

Identity Theft
by Edith Alston

Cops on the Case
by Jon L. Breen

CASUAL
Lost in the Personasphere
by Andrew Ferguson

PARODY
Fred Flintstone wins McCain's eco-challenge


« Obama's Response: My Grandfather Wasn't an Appeaser | Main | We're All Realists Now? »

White House Wasn't "Targeting" Jimmy Carter, Either

Mark Ambinder is reporting that the White House sought to "get" Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama, in George W. Bush's speech yesterday. He's wrong. What Ed Gillespie actually said was that the White House anticipated that the passage in question might be interpreted as an attack on Carter, not that the White House intended it as such.

And later, when Gillespie was asked this question directly, he said that the White House went so far as to change the language so as to avoid targeting Carter.

Q So when the question of a possible rebuke to Carter came up, was the language changed, what was the discussion, what was the analysis of what might be --

MR. GILLESPIE: The -- it was put in the context of a broader discussion of approach and policy, so that it would not be seen as a reference to any individual.

This is typical -- both of the White House and the reporters who cover it. The White House needn't have changed a thing in the president's remarks. Jimmy Carter met with Hamas. Barack Obama has advocated direct meetings, without preconditions, with individuals who head terrorist states. As far as I'm concerned, the president could have named them both and would have been well within his rights to do so. The setting, an address to the Knesset on the 60th Anniversary of Israel's founding, would have made such a comment inappropriate. But he would have be right on the substance.

Despite the plain language of Bush's speech and Gillespie's statement, reporters cannot wrench themselves away from the narrative -- largely false in my view -- that this White House routinely trashes its opponents unfairly.

UPDATE: Ambinder provides more context in this post, in which he cites two White House reporters who say White House officials have named Obama and Carter in background interviews. That's not what Gillespie said but it's interesting nonetheless. I guess my takeaway is that Bush should have done this on the record in a different setting. It's a fight he wins just by having it -- but the White House isn't up for much fighting these days.

Email the article White House Wasn't "Targeting" Jimmy Carter, Either to a friend:

Send this article to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


 
Contributors
Editor (on leave):
Michael Goldfarb

Deputy Editors:
John McCormack
Samantha Sault

Contributors:
Dean Barnett
Jennifer Chou
Brian Faughnan
Ulf Gartzke
Reuben F. Johnson
Thomas Joscelyn
Stuart Koehl
John Noonan
Bill Roggio
Jaime Sneider
Search
Archives
Contact
wws@weeklystandard.com
Categories
Feeds: Atom | RSS
[What is this?]
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2