Republican charges that Clinton staff trashed the White House were fraudulent - Page 4

keg in kc · 05-19-2001, 05:41 PM

[quote]No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports

By DAVID GOLDSTEIN The Kansas City Star
Date: 05/17/01 22:15

WASHINGTON -- The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop.

The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted.

Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred.

"The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy," according to a GSA statement.

No wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers and telephones, no evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images. GSA didn't bother to nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive.

Among those pranks was the apparent removal, by aides to former President Bill Clinton, of the "w" key from some computer keyboards and the placing of official-looking signs on doors, saying things like "Office of Strategery," after a popular "Saturday Night Live" spoof on Bush.

But the vandal scandal, tales of torn up offices and items stolen from the presidential jet, was the hottest story in town during the early days of the Bush administration until White House furniture and last-minute pardons pushed it off the front page.

"I think it was this calculated effort to plant a damaging story," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "There was a sort of fertile ground for believing anything bad."

Typical was Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former presidential speech writer for President Bush's father, who wrote that the White House "was a wreck." He also said that Air Force One, after taking Clinton and some aides to New York following the inauguration, "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister."

He went on to list all manner of missing items, including silverware, porcelain dishes with the presidential seal and even candy.

"It makes one feel grateful that the seats and carpets are bolted down," Snow fumed.

Except none of it happened. An official at Andrews Air Force Base, which maintains the presidential jets, told The Kansas City Star at the height of the controversy that nothing was missing. Bush himself acknowledged the same a few days later.

And now GSA has made it official.

"They told me that there were papers that were not organized lying on the floor and on desks; there were some scratches here and there, but the bottom line was they didn't see anything really in their view that was significant and that would appear to some as real extensive damage," said Bernard Unger, director for physical infrastructure for the General Accounting Office, which asked GSA to look into the allegations.

Mark Lindsay, who oversaw the transition as Clinton's assistant for management and administration, said he was pleased that the record has been set straight.

"Because of President Clinton, this was one of the smoothest transitions in the history of the presidency," he said. "This was nothing more than just lies."

As for the critics, Barr's office didn't return calls about the GSA findings. Snow was somewhat contrite. "I'm perfectly willing to admit my error on the aircraft," he said, but added that he still believed his sources who told him about damage at the White House.

"What often happens in Washington is gossip becomes news. That's not a good thing."[/quote]

I can't provide a straight link, but if you want to see the actual story go to the Star website "local" section and do a search for author "David Goldstein".

NaptownChief · 05-22-2001, 02:02 PM

Following Oleman's commentary is a lot like trying to make sense of GreenSpeak (Greenspan's commentary)

KCTitus · 05-22-2001, 02:15 PM

[i]But you do illustrate my point, it is not about the issues it is about the messenger.[/i]

How's that? You have yet to make any point...I have asked you to explain your earlier posts, yet you just keep going on and on about how I've multilated your opinions.

As I originally stated, you have offered NO post that in any way states that a solution to any of America's problems would best be solved by market economies and competition. THIS is my point--what's yours?

Lightning Rod · 05-22-2001, 02:39 PM

I think we have gotten a bit off point here. The original topic pertained to what appears to be the kind of twisted, exaggerated take a grain of truth and build a mountain of excrement out of it stuff, that we all claim to despise. We all have our political biases and tend to believe stories that follow our train of thought. To blindly accept as "Truth" things like this, and the supposed trail of bodies left in the Clintons wake is unwise. There is more than enough dirt on both sides of the fence to need to make things up.
The GOP has attempted to carry the torch of 'Family values" and morality. If this is to be the case they must walk the walk. The kind of squiggling and spin-doctoring so common on both sides cannot be tolerated much less encouraged. There are many people "like me" that are conservative on far more issues than they are liberal. Even thoughh this is the case, since I do not really consider myself a Republican or a Democrat I tend to view statements from each side with similar skepticism. I do not like what I see. While I must admit I see more mud-slinging from the Dems than I do the Reps I see it somewhat like a woman trying to convince me to go out with her because the other gal is an even bigger B$TCH . My suggestion is to hold those who share your political beliefs to "at least" the same standards as those of the opposition.

keg in kc · 05-22-2001, 06:33 PM

Very, very well said RCGChief.

DanT · 05-22-2001, 06:47 PM

It's always good to hear from RCGChief when the partisans start spinning.
Libertarians and moderates often have the best BS detectors! :)

oleman47 · 05-22-2001, 08:36 PM

Titus
I think the topic was the media lying as I said before and it is not about me solving the world's problems. However, I would be more than happy. You supply the thread of your desire and I will contribute. I am obviously not devoid of opinions.

KCTitus · 05-23-2001, 06:33 AM

Oleman, forgive me for ever trying to defend you by stating that you are up front about your liberal bias. The reason we got off point was a result of your incoherent retorts to my defense of you. A quick re-reading of our exchange might help you understand.

I do apologize to the rest of the posters on the topic for having to stray so far in attempting an exchange with this person.

In any event, although this topic is about one media story, this topic is also about bias. News outlets are biased most in one direction some in the other. I guess since 'conservative' bias is so rare in major media outlets, this particular story was noteable as to have someone point it out with a topic on the BB.

I'll be anxiously awaiting Keg's next contribution that points out the next 'lie' or biased report of a major media outlet when it's biased from a left sided source.

As RCGChief pointed out, "My suggestion is to hold those who share your political beliefs to [b]"at least" the same standards[/b] as those of the opposition."

Lightning Rod · 05-23-2001, 08:49 AM

Thanks for all the kudos. Rod the great Moderate topic killer strikes again!
Now I think I'll go stir up some trouble this mamby pamby down the middle stuff gets dull.

**Baby Lee** · 05-23-2001, 09:17 AM

This 'trashing the white house' story has really shed light on the 'who's zooming who' aspect of the partisan public image wars. It gets almost impossible to tell whether the Dems are secretly pumping up the 'distortions' knowing they'll come home to roost on the Repubs heads, or if the Repub heads are giving a wink and a nod to the 'underlings' to disseminate the story.

The reason this story got so much credence, is that it fit the mold so well. Over the past eight years, wing tips had been replaced by Birkenstocks, and nose rings had replaced tie clips for many white house staff [not that there's anything wrong with that]. The presidential race was contentious and brought out the worst in both the leadership and the citizen on the street [in terms of bad-mouthing the opposition]. the allegations, while distressing, were credible.

The difficulty is in separating who alleged what, and to what extent. Unnamed sources make accusations both mild and wild that Bush and his administration consistently downplay. Is it because he is above the fray and wants to get on with the 'people's work?' Is it because he wants to appear above the fray, while his minions trash the predessessors? Is it because he's scared he can't forge his own identity with any shred of Clinton still around? Is it because unnamed [I]democrat[/I] sources are putting some of the allegations out there to feed the image of the rabid radical right that has kept them in business so well.

Now this report comes out saying 'some things didn't happen, some things may have happened (we can't tell), and some things we would have no way of knowing whether they happened or not.'

the confounding factor here is that the Democrats now know that an overzealous attack on them actually girds up their supporters. Thus, like with the subliminable debacle and with Bush's lost debate practice tapes, it is nearly impossible to tell where the attacks are coming from. IS it another overzealous right wing nutjob? IS it the truth. Or is it a dem feedning the conspiracy machine?

05-23-2001, 01:04 PM

While we're revisiting some of the old election "dramas", I just read this a couple days ago, hard to believe!

[QUOTE]In the March mayoral primary in St. Louis, three deceased city aldermen and a dog were among those registered to vote, but the election was nonetheless an improvement over the November 2000 contest. That Election Day featured, among other things, a successful lawsuit by a man petitioning a judge to have the polls stay open late because crowding and poor record-keeping were preventing him from voting, even though it was subsequently discovered that he (the lead plaintiff on the petition) had been deceased for a year himself. [Los Angeles Times, 2-28-01; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4-17-01] [/QUOTE]

05-19-2001, 05:41 PM
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Republican charges that Clinton staff trashed the White House were fraudulent [quote]No truth in White House vandal scandal, GSA reports By DAVID GOLDSTEIN The Kansas City Star Date: 05/17/01 22:15 WASHINGTON -- The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop. The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted. Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. "The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy," according to a GSA statement. No wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers and telephones, no evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images. GSA didn't bother to nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive. Among those pranks was the apparent removal, by aides to former President Bill Clinton, of the "w" key from some computer keyboards and the placing of official-looking signs on doors, saying things like "Office of Strategery," after a popular "Saturday Night Live" spoof on Bush. But the vandal scandal, tales of torn up offices and items stolen from the presidential jet, was the hottest story in town during the early days of the Bush administration until White House furniture and last-minute pardons pushed it off the front page. "I think it was this calculated effort to plant a damaging story," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "There was a sort of fertile ground for believing anything bad." Typical was Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former presidential speech writer for President Bush's father, who wrote that the White House "was a wreck." He also said that Air Force One, after taking Clinton and some aides to New York following the inauguration, "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister." He went on to list all manner of missing items, including silverware, porcelain dishes with the presidential seal and even candy. "It makes one feel grateful that the seats and carpets are bolted down," Snow fumed. Except none of it happened. An official at Andrews Air Force Base, which maintains the presidential jets, told The Kansas City Star at the height of the controversy that nothing was missing. Bush himself acknowledged the same a few days later. And now GSA has made it official. "They told me that there were papers that were not organized lying on the floor and on desks; there were some scratches here and there, but the bottom line was they didn't see anything really in their view that was significant and that would appear to some as real extensive damage," said Bernard Unger, director for physical infrastructure for the General Accounting Office, which asked GSA to look into the allegations. Mark Lindsay, who oversaw the transition as Clinton's assistant for management and administration, said he was pleased that the record has been set straight. "Because of President Clinton, this was one of the smoothest transitions in the history of the presidency," he said. "This was nothing more than just lies." As for the critics, Barr's office didn't return calls about the GSA findings. Snow was somewhat contrite. "I'm perfectly willing to admit my error on the aircraft," he said, but added that he still believed his sources who told him about damage at the White House. "What often happens in Washington is gossip becomes news. That's not a good thing."[/quote] I can't provide a straight link, but if you want to see the actual story go to the Star website "local" section and do a search for author "David Goldstein".
Posts: 58,682

05-22-2001, 02:02 PM	#46
NaptownChief Football Pimp Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Indianapolis,IN Casino cash: $9974900	Following Oleman's commentary is a lot like trying to make sense of GreenSpeak (Greenspan's commentary) __________________ "We weren't worth a damn," the Kansas City Chiefs head coach said, shaking his head. "I'm not worth a damn. No one's worth a damn..." Former President of the Eric Downing Fan Club and Current President of the Kris"Secret Weapon"Wilson Fan Club
Posts: 4,357

05-22-2001, 02:15 PM	#47
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9902732	[i]But you do illustrate my point, it is not about the issues it is about the messenger.[/i] How's that? You have yet to make any point...I have asked you to explain your earlier posts, yet you just keep going on and on about how I've multilated your opinions. As I originally stated, you have offered NO post that in any way states that a solution to any of America's problems would best be solved by market economies and competition. THIS is my point--what's yours? __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,192

05-22-2001, 02:39 PM	#48
Lightning Rod Need a new title Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Prairie Village Casino cash: $10004900	I think we have gotten a bit off point here. The original topic pertained to what appears to be the kind of twisted, exaggerated take a grain of truth and build a mountain of excrement out of it stuff, that we all claim to despise. We all have our political biases and tend to believe stories that follow our train of thought. To blindly accept as "Truth" things like this, and the supposed trail of bodies left in the Clintons wake is unwise. There is more than enough dirt on both sides of the fence to need to make things up. The GOP has attempted to carry the torch of 'Family values" and morality. If this is to be the case they must walk the walk. The kind of squiggling and spin-doctoring so common on both sides cannot be tolerated much less encouraged. There are many people "like me" that are conservative on far more issues than they are liberal. Even thoughh this is the case, since I do not really consider myself a Republican or a Democrat I tend to view statements from each side with similar skepticism. I do not like what I see. While I must admit I see more mud-slinging from the Dems than I do the Reps I see it somewhat like a woman trying to convince me to go out with her because the other gal is an even bigger B$TCH . My suggestion is to hold those who share your political beliefs to "at least" the same standards as those of the opposition. __________________ Who was the first person to say, "See that chicken over there ... I'm gonna eat the first thing that comes out if its butt"?
Posts: 1,151

05-22-2001, 06:33 PM	#49
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Very, very well said RCGChief.
Posts: 58,682

05-22-2001, 06:47 PM	#50
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4571711	It's always good to hear from RCGChief when the partisans start spinning. Libertarians and moderates often have the best BS detectors! :)
Posts: 4,224

05-22-2001, 08:36 PM	#51
oleman47 Starter Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Wichita Casino cash: $10004900	Titus I think the topic was the media lying as I said before and it is not about me solving the world's problems. However, I would be more than happy. You supply the thread of your desire and I will contribute. I am obviously not devoid of opinions.
Posts: 512

05-23-2001, 06:33 AM	#52
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9902732	Oleman, forgive me for ever trying to defend you by stating that you are up front about your liberal bias. The reason we got off point was a result of your incoherent retorts to my defense of you. A quick re-reading of our exchange might help you understand. I do apologize to the rest of the posters on the topic for having to stray so far in attempting an exchange with this person. In any event, although this topic is about one media story, this topic is also about bias. News outlets are biased most in one direction some in the other. I guess since 'conservative' bias is so rare in major media outlets, this particular story was noteable as to have someone point it out with a topic on the BB. I'll be anxiously awaiting Keg's next contribution that points out the next 'lie' or biased report of a major media outlet when it's biased from a left sided source. As RCGChief pointed out, "My suggestion is to hold those who share your political beliefs to [b]"at least" the same standards[/b] as those of the opposition." __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,192

05-23-2001, 08:49 AM	#53
Lightning Rod Need a new title Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Prairie Village Casino cash: $10004900	Thanks for all the kudos. Rod the great Moderate topic killer strikes again! Now I think I'll go stir up some trouble this mamby pamby down the middle stuff gets dull. Last edited by Lightning Rod; 05-23-2001 at 08:52 AM..
Posts: 1,151

05-23-2001, 09:17 AM	#54
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6838598	This 'trashing the white house' story has really shed light on the 'who's zooming who' aspect of the partisan public image wars. It gets almost impossible to tell whether the Dems are secretly pumping up the 'distortions' knowing they'll come home to roost on the Repubs heads, or if the Repub heads are giving a wink and a nod to the 'underlings' to disseminate the story. The reason this story got so much credence, is that it fit the mold so well. Over the past eight years, wing tips had been replaced by Birkenstocks, and nose rings had replaced tie clips for many white house staff [not that there's anything wrong with that]. The presidential race was contentious and brought out the worst in both the leadership and the citizen on the street [in terms of bad-mouthing the opposition]. the allegations, while distressing, were credible. The difficulty is in separating who alleged what, and to what extent. Unnamed sources make accusations both mild and wild that Bush and his administration consistently downplay. Is it because he is above the fray and wants to get on with the 'people's work?' Is it because he wants to appear above the fray, while his minions trash the predessessors? Is it because he's scared he can't forge his own identity with any shred of Clinton still around? Is it because unnamed [I]democrat[/I] sources are putting some of the allegations out there to feed the image of the rabid radical right that has kept them in business so well. Now this report comes out saying 'some things didn't happen, some things may have happened (we can't tell), and some things we would have no way of knowing whether they happened or not.' the confounding factor here is that the Democrats now know that an overzealous attack on them actually girds up their supporters. Thus, like with the subliminable debacle and with Bush's lost debate practice tapes, it is nearly impossible to tell where the attacks are coming from. IS it another overzealous right wing nutjob? IS it the truth. Or is it a dem feedning the conspiracy machine?
Posts: 95,642

05-23-2001, 01:04 PM	#55
cjderby Guest Casino cash: $	While we're revisiting some of the old election "dramas", I just read this a couple days ago, hard to believe! [QUOTE]In the March mayoral primary in St. Louis, three deceased city aldermen and a dog were among those registered to vote, but the election was nonetheless an improvement over the November 2000 contest. That Election Day featured, among other things, a successful lawsuit by a man petitioning a judge to have the polls stay open late because crowding and poor record-keeping were preventing him from voting, even though it was subsequently discovered that he (the lead plaintiff on the petition) had been deceased for a year himself. [Los Angeles Times, 2-28-01; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4-17-01] [/QUOTE]
Posts: n/a