Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Where I backtrack on Rice
Greg Sargent has the latest on the Rice-Tenet briefing dispute:
Here's a third thing we know. There appears to be near-unanimous agreement between the three newspaper accounts that no one has confirmed Woodward's central charge that Rice brushed off Tenet's warning. The Times says "current and former officials, including allies of Mr. Tenet," dispute it. And Ben-Veniste said unequivocally that in Tenet's meeting before the commission that “Tenet never told us that he was brushed off.” The Post goes further, quoting Ben-Veniste as saying that Tenet was asked in particular if Rice had taken the warning seriously, and that he said she did. This leaves two possibilities: Either Woodward was wrong on this point, or he was right, and Tenet didn't tell the Commission what he appears to have told Woodward -- that Rice brushed him off -- and more recently decided to reveal it via Woodward. That latter possibility, though, is somewhat undercut by what Tenet's "allies" told the Times.
So, the original story alleged that Rice blew off the meeting with Tenet and that the 9/11 Commission was not aware of the meeting. Current reporting has Rice following up on the meeting (at least half-heartedly). It also appears that the 9/11 Commission was aware of the meeting.
Obviously, the current facts are far more favorable to Rice than Woodward's assertions. Although substantial questions about the meeting remain, my original post on the matter now lacks a strong factual basis.
