Howard Dean needs to call media on the Clinton "vandalism of the White House" lie.

[Captain Hilts]

It's just not true and it has to stop.

Bob Herbert used it last July.
Barbara Walters used it last week.
CNN used it last week.
President Bush mentioned it last week.

The GAO and FBI said there was no vandalism and no photographs of said "vandalism" have ever been produced.

It's up to Dean to stop it.

[SpiralHawk]

1. republicon lies are the 'truth' for corporate media

corporate media no longer serves the truth or the American people in any discernable way.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Even without photographs or a bill for repairs!

[godai]

3. Are you sure it's a lie?

The GAO concluded that "damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition." The report stated that some acts, such as removing keyboard keys, placing glue on desk drawers and leaving obscene voice-mail messages "clearly were intentional" -- a criminal act under federal law. No prosecutions are planned, however.

Clinton supporters countered that the amount of trash was typical of a presidential turnover and that money was scarce to replace chairs, locks, mirrors and other items broken from ordinary use before the transition.




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/06/12/MN34417.DTL&type=printable

[Captain Hilts]

4. Some W keys were removed and dirty pictures left on xerox machines...

The GHWB admin had to get a forklife to unstack the desks that had been stacked up to the ceiling by the departing Reagan Admin.

Pranks happen.

There was no rampant "vandalism" of the White House. And no claims were made for repairs. The FBI agreed.

[WinkyDink]

8. Here's a counter, from the same paper:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/05/19/MN169709.DTL

[godai]

12. Bottom line...this is not something Obama or other Democrats need to discuss.

Your link is May 2001, mine is June 2002, so it seems the final GAO conclusion, in June, was relatively minor damage, about $15,000. Hopefully there will be $0 damage when President Obama takes over.

[blm]

19. It was heavily exaggerated. And Clintons didn't care about the impression it left because if they

chose to put up a fight it might take Bush's poll numbers down a bit....and Clintons wouldn't be ready for that until 2006 when Hillary was set to run.

[oviedodem]

5. Dean's silence tells you that there is truth to it.

[WinkyDink]

7. Hardly. Why would you prefer to believe this?

[Captain Hilts]

11. Let's see some photographs documenting the damage.

but it's part of a larger pattern to trash the party.

Dean should care.

Folks here say they don't believe the MSM, but they believe it when it trashes the clintons.

[Captain Hilts]

10. The FBI and GAO said there was nothing significant. That's not good enough for him?

[JI7]

6. why does Dean need to do it ? he didn't serve in that white house

i'm sure he would. but shouldn't the people who served at the time be saying something ?

[Captain Hilts]

9. Pssst...he's head of the DNC. nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. No he doesn't.

It's an eight year old story. Few people cared about it then, fewer care about it now. I'm sure he's got better things to be doing with his time.

[Captain Hilts]

14. It's been mentioned in MSM several times this week. NOT an old story.

Another way of showing how the Bush Admin. began lying their first hour in office.

[madfloridian]

15. That's silly. He's out, anyway.

Just announced he's leaving.

[gravity]

16. Who cares?

There are more important things to worry about

[Maru Kitteh]

17. Rick f**in' Sanchez on CNN used it again TODAY - made Bush sound like this great guy

Mature, gracious, statesman-like, all terms now being used to describe Bush and of course you know the established B.S. narrative about Clinton.

[blm]

18. You mean Clintons never fought that story down after 8 months of headlines? And we were being told

to support them because they are the only Dems who know how to fight back?

Geez.....but, I'm not surprised....Clintons didn't even bother fighting back against the 'Clinton was soft on terrorism' meme spread by Republicans for 5 years after 9-11. They didn't care because it only hung the Dem PARTY as weak on terror in the public's mind back then, and Clinton didn't need the Dem party again until Hillary was ready to run.