politics

Some News That Was Fit to Print

April 14, 2004

Thanks to Michael Tomasky, writing on the American Prospect‘s Web site, for this one, about some real news that a lot of reporters seem to have missed at last night’s presidential press conference.

Most reports focused on the president’s determination to “stay the course” in Iraq, and his unwillingness to admit to mistakes or to offer an apology. Lost in all this was the president’s confirmation that he essentially did nothing after receiving the now-famous August 6, 2001 President’s Daily Briefing which warned of Al Qaeda’s intention to launch attacks in the U.S.

Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times asked the president what, if anything, he did upon receiving the memo. Here’s the reply:

Now in the, what’s called the PDB. there was a warning about bin Laden’s desires on America. Frankly, I didn’t think that was anything new. I mean major newspapers had talked about bin Laden’s desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And that was good news that they were doing their job.

Until last night, the president had never been asked directly what actions he took after receiving the memo. So his response was unquestionably newsworthy. Further, Bush’s judgement that, “that was good news that they were doing their job” stands in stark contrast to Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission last week that there was “nothing reassuring” in the memo.

Since Rice’s testimony last week, the August 6 PDB and the president’s response to it, or the lack thereof, has become exhibit A for critics charging that the administration was lax in the weeks just before the attacks. The Washington Post seems to agree about the importance of the memo. Here’s what it wrote yesterday in an editorial:

Sign up for CJR's daily email

The document may not have specified “a time and place” of an attack, as Mr. Bush said, but it contained warnings that could have prompted him to do more. This is a legitimate subject for inquiry when the commission questions him. Mr. Bush should be asked if, having been informed about preparations for possible hijackings, he pressed hard enough to learn what that evidence consisted of and whether the government was doing enough to prevent such an occurrence.

If, as the Post believes, Bush’s response to the memo is an important subject for the 9/11 Commission, then surely it’s also an important subject for the press. Yet the only major account of the press conference we could find that included Bush’s response was that of Mark Matthews in the Baltimore Sun. The Post, as well as the New York Times, the Associated Press, USA Today, and even Chen’s own Los Angles Times ignored the exchange. And nobody pointed out the obvious contradiction between Bush’s and Rice’s characterizations of the memo.

Readers trying to sort through the impassioned rhetoric on both sides of the 9/11 debate deserved a look at the president’s response to Chen’s question. If they relied on any of the major print accounts they didn’t get it.

–Zachary Roth

Zachary Roth is a contributing editor to The Washington Monthly. He also has written for The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, and Talking Points Memo, among other outlets.