Q Dana, can you tell us why you decided to put out this statement this morning about The New York Times story? Why did you feel compelled to respond?
MS. PERINO: Well, the subhead of the newspaper indicated that the White House — well, it says the White House role was wider than it said, implying that I had either changed my story, or I or somebody else at the White House had misled the public. And that is not true. And I heard now from The New York Times that they will retract that headline, and they are going to run a correction tomorrow.
Q But the underlying facts, four White House lawyers who are named knew about the destruction or the intent to destroy the tapes beforehand. Are you disputing that?
MS. PERINO: I have not commented on that — and when we are in that —
Q (Inaudible.)
MS. PERINO: Helen, I’m going to finish this answer. The White House has not commented on anybody’s involvement or knowledge, save for me telling everybody that the President had no recollection of being briefed on the existence or the destruction of the tapes before he was briefed by General Hayden. After that, I did not comment on anybody’s knowledge or involvement. So if somebody has information that contradicts the one thing that I’ve said, then this would be true — but it’s not. And that is why I asked for a correction and The New York Times is going to correct it.
Q So you’re disputing the characterization in that —
MS. PERINO: Absolutely, it’s wrong.
Q — not the underlying facts of the story.
MS. PERINO: I’m not commenting on the underlying facts of the story.
[snip]
Q You’re the one who’s drawing the implication. Would you have been happy if the subhead had read, “White House role was lighter than previously understood”?
MS. PERINO: I have not — what it says is that I had changed my story, and I have not.
Q It doesn’t say that.
MS. PERINO: It — that’s how I took it, and I am not —
Q It does not say —
MS. PERINO: — the only one.
Q It simply says that the White House does not comment on this, then it goes on to —
MS. PERINO: That is not — that’s not what it says in its headline, Bill. And there was editorial decision that led to this subheadline, because if they didn’t want to make this point to try to say that the White House had misled the public, why would they put it in bold face above the fold, and then not — and then it’s not supported by any of the facts or the contradictory statements in the article.
Q But that’s very difficult to judge when you won’t give us the facts.
