A former administration official goes onto a news show and adamantly denies that he ever claimed an “operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda”, and then a week later, is contradicted by evidence that shows that he ABSOLUTELY DID claim an “operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”

And by FOX NEWS no less!

But fellow commeter Chris (above) is absolutely correct of course. This represents a recurring pattern on the part of administration officials going onto a news show to adamantly deny making a previous claim, only for evidence to later surface that shows that they DID IN FACT make such a claim.

In June of 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney went onto CNBC’s Capital Report and addressed prior allegations made by the administration regarding Mohammed Atta’s meeting with Iraqi officials:

INTERVIEWER: You have said in the past that it was, quote, “pretty well confirmed.”

CHENEY: No, I never said that.

INTERVIEWER: (baffled) OK–

CHENEY: (interrupting) I never said that.

INTERVIEWER: I think that is–

CHENEY: (interrupting) Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that, nor have we been able to knock it down.

Yet in December of 2001, Cheney said this on MSNBC’s Meet the Press:

CHENEY: It’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official with the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Czechoslovakia last April.

I’m more than willing to concede that sometimes, people simply forget some of the past comments that they’ve made. I think that many of us are guilty of this.

But as Chris pointed our above, this is become a recurring pattern for the Bush administration:

1) Make a controversial statment in regards to some implicit link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
2) Independent analysis goes on to refute statment.
3) Go onto a news show a 2-3 years later and refute ever making said statement.
4) Days/weeks later, news show shows cites evidence showing that, in fact, statement was made by administration official.

Is it administration official guilty of lying, misleading, or simply forgetting past remarks?

That all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

Maybe they don’t mind going after Feith, because he is out of power now, and has already been discredited by recent Congressional hearings. Still, it is to CW’s credit that he did a follow-up correction. Sad that this is the exception rather than the rule, when it comes to “fair and balanced” Fox.

The question: will they blame Feith for everything now? Will he be the only one who will be hold responsible?