A Brief History of Claims the White House Has Called “Absurd”

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

This week, after a new book by journalist Ron Suskind reported that the White House had ordered the CIA to plant a forged letter that alleged that 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammad Atta had trained extensively in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a White House spokesman called Suskind’s allegation “absurd.”

“The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from [former Iraqi intelligence chief] Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Today, washingtonpost.com columnist Dan Froomkin lays out a brief history of other recent White House statements calling past allegations similarly absurd. Froomkin:

Fratto’s response is also highly reminiscent of some previous White House non-denials.

One of my favorites has always been former press secretary Scott McClellan’s response to a British press report in 2005, to the effect that Bush had raised with British Prime Minister Tony Blair the idea of bombing al-Jazeera television headquarters. All McClellan would say about that is: “Any such notion that we would engage in that kind of activity is just absurd.”

Here’s McClellan in October 2003, responding to questions about the White House’s campaign against former ambassador and administration critic Joe Wilson: “We — this White House — it is absurd to suggest that this White House would seek to punish someone for speaking out with a different view. We welcome people with different views. That’s a healthy part of our democracy.”

And of course here is McClellan, in September 2003, responding to questions about whether Karl Rove was involved in the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as a CIA operative: “I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place.”

Of course, we later learned that many of those allegations, despite initial White House protestations that they were “absurd” or even “ridiculous,” were also true. (Froomkin says the Al Jazeera charge was not fully explored).


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend