Colleague of Ex-Official Disputes Part of Account
Read this article in full.
Deconstruct it.
I will make a first stab at it...but notice some "interesting" points.
First off, notice the headline, gauge its tone and the words used.
Now compare to some of the tidbits well-couched and well-hidden in the leading grafs:
The official, Franklin C. Miller, who acknowledges that he was often a bureaucratic rival of Mr. Clarke
Hmmm....no mention of that potential rivalry in the headline.
Mr. Miller, a senior aide to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser
Whoa! Not until graf 5 or 6 do we find out that Miller is senior aide to the person most likely to suffer directly from Clarke's testimony...Doesn't Sanger (or his editor) think THAT is an important bit of information?
Mr. Miller and other White House officials said they were not accusing Mr. Clarke of fabricating events.
Doesn't this statement directly contradict the headline? If a person disputes another person's testimony or recounting of a story, then that person is contending that events, words, statements, or actions have been misrepresented...
...He describes how Mr. Miller came into the room, squeezed Mr. Clarke's bicep, and said, "Guess I'm working for you today. What can I do?"
"I wouldn't say that," Mr. Miller said Monday. "I might say, `How can I help.' "
Huh? So the FIRST instance of "disputed" testimony is based on more than two-year-old recollections of specific statements and wordings that, regardless of their difference in NO WAY change the meaning of the statement or the substance of the recount?
Mr. Miller disputes Mr. Clarke's recollection that the Secret Service asked for fighter escorts to protect Air Force One after it lifted off from Sarasota, Fla., where President Bush was visiting an elementary school. A young aide in the Situation Room made that suggestion to Mr. Miller, he said, who recalls telling the aide he had seen too many movies. A moment later, reconsidering, Mr. Miller asked Ms. Rice whether to call up fighter support, and she told him to go ahead, he recalled.
Huh?
These (and the others in the story) form the basis for a Senior Aide to Condolleeza Rice calling into question the veracity or accuracy of Clarke's recounting of the events on 9-11???
This is journalism?