He was widely criticized for that statement. I contend the criticism was unfair. Reasons:[list][li]Newt’s statement was true. Presumably a senior law enforcement official had make the quoted statement to Newt, as he claimed.[]Newt’s figure was literally accurate. He said “Up to a quarter…” Even if the actual percentage was less than 25%, the weasel words “up to” makes his statement not incorrect.[]The “one-quarter” estimate has never been shown to be wrong. It may be an accurate figure, for all we know.[]Newt’s warning was apt: There actually was a significant population of druggies in the Clinton White House.[]Newt’s warning was important: I don’t believe a White House staffer on crack could get access to the nuclear button. But, could such a staffer have contributed to our bombing of of a Sudanese aspirin factory? We’ll never know.The White House lied in response to Newt’s charge: [/li][quote]
``We cannot do business here with a speaker of the House who is going to engage in these kinds of unfounded allegations,’’ fumed Leon Panetta, the White House chief of staff.
[/quote]
Panetta’s statement was false. Regardless of the exact number, the Secret Service later testified that there was a serious problem of druggies in the White House. Panetta must have been aware of the situation.
Is it a serious problem? The senior official said that up to 25% of new employees had used drugs in the last four or five years, not that they were addicted to drugs, or made a habit of coming to work under the influence, or ever used drugs on the job. After all, the vast majority of adults drink alcohol at least occasionally, but few of them ever come to work drunk.
And then you’ve got sterling citizens like Geroge W. Bush, who continually refused to give a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question, “Have you ever used cocaine?” during the 2000 Presidential campaign.
Using december’s loose standards, the GOP should have concluded that Dubya was a crackhead and bounced him off the ticket…
So the fact that he used “weasel words” while quoting an unnamed source for the sole purpose of trying to make political hay is the reason he should not be pilloried for his inappropriate comments?
Is “We’ll never know.” the best you can do to show how serious this is? I think that for something to be serious it has to have some reason other than a mistake could possibly have occurred with the help of a drug.
Sure, I disagree. Or at least would want qualifying info.
Anyone who showed up at work chemically altered, or took substances while working would be a cause for concern in proportion to the importance of that person’s duties.
But there’s a huge difference between use and abuse. In my experience, the majority of drug users never do become abusers. Your own experience with your friends who use alcohol will no doubt bear this out.
Recreational drug use on off-duty hours doesn’t alarm me. It could provide a ‘wedge’ issue for blackmail, but so could adultery and a lot of other things as well.
So Newt alleged use an order of magnitude larger than the Secret Service corroborated, and he got beat up for it. Seems to me he got what was coming to him.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the ‘background’ level for drug use is in DC? Was 2% use really out of the ordinary?
Where does one begin with Newt Gangrene? How to seperate the bald faced lies from the mere scurillous innuendo? But lets just pretend, shall we, that he knows the meaning of “hearsay”. Then we must assume he understood when passed this nugget of horseshit along, he was indulging in an underhanded tactic to discredit his political enemies. Is he embarrassed? Does he attach any disclaimer to this assertion? No, he simply passes it along as gospel, because it was from a “senior law enforcement” figure.
Does he give us any reason, beyond this persons official standing, to lend credence? Did this official do urine tests on the incoming staff? Background checks, with affidavits, etc? I think it safe to say that if NG had any hard evidence, he would not have witheld it. I mean, given his avowed committment to truth, and all.
When he passes along hearsay, that he knows has not a shred of support, it was nothing more than an excercise in slander. Newt was, and most likely remains, a liar, a poltoon, and an infected pustule on the body politic.
“Taking the low road,” as in making gratuitously insulting or personal remarks, is a common practice among people of pretty much all political affiliations, with respect to a huge variety of public figures. I don’t think that that in any way indicates that Gingrich “got a raw deal” in being criticized for his statements about drug use in the Clinton administration. In fact, the actual data that’s been presented in this thread seems to indicate that indeed, Gingrich’s remarks were inaccurate and irresponsible.
December >> Newt’s warning was apt: There actually was a significant population of druggies in the Clinton White House.
Do you have any facts to back up this claim?
Newt’s warning was important: I don’t believe a White House staffer on crack could get access to the nuclear button. But, could such a staffer have contributed to our bombing of of a Sudanese aspirin factory? We’ll never know.
Could Bush be smoking crack this very second? Could Cheney be giving his gay lover a rim job right now? We’ll never know.
I think the phrase literally means, “The thing speaks for itself.” I think in law, it means there is a presumtion that something is true (although that presumption may be rebuttable.) The example I remember from my actuarial law course was that a dead mouse found in a soft drink bottle could be presumed to be negligence by the bottler. The plaintiff who had been damaged by the mouse would not need to prove how the bottler was negligent.
In this debate, I applied that phrase in asserting that it would be a situation of great concern if (hypthetical) White House staffers were crack-heads. Given the importance of White House staff and the given what crack does to someone’s mind, I think it speaks for itself that this hypothetical situation would be of great concern.
Newt got his information from a senior law enforcement official.
At a later time, secret service agents testified to considerable drug problems.
Also, a book 7 or 8 years ago by a retired secret service agent, whose name I’ve forgotten, also complained about all the people who had been allowed to serve on the WH staff without passing a drug test.
If this is a criticism of my writing, then I accept it. If it’s a serious argument, then I disagree. There were reasons to fear that Clinton staffers might be using drugs, namely those listed above.
First, Res Ipsa is a legal doctrine that says that when an instrumentality is in the exclusive control of the defendant and the instrumentality causes an injury that could not happen unless there were negligence on someone’s part it may be taken that the defendant was negligent. It has precious little to do with the proposition which december advances.
Second, Ol’ Newt’s statement was (1) a person whom I will not identify but who I ask you to believe is knowledgeable (2) has told me under circumstances that I will not reveal (3) that up to 25% of the White House staff, whose identity I will not reveal, (4) have use drugs of some unspecified sort at some unspecified time. (5)I either do not know or I will not reveal the basis for this unidentified person’s knowledge. That is the sort of comment that is known in polite circles as a stealth hatchet job and as tarring with a wide brush. The statement lacks verifiable specificity in every important point.
Third, I have a hard time distinguishing between the ethics and integrity of Newt’s statement and an even more famous assay into the dimly lit world of self serving political innuendo: “I have here the names of five hundred Communists in the State Department.”
Fourth, Ol’ Newt is pretty much a dead rat in the pit. His reputation for honesty and fair dealing is beyond december’s poor abilities to white wash it.
I try to avoid “me, too” posts - but I endorse this analysis. The fact that the allegation is made publicly, without any specifics, don’t speak well for it.
However, I do take issue with:
As long as this is at the stage of an unnamed book by an unnamed author, it may be dismissed - but when themoon dismisses this point by saying, “So? Who says his claims are valid?” it suggests a willingness to dismiss it even if the book is identified, with no further analysis.
A book by a named author, which may, in turn, name its sources, or testify to direct observation, cannot be so carelessly dismissed. The answer, themoon, may be well be: The author says his own claims are valid.
I don’t know that the claims are or are not valid; indeed, the book and the author aren’t named, which, I agree, makes the “cite” easy to dismiss. But if december does produce a book and author name, it must be accepted or rejected on whatever merits it has… not dismissed out of hand.
Well, to start with, we’ve gone from “drugs in the past five years” to “the White House staffers were crack-heads.”
I completely and totally believe that many White House staffers had smoked a little pot in the past five years. I’ll even believe (and this is complete speculation) that they many might have done this while holding WH jobs.
But there is a big difference between getting a little baked on occation in a responsible manner and being a crack head, or shooting heroin on your lunch break.
Now, granted, both are illegal, and therefore not great activities for anyone to take part in. But I don’t think there are many people who have never done anything at all illegal, politicians and staff of both parties included.