Columnist Charles Krauthammer heaped praise on President Bush's inaugural address. But, he says, he had nothing to do with shaping the speech.
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol also lauded the speech. He says he did not consult on the speech itself but discussed with two White House officials "themes for the second term and included in that, themes for the inaugural."
Both conservatives are unapologetic about having privately offered advice to top White House aides, saying that is perfectly proper for commentators.
Krauthammer, whose op-ed column runs in The Post and is syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group, said of his participation in a Jan. 10 meeting at the White House that it was "an informal, off-the-record discussion of U.S. Middle East policy. . . . This meeting was not designed to be the exercise in speech preparation. Nor did I have that impression during the meeting itself that it was. If I had, I would have mentioned it when commenting on it."
Krauthammer was invited to the 90-minute session by Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. Presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson was also there, along with counselor Dan Bartlett, senior adviser Karl Rove and more than a half-dozen other administration officials.
Wehner's invitation said: "What should this administration do/say more of -- and what should it do/say less of? What are the key, achievable goals we should aim for during the next four years?" In a follow-up note, Wehner asked Krauthammer to lead off the discussion on "spreading liberty to the Middle East."
Krauthammer and Kristol have drawn some criticism since a Jan. 22 Post article described them as among those consulting on the inaugural address.
Liz Spayd, the paper's assistant managing editor for national news, said: "We stand by the story we wrote. We have a firsthand source who says it was crystal clear a primary purpose of the meeting was to seek advice on both Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches."
Kristol, who worked in the White House under Bush's father, said he had breakfast around Thanksgiving with Wehner and Gerson and talked about the president's message but did not discuss the inaugural address "concretely."
"I never saw a draft of the speech," Kristol said. "I've had dozens of conversations with people in the White House. I've been critical when I don't like the speeches. I give them advice publicly and privately about what they should say about A, B and C" -- and, he said, recently did the same for a Democratic senator.
"I'm flattered to think in a tiny way I might have given Mike Gerson one or two thoughts, but the speech would have been exactly the same if we hadn't had breakfast," Kristol said. Wehner said he may have discussed the speech with Kristol but is not certain.
The White House meeting that Krauthammer attended also included such guests as Yale professor John Lewis Gaddis and historian Victor Davis Hanson, a National Review Online contributor.
"I think about issues and give opinions for a living," Krauthammer said. "I do it in my column, on television, in speeches, in seminars to a variety of groups. . . . My views on the Middle East are hardly private." He said the meeting was "interesting" and thought it "might actually allow the administration officials, and us, to learn something new."
Wehner said the meeting was "pretty much divorced" from Bush's speech, which he said was "largely written" by that point. "We're interested in talking to people from the world of thought," Wehner said. He said he doesn't only meet with uncritical supporters, noting that Kristol has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign.
Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said a columnist who offered the White House foreign-policy advice should disclose that when writing on the subject.
"If there's nothing wrong with doing it, there's nothing wrong with sharing it," he said. "Journalists owe their first allegiance to their audience." Another "potential problem," Rosenstiel said, is that "policymakers like to meet with journalists and ask their advice as a way of co-opting them."
Fred Hiatt, The Post's editorial page editor, said that the contention that Krauthammer consulted on the speech "is false" and that "I have complete faith in his integrity." He said Post editorial board members are not permitted to offer politicians private advice, but "obviously I have less ability to set rules for people who don't work for me."
Hiatt noted that Krauthammer also serves on the President's Council on Bioethics. "I wouldn't do it, but as long as he disclosed it, which he did, and mentions it when he writes about the subject, which he does, it seems to me a legitimate choice."
The question of journalistic boundaries is receiving heightened attention following disclosures that commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $241,000 by the Education Department to promote Bush's education policy and columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from the Health and Human Services Department to work on the president's marriage initiative. The same HHS unit also paid marriage activist and syndicated columnist Michael McManus about $4,000, and his group Marriage Savers $49,000, to work on the program, Salon.com and USA Today reported yesterday.
