First, it is important to note that John DiIulio stands by the substantive and newsworthy critique of policymaking at the White House I reported in my story in the January Esquire, including his statement that: "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.".
I am sympathetic to the pressure Mr. DiIulio is under because of his comments about the eight months he spent in this White House, and the four months he spent managing the Faith-based initiative from his office at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
It is important to clarify what Mr. DiIulio is attempting to say in today�s statement, and the facts attending his extraordinary and courageous testimony. Though Mr. DiIulio's desire to apologize to former colleagues is understandable, his desire to speak truthfully about his experiences at the center of power is to be hailed.
With all due respect, I'd like to respond to a few of John's points. The vast majority of the quotations attributed to Mr. DiIulio in the article are from a sweeping, sober letter he wrote me as I reported the piece. As well, our first, telephone interview was on the record. At the end of that lengthy interview, Mr. DiIulio respectfully asked whether the preceding conversation could be off-the-record. I declined.
As it happened, only a few comments from the original interview appear in the published story. They include the comment about Ms. LaMontagne and the brief exchange between Mr. DiIulio and Mr. Rove. That last exchange--about not cozying up to Mr. Falwell--was read to Mr. DiIulio prior to publication and he confirmed that it was correct.
In the end, Mr. DiIulio replaced most of his spoken comments with the landmark, 3,469-word letter he sent to me on October 24, in which he offered his critique of policymaking at the White House. That is, in large measure, why he wrote the letter. It is that thoughtful and comprehensive memo, excerpted without editorial change, that comprises the sum of Mr. DiIulio's assessment of this White House.
As to the few issues of fact Mr. DiIulio raises, they are all verifiable as correct with one exception. Mr. DiIulio clarifies that he his not formally trained as an historian.
In the end, Mr. DiIulio is the first senior White House staff member to break this administration's code of silence. His is an act of civic education, for which he should not be attacked.
