You know, when Eleanor Clift, Joe Conason, and other Bubba derriere smoochers were saying that the stories about White House vandalism were just a vicious, lying smear campaign against the sainted Clintons?

Well, of course, nice guys always finish last. The Bush Administration tried to downplay it as part of the "new tone," but outraged Democrats were demanding an apology.

And of course, as usual, the reality is that the stories were true.

Rand,
Here is another article (from almost 2 months ago) about the same thing. It's in the Times of London, and my computer is balking at linking it, for some reason (I found it on Lexis/Nexus, if you have access, search for Vandalism and White House). Here are the key points;

DEPARTING Clinton aides who vandalised the White House in the days before the former President was replaced by George Bush caused $ 14,000 (about Pounds 10,000) of damage.

Clinton staffers stole two historic doorknobs, scrawled obscenities on walls and prised the "W" (as in George W) from computer keyboards, a government report said. Democrats responded by saying the report cost American taxpayers $ 200,000 to produce.

Interesting notion of "fiscal responsibility". One thing I haven't heard is how does this "heinous crime" compare to previous administration changes? Were all of them vandalism free, or just acrimony free? By the way, letting a hypocrite, adulterous, lying (under oath, even!) scumbag like Bob Barr talk about principle is absolutely the most galling thing ever.

I figured that last comment needed some documentation, so here it is.
Atlanta Journal Constitution, 1/14/99
Quote: (Larry Flynt, attacking Bob Barr)
Then came Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt with his rapid-fire accusations that Barr is a hypocritical critic of the president because the legislator invoked a state law similar to the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer questions on whether he had an affair with Jerilyn Ann Dobbin, who is now his wife, while he was married to his second wife, Gail Vogel Barr. Flynt also said Barr paid $ 300 for Gail Barr to have an abortion in 1983 when they were still married, despite Barr's strongly held views against abortion.
Barr, surprisingly enough, denies the charges. As I recall, (I don't have time to look this up, maybe tomorrow), there were court papers from his divorce, which supported Flynt's claim.

I'm sorry, not that I have any idea what the relevance is to this post, but was Bob Barr in a civil suit for sexual harassment, in which he perjured himself, suborned perjury, and intimidated witnesses? If not, what's your point?

Sorry Rand, I have a visceral dislike for Mr. Barr. He in fact demonstrably lied in a deposition (under oath) about whether or not he had provided for an abortion to his first wife. The deposition was wrt his divorce, I believe from his second wife. I guess all those Christian values made him a bit antsy about the abortion, the divorces, the lying, and the adultery (he was apparently involved with wife 2 while still married to wife 1). This is really totally off point, but seeing his face in the news drives me crazy (I don't suppose you can relate, can you??:)).

No, the GAO did not confirm that the claims of trashing and vandalism were true. In particular, they said that there was no evidence that the damage was any worse than in the transition from Bush I. To quote from the GAO report:

"According to a limited number of EOP, GSA, and former Clinton administration staff we interviewed who worked in the White House complex during previous transitions, as well as a press account that we reviewed, some of the same types of observations that were made concerning the condition of the White House complex during the 2001 transition were also made during the 1993 transition. These observations included missing office signs and doorknobs, messages written inside desks, prank signs and messages, piles of furniture and equipment, and excessive trash left in offices. We also observed writing in a desk in the EEOB that was dated 1993. In addition, words and initials were reported observed carved into desks during the 1993 transition, which were not reported observed during the 2001 transition. On the other hand, no one said they observed keyboards with missing and damaged keys during previous transitions, as numerous people said they observed in the White
House complex during the 2001 transition."

$200,000 was spent uncovering 1/10 that much damage, and there is no evidence that it was worse than normal transition damage (apart from the missing 'W' keys, which Bush II himself proclaimed was a harmless prank). To me, if there is any scandal, it is the fact that $200,000 of taxpayer money was spent for the sole purpose of getting yet another dig at Clinton.

I don't see any mention of the cut and rerouted phone lines, which caused a lot of delay and expense in getting the new White House in business.