Jeff Taylor | October 19, 2005
The White House flack damn near burst into flames trying to simultaneously discredit a Plamegate story and not comment on it. The I/O conflict:
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Based on your personal knowledge, based on your opinion, based on your frustration with the story -- what caused you to say that?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: No, I mean, I read the story and I didn't view it as an accurate story.
QUESTION: Why not?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to go any further than that. There's an ongoing investigation. This is bringing up matters related to an ongoing investigation.
QUESTION: After you read the story, Scott, did you check with either the two people mentioned, the President or Rove, to ask them? Is that what you base --
SCOTT McCLELLAN: I don't have any further comment, Peter.
QUESTION: Well, is that what you base your guidance on, or is it just -- you know, is it just you're feeling that this couldn't have happened?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: I stand by what I just said and I'm going to leave it at that.
Even more conflict here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Its not accurate, but I am not going to tell you why. :)
As this guy is Bush's creature, such behavior is to be expected of
him.
It isn't accurate, but that really depends on what your definition of "isn't" is ....
Did anyone see Clinton's press secretary the day after the
Lewinsky scandal hit? The room was full of A-listers for a change,
and listening to him thread his way through Clinton's testimony and
what was being reported in the papers was agonizing. Reminds me of
this aborted conversation. It went something like, "The president
thinks he told the truth X number of months ago, and the President
feels he told the truth last month, and he feels those two answers
are not at odds with each other." The look on his face actually
made me feel sorry for him...
I don't think normal humans can do this job--how do you say
*nothing* so many times without accidentally saying something
substantive?
they're in some real trouble up there, not penny-ante
stains-on-a-dress stuff. fitzgerald may well tie the vice
president's office and perhaps cheney himself to the forging of the
yellowcake documents through libby and ledeen and the aipac
espionage scandal.
indictments will be in by october 28, i understand. get ready for
fitzgerald to be painted as some kind of democratic hack by the
white house and fox news.
Bringing arrogance down ignobly, this is what I live for. Yeeesssssssssssssssss!!!!
I still think Bolton would make one hell of a press
secretary.
wow, White House spokesman is 1 job I don't want right now.
I still think Bolton would make one hell of a press
secretary.
wow, White House spokesman is 1 job I don't want right
now.
Run squirrel, run! Make server work!
Mr. Consul- Don't forget we also may hear about Scooter Libby
having personal struggles that cause bad judgement too.
get ready for fitzgerald to be painted as some kind of
democratic hack by the white house and fox news.
Fortunately, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, Time,
Newsweek, New York Times, Washington
Post, etc., would never paint a special prosecutor as a
partisan hack.
I stand by what I just said.
But you didn't say anything.
And I stand by that, 100 percent.
Don't feel bad, Coward. Starr was recognized as a partisan hack the
day he took the job. There were a ruckus in Congress about it. So
no, your comparison is not valid.
In your face, abc!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=whitewater+starr+appointed+frank&btnG=Google+Search
Apologies can be sent via email.
Here's my favorite quote, abc, from the second hit you'll get
from that google:
"The son, James D. MacKinnon, said Judge MacKinnon (a Republican
who had formerly been a special prosecutor) objected to Starr's
appointment in 1994, in part, because of the appearance of
partisanship arising from Starr's senior position in the prior
administration.
Judge MacKinnon also expressed concern about Starr's frequent
public appearances, which the judge felt "were wholly inappropriate
for an independent counsel," James MacKinnon wrote in a letter to
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Judge MacKinnon "was always most careful to appoint independent
counsels whose motivations could not be criticized," his son
stated. "My father always felt that independent counsels and judges
should be extraordinarily discreet with any public comments, and be
as anonymous as possible and simply do their work." Judge MacKinnon
died in 1995.
James MacKinnon wrote the letter about his father's views on Feb.
3, in response to comments made by Frank in a TV interview."
Wah wah wah waaaaaahhhhhhhhh.........
What a dead guy's son said his father said is not exactly
convincing.
Full disclosure for Joe.
I thought Clinton was a smarmy, self-promoting huckster with no
principles in 1992 and I was exactly right. I thought Bush would be
an unprincipled but amiable bumbler in 2000 and, boy, was I ever
wrong.
Oh, and I either vote LP or CPUSA (depending on my mood) every
chance I get,
I thought in 2000 that the Republicans nominated the Republican equivalent of Bill Clinton. I still do.
It's times like this (very rare I might add) where watching
Scott McClellen makes me actually miss his predecessor,
Ari Fleischer.
Ari-the-master could teach McClellen a thing or two about the
artistry of being an obstructionist boob.
I wouldn't have believed him any better, of course...but he was so
much more fun to watch.
"What a dead guy's son said his father said is not exactly
convincing."'
The point was the references to Cogressman Frank, who was all over
the news (along with others) and the House Office Buildings,
hammering on what a political hack Starr was. That's why McKinnon's
son chose to write to Frank - because he was leading the "ruckus in
Congress."
Lesson: lister to Barney Frank, don't little to sissy-assed trolls
who don't leave their names.
madpad, I like Scott McClellan. Though his profession is to lie,
he's the world's worst liar. You can spot it from a mile away, as
he stands up there with this panicky moon-eyed look.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245