Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What in the hotel bill is he talking about. Can someone

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:20 AM
Original message
What in the hotel bill is he talking about. Can someone
explain this to me?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050...

McClellan said he knew of no other contract in the administration like the one Williams had. He also hinted that Williams shared the blame.


"There are also questions about whether or not this commentator should have been disclosing the information publicly," McClellan said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. There are questions about whether he should have spilled the beans
what is this, the frickin' mob?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. well that is water under the bridge now-the beans are spilled!!

from your link----
White House: Williams Case Was Isolated

Mon Jan 10, 8:34 PM ET

Add to My Yahoo! White House - AP

WASHINGTON - The White House said Monday that the case of the Education Department paying a conservative commentator to plug its policies was an isolated incident, not a practice widely used by the Bush administration.


With the Education Department still defending its $240,000 contract with syndicated columnist and TV personality Armstrong Williams, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was cautious in choosing his comments.

"Questions have been raised about that arrangement, it ought to be looked into, and there are ways to look into matters of that nature," McClellan said. The spokesman did not say precisely who should look into it, and stopped short of backing an inquiry by the department's inspector-general, as some lawmakers have sought. He noted that department lawyers have taken up the matter.

The Government Accountability Office is already investigating whether the department illegally promoted the No Child Left Behind law with a video that looks like a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid by the government. The GAO is also reviewing why the department paid for rankings of how reporters are covering the law.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Yes, and torture in Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples..
This action by the * admin was ILLEGAL! I will say it until I'm blue in the face, hoarse in the throat, and maybe a few Americans wake up. GAO investigations? Don't hold your breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. I guess it's only "illegal" if you "get caught"... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. Williams scoffed at the omerta-stration?
Tonight he sleeps with the fishes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. The key here is McClellan never knew
McClellan said HE knew of no other contract...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. what scottie meant
probably, was to suggest that Armstrong being paid might've been all right if he had disclosed the payments -- an attempt to shift the blame away from the administration and onto Armstrong. Of course, this is pure BS -- its not just the failure to disclose that is the problem, its the use of taxpayer money to pay journalists to promote an administrative policy.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. then let's have a look at the agreement
and see whether that was required of him.

Fat chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. QUACK QUACK
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC