Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Today's Scotty de-pantsing transcript: "Oh, come on"..."YOU'RE SO AFRAID"

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bush_Eats_Beef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:21 PM
Original message
Today's Scotty de-pantsing transcript: "Oh, come on"..."YOU'RE SO AFRAID"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/2005072...

Q Scott, the U.S. has now had three lengthy bilateral meetings in China with the North Koreans. Are you now having direct talks with the North Koreans?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't say "now." Let me back up and remind you that we have met with the North Korean delegation and other delegations within the context of the six-party talks. It is something we have done in each of the round of talks. So I would disagree with you saying "now." North Korea's nuclear weapons program is a concern of all nations in the region. That is why the President pursued a multilateral diplomatic approach. And in terms of the bilateral discussions that are going on, those are discussions that relate to the modalities of the talks, and it's a way for us, also, to understand North Korea's position and for us to explain our views, as well. But we have had, previously, bilateral discussions with other delegations within the context of the six-party talks --

Q Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and this is happening within the context of the six-party talks.

What I think it's important to keep in mind, and this might be what Helen is grumbling about, is that -- (laughter.)

Q You have rejected time and time again.

MR. McCLELLAN: We have -- we have no intention of negotiating any bilateral agreement with North Korea. That approach was tried and it failed. North Korea, I will remind you, violated the '94 agreed framework.

Q What do you see in this joint statement that the two sides, or the six sides are working on?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I'll let the Assistant Secretary Chris Hill talk about it. We want to see progress made toward the goal of a denuclearized peninsula. He's been talking about it. This is something that is going to be a deliberative, methodical process. It's going to take time, as Chris Hill said earlier today. There's a lot of work to do. But we are committed to making progress, and we think the other parties are committed to making progress in this round of talks. And we'll just have to see as the talks continue. But they continue at this point.

Q Since the first time, now, you've had three separate meetings where the North Koreans and Americans have met together alone, in private.

MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all the delegations.

Q It's the first -- pardon?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all of the delegations.

Q I know, but this is not -- it's not comparable. North Korea is the issue, and we have met privately with them. But we've always said we weren't going to. Why do you keep rejecting the whole idea that there's a possibility for rapprochement? There are negotiations going on, obviously. We have heard their side now, and we are telling them what we think, and so forth.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the place to negotiate is in the context of the six-party talks and with all parties at the table. All parties that are involved in this share the concern. All of us want to see a nuclear-free peninsula, and that's why the President --

Q I'm asking you a specific question. The two sides are getting together privately. Why don't you admit that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just said it.

Q No, you only say it within -- you're so afraid --

MR. McCLELLAN: Did I not just say that? I think I did.

Q There's always a -- you're afraid to say there's been a change --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David. Have a question?

Q -- that's what you're afraid to say.

MR. McCLELLAN: There has been change. We're pursuing this in a multilateral format with all six parties in it, but not in terms of negotiations.

Q They just go together -- (laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get the last word in here. Go ahead, David.

Q Helen's got a good point. I don't want to steal the floor from her. On the Bolton nomination, is the President prepared to recess appoint him?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's nothing that's changed, in terms of what we previously said.

Q Well, which is what? You're not going to get an up or down vote, near as we can tell. The President said his priority --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's what we've said. We've always felt that he deserves an up or down vote.

Q Right, and you're not getting one.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just telling you there's nothing that's changed, nothing else to --

Q So you won't rule out a recess appointment?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- nothing else to discuss at this point.

Q How soon will you be able to discuss it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have something else?

Q I do. Just to button that up, you're not ruling that out, that a recess appointment --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that nothing has changed, and I'll leave it there. (Laughter.)

Q I wonder if you can help me understand something from earlier this week. When Alberto Gonzales went on the Sunday shows and was asked about the leak investigation and said that he told Andy Card 12 hours before the rest of the staff was told, we asked you about that, being an ongoing investigation, you told us that he wasn't saying anything new that hadn't been said on the podium in October 2003. And yet, when we've asked you about statements that you made in the podium in 2003, rather than affirming those statements, something that it seems like Gonzales might have done, you've just said that you can't comment on an ongoing investigation. So there seems to be a difference here. He's willing to restate something that happened, or that he said, but you're not.

MR. McCLELLAN: We already addressed this the other day. There's nothing else to add to it.

Q Scott, last night on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno, who apparently is subbing for Johnnie, displayed a video of the President at the Capitol yesterday. In that video, the President walking away from the press lifts his hand and raises a finger. Mr. Leno interpreted it as, shall we say, a finger of hostility. Each of our fingers has a special purpose and meaning in life. (Laughter.) Can you tell us what finger it was he held up?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I'm not even going to dignify that with much of a response. But if someone is misportraying something, that's unfortunate.

Q Well, it was not a finger of hostility?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I was there with him, and I'm just not going to -- I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I mean, I haven't seen the video that you're talking about, but I know the way the President acts. And if someone is misportraying it, that's unfortunate.

Q One quick question more about Roberts, Scott. Yesterday, Chuck Schumer at the Press Club said that he thought the battle had been won by those who believed that the confirmation process --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I would point out, too, that -- hang on -- that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. They continue to be on our state sponsor of terrorism --

Q I'm just wondering if you considered that particular incident --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I know, I heard your question.

Q -- to be an act of terrorism, because --

MR. McCLELLAN: I added one thing to it.

Q -- because then it opens up the question of what is Ahmadinejad's status under the Bush Doctrine?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I was pointing out that Iran --

Q That's why you were avoiding answering it.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We haven't had that discussion, John, and I'd like to make -- give you informed responses when I respond.

Q Could you check on that question?

MR. McCLELLAN: But Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and the administrations at those -- at that time, addressed those issues. And we will all always remember that time period.

Q Well, if you could check on how you view it and get back to us, that would be great.

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, go ahead. John, you've had your questions. Carl, it is your turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. what a little weenie of a prick
scared to answer a question, because he can't tell the truth from his a*hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ishoutandscream2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
2.  Such a dishonest administration. Moreso than Nixon's
It's a shame Scotty can't lie well. All of this is so sad, but laughable at the same time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unrepuke Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wonder if Bush, or McClellan, can guess how many finger
I'm holding up?
And not misportray the message.
:evilgrin:



And the spelling is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. I am having a disconnect here
I can't seem to follow anything after the "fickel finger of fate" question and answer. How did Puffy jump from a finger to Iran? What am I missing here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush_Eats_Beef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I didn't insert "snip" to designate segments of the transcript...
...sorry, I usually do that.

I copied and pasted as each subject opened and closed. This isn't meant to "flow" as a complete document.

Next time I post, I'll resume inclusion of the "-----snip-----."

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thank you -- I feel so much better now
I thought I was losing it completely. That makes more sense now. No harm, no foul. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dyedinthewoolliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. Now I don't know what to think about the press..
I like the idea of the press going after the press secretary, no matter what party they are in. But where was all this assertiveness when the Bush admin was lying its ass off about Iraq and WMD's?
Now that we are stuck in a bucket of shit, with thousands of dead civilians and our own losses, these guys are adopting this attitude. I think the perfect phrase is :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. They were embedded
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. They seem to be crawling out from under the covers now..
(....looking forward to after they shave and have a cup of coffee)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. They're gonna need a lot more that a shave and a cup-o-joe
to win back any of the respect that they so eagerly pissed away. I do think this is a step in the right direction but the have a loooooong way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ticapnews Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. They weren't part of the story before...
Now Judith Miller is in prison. Another reporter had to reveal a source. Other reporters are involved.

And some of them are no doubt still simmering over Gannon/Guckert.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. Small point: Who thought Jay Leno is "subbing" for Johnny Carson??
CNN.com - Johnny Carson, late-night TV legend, dies at 79
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/23/carson.obit /

It's going to be a LONG wait...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I think that was supposed to be a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ticapnews Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. That reporter won't be subbing for Johnny...
or Pat Sajak for that matter...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat@14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
15. What's the point of having the "press briefing"?
Snotty Scotty always defers the question to someone that ain't there or talks down to the minions about "that's why the President (he's so fuckin smart ya know!) did what ever".

The whole thing is a joke. There's more information in Stair-Master infomercials. Nobody should even show up for this farce.
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 Sat Dec 16th 2017, 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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