Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

White House Press Corps Presses McClellan On An Administration Flip-Flop

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
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:09 AM
Original message
White House Press Corps Presses McClellan On An Administration Flip-Flop
Back in September, NBC Anchor Brian Williams said a long period of reticence by news organizations -- which he dubbed "the 9/11 syndrome" -- ended with Hurricane Katrina.

And maybe he was right. Because it seems like the White House press corps has gotten more feisty lately.

The most recent example of this came on Wednesday, when the press corps asked Press Secretary Scott McClellan why it was okay for President Bush to comment on Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle's ongoing investigation into alleged wrongdoing by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), but not about Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Rather than simply accept empty Bush Administration spin, the press corps pressed McClellan, and stated the obvious. They had caught the administration in a dreaded "flip-flop," and they weren't going to accept McClellan's lame defense.

From the press briefing:

Q Scott, the President told Brit Hume that he thought that Tom DeLay is not guilty, even though the prosecution is obviously ongoing. What does the President feel about Scooter Libby? Does he feel that Mr. Libby --

McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature, but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it. Our policy regarding the Fitzgerald investigation and ongoing legal proceeding is well-known and it remains unchanged. And so I'm just not going to have anything further to say. But we've had a policy in place for a long time regarding the Fitzgerald investigation.

Q Why would that not apply to the same type of prosecution involving Congressman DeLay?

McCLELLAN: I just told you we had a policy in place regarding this investigation, and you've heard me say before that we're not going to talk about it further while it's ongoing.

Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?

McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question.

Q Are you saying the policy doesn't apply?

Q Can I follow up on that? Is the President at all concerned that his opinion on this being expressed publicly could influence a potential jury pool, could influence public opinion on this in an improper way?

McCLELLAN: I think that in this instance he was just responding to a question that was asked about Congressman DeLay, about Leader DeLay, and in terms of the issue that Peter brings up, I think that we've had a policy in place, going back to 2003, and that's a White House policy.

Q But that policy has been based in part, in the leak investigation and other things, on the idea that it is simply wrong for a President to prejudge a criminal matter, particularly when it's under indictment or trial stage. Why would he --

McCLELLAN: And that's one -- this is an ongoing investigation regarding possible administration officials. So I think there are some differences here.

Q There are lots of times when you don't comment on any sort of legal --

McCLELLAN: There are also legal matters that we have commented on, as well. And certainly there are legal matters when it goes to Saddam Hussein.

Q So the President is inconsistent?

McCLELLAN: No, David, we put a policy in place regarding this investigation --

Q But it's hypocritical. You have a policy for some investigations and not others, when it's a political ally who you need to get work done?

McCLELLAN: Call it presidential prerogative; he responded to that question. But the White House established a policy --

Q Doesn't it raise questions about his credibility that he's going to weigh in on some matters and not others, and we're just supposed to sit back and wait for him to decide what he wants to comment on and influence?

McCLELLAN: Congressman DeLay's matter is an ongoing legal proceeding --

Q As is the Fitzgerald investigation --

McCLELLAN: The Fitzgerald investigation is --

Q -- As you've told us ad nauseam from the podium.

McCLELLAN: It's an ongoing investigation, as well.

Q How can you not -- how can you say there's differences between the two, and we're supposed to buy that? There's no differences. The President decided to weigh in on one, and not the other.

McCLELLAN: There are differences.

Q And the public is supposed to accept the fact that he's got no comment on the conduct of senior officials of the White House, but when it's a political ally over on the Hill who's got to help him get work done, then he's happy to try to influence that legal process.

McCLELLAN: No, not at all. Not at all. You can get all dramatic about it, but you know what our policy is. ... I think the American people understand.

Q No, they don't. And the only thing that's dramatic is the inconsistency of the policy and you trying to defend it.

McCLELLAN: No, the policy has been in place since 2003.

***

Ironically, the "9/11 syndrome" began to end not after Katrina, but rather in July, when McClellan changed the rules on commenting on Fitzgerald's investigation. At that point, the press corps battered McClellan with a whopping 33 questions, challenging contradictions and preventing him from falling back on empty Bush Administration spin.

The July episode was the first of several fights. In September, for example, NBC's David Gregory battled with McClellan over whether President Bush still had confidence in the increasingly embarrassing FEMA Director Mike Brown. And the corps didn't back down in October when McClellan suggested that U.S. troops in Tikrit had not been coached, even after video evidence had appeared showing they were.

Yes, the press corps still lets McClellan spin tales unchecked. Just in the last few days, JABBS has noted times when the press corps failed to counter McClellan's fake math on U.S. support for the Bush Administration's "Plan for Victory" in Iraq. And they didn't notice when McClellan mispresented a Bush statement, turning it into a personal attack against war critics.

But even though the press corps can be unprepared to deal with spin -- and other times, doesn't seem to pay attention to significant details when listening to McClellan's spin -- there are signs that the "9/11 syndrome" is ending. And that can only be good news.

***

This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. So they're finally doing their fucking job
What do they want, some kind of prize? History will show that the media died in the millennium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. The same old double talk jabberwocky out of W/Scotty
Up is down and yes means no. Same old. Same old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. "I think I've already answered that question."
You think wrong, Socky. Again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. A pin-the-tail-on-the-Scottie bullseye
Schweet! Wish I could have seen that one..."You can get all dramatic about it..." Hah!

Scott, you ain't seen drama yet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. you can watch the video at the WH web site
www.whitehouse.gov
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. it's what Scott is left with
when he knows he's been caught in a lie. He just says no comment and hopes it ends soon.

Wouldn't it be something if some other media outlet other than The Daily Show were to highlight these brouhahas? Is it too much to ask for the NYT or the WaPo to run a front-page story (or at least a Frank Rich or Howard Kurtz column?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
7. Credibility -- it is a presidential perogative to be less the credible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. ..."Presidential Prerogative"...sounds like it's right outta Nixon's
playbook. What a bunch of unadulterated BULLSHIT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JABBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-16-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. sounds like a Bobby Brown song
... although his credibility isn't much higher than Scott's.
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 Apr 26th 2024, 09:13 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