Non-denial denials ... deja vu all over again ...

[Pepperbelly]

Did anyone read the transcript of Scott McClellen's 7/22/03 Press Conference? This smelled of Watergate in a big way. I'm about to have an acid flashback. Perhaps I should put on some Floyd and relax. But first, check this out:

-snip-

Q The Robert Novak column last week identified the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative who was working on WMD issues. Novak said that identification is based on information given to him by two administration sources. That column has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

Q So you're saying --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that that is not the way that this President or this White House operates, and I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it.

Q Are you saying Novak was wrong in saying that it was two administration sources who were the source for --

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea who "anonymous" is. I often wish --

Q It's not anonymous. He says senior administration officials.

MR. McCLELLAN: That would be anonymous.

Q Well, that would be senior administration --

Q Like the guy who briefed us last week?

MR. McCLELLAN: Whether it's anonymous senior administration officials or just anonymous sources, it's still anonymous.

Q Is Novak lying? Do you think he's making it up?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you our position. I'll let the columnist speak for himself.

Q You're saying, flatly, it did not happen, nobody --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you, flatly, that that is not the way this White House operates. I've seen no evidence to suggest that there's any truth to that.

Q That's different from saying it didn't happen. Are you saying, absolutely, it did not happen?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying no one was certainly given any authority to do anything of that nature. And I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it. I want to make it very clear, that is simply not the way this White House operates.

Q If it turns out that somebody in the administration did do that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not even going to speculate about it, because I have no knowledge of any truth to that report.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030722-5.html

:smoke:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Wow..he better reread that before tomorrow morning

so he gets his denials and non answers straight.

[freethought]

2. Condi wsa babbling nearly the same thing

Almost as if they were reading off of the same script. I watched the Borg Queen on FAUX for a few minutes.

[salin]

16. Condi's babbling was more serious

sounds like a serious intelligence breech occurred - compromising networks of intel that tracked the flow of WMD ... gone.. fini... the head of the NSA - SHOULD be aware and on top of assessing the damage.

Her responses suggest a cavalier attitude towards such important information for that War on Terrorism she and her cronies keep touting.

[Sick of Bullshit]

18. "War on Terror"

Considering that they know it's all a big fraud, it should come as no surprise that they would have a cavalier attitude towards such important "information".

[Beetwasher]

3. "SENIOR ADMIN. OFFICIALS"

Is the ONLY way the press is now allowed to refer to them. This was an "edict" by the White House. I remember this very clearly, that the press was no longer allowed to refer to them by name, but by the anonymous title...

[FauxNewsBlues]

4. Reminds me of the Kennedy story

They all said Kennedy was a meanie, but didn't actually refute the fact that a bunch of the money earmarked towards Iraq in unaccounted for by the CBO. They forgot about that.

[Capn Sunshine]

5. So is THIS how they get Rumsfeld

Or is it Cheney they are going to pull the trapdoor on?

BTW did you see Lynne Cheney today....denied that hubby has ANYTHING to do with Haliburton.

[TacticalPeek]

12. I could be wrong,

but I believe she denied that hubby 'has any interest in how well Halliburton does or not', or something close. Pretty nuanced, but still a flat lie when it comes to stock options.

[ComerPerro]

6. One thing continues to amaze me

Why does this administration deserve our respect and trust? Why should we believe that this administration is above playing dirty political tricks and above lying?

The media loved to scream about how Clinton was a liar (through all eight of his years), but to even hint that Bush was less than straightforward gets you labled as a traitor. You get comments like, "Surely you aren't suggesting that the administration deliberately decieved the American people"

Why do they always get the benifit of the doubt?

[grasswire]

10. there's an answer

"Surely you aren't suggesting that the administration deliberately decieved the American people"

This is a learned tactic of the right. They are all coached in how to use this to bully the other into silence. Novak, Tucker...all of them use this bludgeon. It implies that you will be thrust into tonight's news.

The answer, of course is to say yes. Yes. Yes, the administration deliberately deceived the American people.

The few I've seen with the guts to say yes include Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich.

[frank frankly]

7. should be a fascinating PR conference tomorrow

scott, make sure to take extra valium with you!

[AP]

8. Saying this is "not the way the WH operates" implies that this IS the way

the WH malfunctions.

[Padraig18]

9. I always found...

... Ari's departure to be 'odd', in some way. Think he was a rat jumping ship, because he knew it was gonna implode about now?

[TorchTheWitch]

11. yep

I always found Ari's departure to be 'odd', in some way. Think he was a rat jumping ship, because he knew it was gonna implode about now?

That's what I thought.

[Snazzy]

14. Whoooooaaaa! July 14....

was Fleischer's last day.

That's also EXACTLY THE SAME DAY Novak outed Plame.

Little good-bye gift from Überflack? Gotta be. He knew this could, worst case (to his thinking), swim up and bite somebody on the ass. I say a gift, 'cause it gives them an out, of sorts. Not a good one, but you may very well have a fall guy outside the admin. Add some confusion from the PR transition as additional cover.

I can, in my-paranoid ex-pr guy way:tinfoilhat:, picture him pitching this to whichever other senior admin. official. His last bit of really friggin' hard core maneuvering and spin. And if it ultimately went really bad, which hubris stakes as a very remote possibility to Ari: "blame it on me." The gift.

So who's the other guy making calls?

--Snazzy

[TacticalPeek]

15. Nice snag, Snazzy.

Very nice.

:toast:

[eileen_d]

17. Sounds like what I felt doing

my last day of work. And I worked with computers, at a bank. But I digress...

Did Ari ever state any specific reasons (besides "spend more time with my Precious Moments collection" or something to that effect) for leaving? Where is he now?

[TacticalPeek]

13. An obvious safe-harbor for Scottie

is the standard cop-out: "This is an on-going investigation, and our policy has always been to not comment while something is under investigation; be glad to answer your questions after the investigation is complete.".

His challenge will be to maintain that defence when questioned about why doesn't the president, or Card, etc do something themselves to rid the WH of these traitors, etc. After he makes it through the initial storm of questions, he can go to the Ari shuffle: "I've already answered that question and I stand by my previous answer. Next."