[lbo-talk] press fries McClellan

Leigh Meyers leighcmeyers at gmail.com
Wed Sep 7 09:34:36 PDT 2005


On Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:53 AM [PDT], Simon Huxtable <jetfromgladiators at yahoo.com> wrote:


> Secondly, it's a very high profile role. In fact, I
> would say that McClellan does the job that many
> ministers, including Blair, would do themselves in the
> UK. Has it always been so, or is the fact that Bush is
> unable to think of one thing at once part of this?
>
> Many thanks
> Simon

This was posted by Doug back in July, before the deluge. The first line pretty much sums it up.

I really, really hope Tony Blair is capable of doing better than this: From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Jul 11 2005 - 4:12pm

No Ari Fleischer, Scott Mcclellan tries talking the WH

press corp in circles and ends up tripping on his tongue...

Date: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:28 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in

the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your

question is being asked relating to some reports that are in

reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal

investigation that you reference is something that continues at this

point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is

ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President

directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation,

and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a

decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation.

But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody

who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just

want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of

this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy

continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an

ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors

overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that

one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from

this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into

commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions

related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that

statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was

ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who

said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be

fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in

the midst of this investigation is when the President made his

comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was

involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the

investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain

around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an

ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you

want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom

of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the

way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it

is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people

overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we

follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and

that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some

point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the

investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it

was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but

now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in

reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point

when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the

investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would

be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is

ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them

advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an

ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the

investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it

other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's

ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were

asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby,

and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have

told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that

statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping

the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going

to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near

that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that

you're going to stand before us after having commented with that

level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you

decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you

stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what

was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the

appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood

at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we

find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you

owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was

he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he

did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but

now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the

investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway,

you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals,

Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured

me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after

the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been

caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have

respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I

think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and

it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we

not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we

want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this,

because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the

President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said

previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some

point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the

investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and

the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to

speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to

an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond

any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg

down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was

he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking

them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that

Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news

reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the

decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.

Go ahead.

Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent

with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved

would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be

glad to talk about it at that point.

Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that

Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with

the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk

about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a

preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation

while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White

House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation,

we are following their direction.

Q Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation

and taking an action --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Can I finish, please?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go

ahead, Goyal.

<...>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list