Tuesday, July 12, 2005
The shallow White House press corps
Far be it from me to turn into an instant expert on PlameGate, so I'm going to be the one righty blogger not to declaim on this subject. I can, however, marvel at what seems to be important to the White House press corps.
After having heard countless times that McClellan was not going to talk about the investigation of Karl Rove, Terry Moran of ABC News, for example, asked the following question:
All right, you say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working, obviously, on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like, Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story. And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as, Cooper -- the Time reporter -- called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this. So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story?
A creatively legalistic question to be sure, but what does Moran hope to accomplish, beyond lobbing the assertion that Fox News is "a friendly news channel" to the administration? May we fairly conclude, perhaps, that ABC News is not a friendly news channel?
John Roberts, of CBS News, was substantially less polite:
Q At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement --
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll come back to you if I can.
Q -- of September 29th, 2003, that it is simply not true [emphasis added, to indicate a raised voice - ed.] that Karl Rove disclosed the identify of a CIA operative? Can you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it's not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing.
Q So should we take that as a yes or a no?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Dick.
Q [Another guy, trying to get a word in.] Can you explain why --
Q Scott, this was a statement you made, on the record, 21-months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is it of the slightest interest whether McClellan "stands by his statement" of almost two years ago with respect to this matter? We can be highly confident that whatever Karl Rove or others may have known, Scott McClellan was not privy to it.
John Roberts later interrupted other reporters, by the way, leading to this exchange.
Q But they're news reports that have been confirmed by Karl Rove's attorney, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: John, you can keep jumping in, but I'm going to try to keep going to other people in this room, as well. And we can have constructive dialogue here, I think, but that's not the way to do it.
Q It's not my job to have a constructive dialogue, Scott. Sorry.
Bob Franken of CNN, meanwhile, tried to find meaning in the number of questions taken by the President in his appearance with the Prime Minister of Singapore:
Q Can you explain why the President chose today to break with his usual practice of taking two questions from the American side at events with a foreign leader, and only taking one?
MR. McCLELLAN: Just last Friday, I think, with Prime Minister Blair, or Thursday, they did the same thing.
Q The practice in the Oval Office is to take two questions. I'm just curious why --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we did that last week with Prime Minister Blair, as well. You're going to have other opportunities to see him this week.
Helen Thomas, who should have had the self-knowledge to retire some time ago, thought that it would be a good idea to humiliate the White House Press Secretary:
Q Has he [Rove] apologized to you for telling you he is not involved?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to get into any private discussions.
Q He put you on the spot. He put your credibility on the line.
MR. McCLELLAN: And, Helen, I appreciate you all wanting to move forward and find the facts relating to this investigation. I want to know all the facts relating to the investigation.
Rove did put McClellan on the spot and everybody in the room knows it. Why did Thomas think it was a great idea to rub his nose in it? The question had no purpose, other than to humiliate McClellan.
In stark contrast to all the famous tools from the national press, Lester Kinsolving of WCBM Radio in Baltimore asked a question that ought to elicit a serious answer:
Q The news that the G8 nations offered the Palestinian Authority $9 million inevitably recalls the 2003 International Monetary Fund report that Yasser Arafat diverted $900 million to a special bank account he controlled. And my question: Considering Mammoud Abbas's long association with Arafat, plus his refusal to dismantle any terrorist groups like Hamas, in accordance with the road map, how on earth did the President allow nearly a billion to Abbas without U.S. protest?
Now that is a good goddamn question. Kinsolving then followed up with this hilarious shot:
Q Does the President believe that it is outrageous for a Los Angeles advertising man to be conducting a campaign to persuade the town selectmen of Weare, New Hampshire, to approve the building of a hotel on the land where Justice Souter's house is located? Or does he regard this as an historic irony resulting from Souter's vote in the case of Kelo versus the City of New London --
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen anything on it. Jim, go ahead.
Q You didn't see anything on it? You'd like to evade this one, wouldn't you.
I'd like to know the answer to that question, too.
It really is astonishing the way the national MSM reporters just kept asking the same questions about Rove, or variations on the theme, when McClellan had made it clear that he wasn't going to talk about it. None of the questions from the network reporters or wire service reporters, after the first couple at least, were designed to elicit a useful answer. Their purpose was to embarrass McClellan. I don't care in the least -- it is his job to suffer that sort of indignity -- but it does explain why the average American is losing interest in the MSM.
4 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Wed Jul 13, 09:38:00 AM:
Hawk,
It's nice to see the Press Corps wake up and do some fact-seeking rather than simply accepting the White House lines. I agree that their rabid performance was over-the-top, in the way that someone who's late to the party drinks too much too fast, but the questions were fair in that McClellan talked about this case a while back as the investigation was underway. It's only when Rove's name became factually associated with the case that he clammed up.
George W. Bush is the person with the credibility problem here. He's got a treason suspect in his White House, and he's not doing anything about it.
By Counter Trey, at
Wed Jul 13, 10:43:00 AM:
Hoolie,
At worst it is a political embarrassment, but treason? Come on.
The special prosecutor has already said that Rove is NOT the subject of the investigation. Congress needed to narrowly define the law to avoid violating the first amendment. In order for Rove to be legally liable he either had to lie to the grand jury (highly unlikely for a smart man like him) or knowingly disclosed the name of a CIA operative who was recently undercover. Plame was not undercover, and Rove did not disclose her name. Move on.
To help you better understand treason, here is one example: Treason is when a President raises campaign funds from foreigners; say, the Chinese.
By 
, at
Wed Jul 13, 11:16:00 AM:
Anyone care to compare "I did not know her NAME and did not reveal her NAME" (the non-lie to the grand jury?) to "it depends what the definition of 'is' is"?
By Counter Trey, at
Wed Jul 13, 11:42:00 AM:
Anon,
One was said by the elected President of the United States, who lied while under oath and then twisted the definition of words in order to squirm out of it. Needless to say, it's pretty serious when a President, the highest lawmaker in the land, commits perjury.
The other was said by an unelected, behind-the-scenes political aid who, according to Cooper's notes, did not disclose a name. Disclosure of the name of an undercover agent was required in order for it to be a violation of the law.
