Comments on: Press Corps Must Put McClellan’s New Standard to the Test

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:31:48 +0000

TIVO the press briefings.
Tell everyone you know who has a TIVO to record the press briefings and rewind whenever a report asks a real question.

TIVO collects this data and sells it to the media companies. If the media companies know we want to watch this, they will report it.

By: mrggrm

mrggrm — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 02:44:49 +0000

I’m more than a little surprised that no one has brought up another charge that could be made in this investigation. Conspiracy. If two or more persons discuss breaking the law to benefit themselves, isn’t that conspiracy? Bill O’Reilly sure was eager to get the staff at Air America Radio arrested for sedition or treason a while back. Where does he stand on this?

By: ZappoDave

ZappoDave — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:07:50 +0000

Steve here is with the new “Republicans for Treasonists committee”.

They are steadfast in their support of Republicans that commit treason.

At least Steve is being honest in his belief and “values” system that he and his Republican breathren rely on in these matters. He supports Republicans that commit treason and by golly he’s sticking to his guns.

Right Steve?

By: Karl Rove

Karl Rove — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:31:33 +0000

McClellan says what I tell him to say.

By: babydeebie

babydeebie — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:52:45 +0000

Thanks for the advice, Steve. Always good to see an altruistic Republican.
Say, where were you between 1972-August, 1974? Telling Dems to “moveon (sic)”? Heh.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:10:55 +0000

I just did a quick search on CNN, MSNBC, FOX and CBS news websites and not one is posting a current story on this. You guys seem to be the only ones still talking about this. Let it go. Rove did not commit any crime and you will not have his resignation. Time to moveon.

By: Reg

Reg — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:03:27 +0000

Correction on URL
Hope this works for Pitiful Press Corps

CLICK HERE

If not, use this:
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_pitiful_press_corps_.html

By: Reg

Reg — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:01:27 +0000

Where was all the outrage for the past five years? The Pitiful Press Corps sat on its duff (except for fearless Helen Thomas), and asked no questions of significance for all that time.

TvNewsLIES.org challenged the Press Corps(e) over and over…to no avail. Finally, now that journalists themselves are involved in a news story, they awaken. Too little, too late. No one listens to the press conferences anyway. Perhaps, if they were covered in full on prime time by major networks, some truth would emerge.

To check out the shameful inaction of the WH Press Corps:
CLICK HERE

By: BQ

BQ — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:39:16 +0000

I would like to see someone in the WH press corps challenge Scotty on this BS about not yanking security clearance from Rove because they won’t act on “media reports”

Sorry, the statements from Rove’s attorney are hardly “media reports” in any sense other than that they have been widely reported by the media. As such, were they inaccurate or completely untrue, Rove’s attorney would reasonably be expected to know about them and make some response to the inaccuracies, rather than remain silent. (I recall a certain legal doctrine known as “adoption by acquiesence.”) Remember how Cooper’s attorney went to court with Luskin’s published statement that Rove had given a ’specific’ waiver?

And no one could credibly argue (not that that has prevented the idiots in the past) that Luskin was not authorized to speak for Rove. Thus, Rove has effectively made the same statements publicly. This is generally sufficient to meet the standard of admissibility for the statements in a court case against Rove (and as an admission against interest would be considered even more reliable).

It would be nice to see Scotty twisting in the wind trying to create a back-up to the “media reports” line on the fly…

By: StealthBadger

StealthBadger — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:24:22 +0000

Thanks to Victoria above, and yes, call the DSM back into the light again.

Regarding Roberts: his “informal” response that he would have to recuse himself from any case that legally required a judgement that went against his faith, is VERY troubling, since we would have someone who would be a Supreme Court Justice second, and a churchgoer first. I don’t want anyone in the Supreme Court who isn’t THERE, completely and totally.

It’s great that he was honest enough to say that, but not so great that he would subordinate the Supreme Court to a particular religion – a court that must defend people of many religions can not be subordinated to one, or it is not truly “Supreme.”

By: Victoria Love

Victoria Love — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:48:21 +0000

I agree, keep asking the same questions. And this would be an excellent time to ask about the Downing Street Minutes, since they are directly related to the Rove/Plame outing.

By: CardCarryingMember

CardCarryingMember — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:00:03 +0000

Caricature of a Parody

ThinkProgress has a post describing the apparent new WH standard on Rove:

By: Texan

Texan — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:46:40 +0000

Gonzales is talking now because he was passed over as the Supreme Court nominee. Gonzales is going to be the next guy to “rat” on Bush and Cheney and all the rest.

His credibility is going down hill. But he still is acting like he is Bush’s attorney instead of America’s Attorney General. Big difference. I just don’t think he gets it yet.

By: Kajamian

Kajamian — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:41:49 +0000

I see he is telling us that Judge Roberts was NOT a member of the Federalist Society.
Based on his past record of telling the truth, that must mean he WAS.
Interesting that Roberts “can’t remember” if he was a member or not. Is that evidence of early Alzheimers, a case of convenient amnesia or the fact that he can’t look at his checkbook records to see if he (or his lawfirm) ever paid dues.
Why would he lie about something that surely can be verified independently of his remarks? And if he’s starting out on this footing, why would we want him on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years?

Why would McClellan feel the need to tell the press Roberts was never a member. Why shouldn’t he just say, “I don’t know for sure…you’ll have to ask him” That’s been a favorite response in many other situations.

Add McClellan to the list of those who need “early retirement” from the administration.

And keep on asking those questions!

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:17:33 +0000

The mushrooming Karl Rove CIA scandal increasingly looks like it will rack up quite a body count within the White House. It was only two years ago that President Bush concluded of the Valerie Plame outing, “I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official.” Now it is beginning to appear that he will have no credible senior officials left.

What started with Karl Rove and Scooter Libby appears to be spreading to Alberto Gonzales, Andrew Card, Scott McClellan, Ari Fleischer, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton and more.

For the details, see:

“All the President’s Men – and Women.”

By: Jenesys

Jenesys — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:07:13 +0000

The press needs to begin their questions as “From this podium, you have already stated…and without commenting in any substanstive way, do you stand by what you’d said previously?”. They need to nail Scott with his own words and throw it back at him. Curious as to why Gonzalez isn’t towing the don’t speak line but maybe he’s one of the few left there with a brain and/or conscience.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:59:33 +0000

Was it new information that Gonzales called Andrew Card to tell him of the DOJ’s investigation that first night? The 12-hour delay wasn’t news, but what of the call to Card?

By: EasyRider

EasyRider — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:45:27 +0000

Press:

Keep asking the questions! Even when they get old and trying to hear. Keeping the same damn questions!