BREAKING: McClellan Offers Classic Non-Denial Denial to NY Daily News Story
BREAKING: McClellan Offers Classic Non-Denial Denial to NY Daily News Story
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked this morning about the New York Daily News story suggesting Bush admonished Rove two years ago for leaking Plame’s identity.
A reporter who attended the White House gaggle this morning reported that McClellan offered a shifty response:
In response to a question about a story in the “New York Daily News” which reported that the president was angry with Karl Rove in 2003 over his role in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name as a CIA operative, McClellan would only say that he would not comment on an ongoing investigation. McClellan went on to say that he challenges the overall accuracy of the story. When pressed on giving an answer to why he challenges the accuracy of the story, McClellan answered again that he would not comment on an ongoing investigation.
If the conversation between Rove and Bush never happened, why can’t McClellan just say so?
UPDATE: Talking Points Memo has the transcript.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
37 Responses to “BREAKING: McClellan Offers Classic Non-Denial Denial to NY Daily News Story”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
good old Scotty, having his cake and eating it too… that is, when Rovey doesn’t sneak it away from him…
October 19th, 2005 at 12:05 pmmore about Scotty’s “ongoing” problems here:
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2005/09/ongoing-problems.html
October 19th, 2005 at 12:07 pmLOL at first glance I thought it said “offered a shitty response” and I was like “WOW! That’s editorializing!”
But I digress…
October 19th, 2005 at 12:08 pmIfs and buts, sugar and nuts. Sometimes I feel like we’re a bunch o hens.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:09 pmA pretty good deal for Scotty, sort
October 19th, 2005 at 12:10 pmof like a selective “no comment”.
He is very good at it.
I wonder if they will try this in court
with a selective “pleading the fifth”?
Challenging the accuracy of the story is commenting. It’s saying the story isn’t true and then going on to say he wouldn’t comment is saying because we say so and just take our word.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:11 pmScotty is the liars liar.
I can’t really comment at all about this on-going shitty investigation. The liberal nutjob prosecutor has asked not to comment on it while he criminalizes our politics. Please stop asking me to gently imply that there’s nothing wrong with giving reporters the name of classified desk-jockeys while this misguided investigation continues.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:14 pmCan’t say “no comment”
October 19th, 2005 at 12:15 pmCan’t say “I am not a crook”
What’s the new “I’m not a crook” going to be?
Forgot:
“Can’t comment on an ongoing investigation” is already a classic…
October 19th, 2005 at 12:17 pmBrian, it’s going to be, “Doesn’t anyone remember 9/11?”
October 19th, 2005 at 12:18 pmThis prosecutor hates our freedom!
October 19th, 2005 at 12:28 pmScottie wins first prize for consistent obfuscation.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:38 pmScenes I’d Like To See…
At the next WHPC briefing, when Scottie finishes his announcements and says, “…and with that, I will be glad to go to questions”, someone should just say, “Why bother? You won’t comment on an ongoing investigation and we have little reason to believe anything you tell us anyway. You’ve told us things that have turned out to be untrue and your sole purpose for being there seems to be to keep us from learning the truth. Is there someone else up there we can talk to?”
That would be nice.
Or maybe they could start at the beginning. “Do you believe the world is a dangerous place?” He has to answer yes (I think we all agree it is), so the next question would be “Do you think it will always be dangerous, or do you believe that it can be made better?” And that’s when the fun starts.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:39 pm#16 Ha! “Is there someone else up there we can talk to?”
October 19th, 2005 at 12:45 pm“No! Now go away or I shall refuse to respond a second (?) time.”
Speculation is not appropriate at this time, while almost 2000 dead Americans and perhaps more than 50000 Irakis have bleed…
October 19th, 2005 at 12:46 pmHey Andrew, I bet he has lots of abortions too. Funny troll.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:54 pm“Scotty: Do you think the sky is blue?”….”
October 19th, 2005 at 12:57 pmI think i’ve already answered that question in 1967.”
This guy is useless…they should boycott this insult to the American Public.
Andrew,
Well the incompetent republicans and the justice department shouldn’t have chosen him should they? Why are republicans always so unaccountable for their actions? They run all 3 branches of government, and they appoint a ‘partisan’ investigator as andreena claims? Wow, they sure are ineffective administrators! No wonder Katrina was such a mess!
October 19th, 2005 at 1:00 pmSome questions for Scottie…
Given the administration has repeatedly said they will not comment on an ongoing investigation, why are administraion officials speaking off-the-record to journalists? How does the President feel about the fact the information is, as you said, inaccurate? Will he launch another investigation and will he fire the people who leaked this information?
Ah well, Scotty boy, you’ll look back on 2005 as your year as the press corps pinata. Sure, you won’t spill the beans, but you will be taking one heckuva beating.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:09 pmHating freedom is turning the CIA into a propaganda machine.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:13 pmNo, no. Little Andrew is right. The CIA are a bunch of anti-american liberals. They serve no purpose in the war on terror. They argued against it. They said Iraq had no WMD. Silly little liberals. Its no crime to mention the name of some pen-pushing CIA operative who is not currnetly in the field: their special protection about identities and all that bunk only applies when they are actively in the field. We can make more. And that rotten liberal Fitzgerald. Boy, that man is just SOOOOO liberal, all he can think about is “justice” and “accountability” and “laws”. That stuff doesn’t apply to our government. The GOP have a hotline from God. They will take care of everything. Why, just look at the economy, and the unemployment rate, and the integrity with which billions of Federal (i.e. “taxpayer) dollars has been handled. So what if some CIA people were outed. So what if a few of them liberal CIA people out in the field may have had their safety compromised for having been assosciated with Plame. What’s the big deal? Its all good, as long as the GOP runs everything and there is no dissention. It’s just “s%$tty that this liberal prosecutor who obviously hates America and the American way is trying to seek justice and accountability.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:13 pm(note to morons: that was sarcasm)
I think he was commenting within the context of an ongoing pattern of not commenting.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:29 pmScotty is tripping over his own words. He can’t comment, he says, then he proceeds to comment that the report is not accurate.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:33 pmThe lies and contradictions are showing up everywhere.
I don’t think Andrew knows what he’s talking about. I find that a lot among the right-wingers who post here. Are they all that stupid?
#26 yep. They are.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:40 pmI couldn’t tell if Andrew was “tongue in cheeking it” or serious. I’m gonna go with sarcasm & let it pass….
Hey does everyone have their party hats & cold beverages at hand for when the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT is made? They say either today or tomorrow.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:41 pmI think that everyone is being too hard on Scott. What a horrible job to be thrown to the wolves every day while his collegues hide in their offices. My guess is that he is a pretty good guy, with a pretty bad job.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:44 pmActaully, that is unfair. They are not all stupid, but they are deceived, and some welcome the deception. They hear the words, and believe whatever the GOP tells them, and refuse to actually look at what is going on and the patterns (like Scotty being unable to actually field a question - he pretty much will only recite prepared statements). They believe that the GOP still stands for smaller government and less interference in personal lives (just to give 2 of the long list of examples), and simply refuse to accept the enormous growth of government and bureaucracy under this administration, and turn a blind eye (or chime in willingly) to events like Schavio. They cannot see the actions of the administration, and eargerly accept any and every excuse. They are, like the GOP wants everyone to be, good little soldiers who fall in line, do as they are told, do not ask questions, and do not expect accountability of their chosen leaders (whom, as they are told, are infallable).
October 19th, 2005 at 1:47 pmMeltdown in the White House?
[Update @ 10:51am]: Oooh, there’s a scorcher of an article in the New York Daily News today:
October 19th, 2005 at 1:50 pm#29 It certainly would not be a pleasant job under any administration - when the press does their job right. But “pretty good guy”? Do you think he is not “in the know”? I think it is apparent that he knows quite a bit about what goes on in the cabbal. He is a co-conspirator of the lies and propaganda. He is a willing agent. I might feel sorry for him if he were pressed into the duty against his will, but thaqt is not the case. To use a dated term, he is the administration’s “slick mouthpiece”.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:51 pm#28 To be fair, I had the same confusion. If Andrew was being sarcastic himself, I apologize for any direct comments at him.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:52 pmGeorge Bush May Be Distancing Himself From Karl Rove
Is President George Bush starting to put some distance between hims…
October 19th, 2005 at 1:52 pmThe WH can’t say that Bush did not speak with Rove, because he did. If he never did then there would be no chance of actually uncovering evidence that they spoke, and the WH could make that claim. If he DID speak with Rove about it, then saying otherwise would be a lie too blatant even for these fellows (well, they are trying to not lay out any more trackable lies… which is hard for them, they have done this for so long). If they say it didn’t happen, then later have to admit that they lied, then that would be a nuclear missile in Fitz’s arsenal. Even their supporters would be quite indignant, and those involved wouldn’t stand a chance (not to mention the GOP suffering another major hit) They don’t mind sharing nukes with terrorist nations when they can profit from it. There is no profit in giving the investigator ammunition. How about some reporters calling these denials what they are: admission of guilt.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:01 pmMy response to lip service Scotty is this. I have a dream he call’s a press confrence and none of the press show’s up. My other and main dream is Bush’s war, and no one show’s up. Every one goes home and takes care of the business of getting their affairs and the country back to basics of the people. No one goes hungry and we become the wealthy benafactors of helping other countries instead of distroying them by occupation. Sorry, I am the dreamer….Blessings
October 19th, 2005 at 2:15 pm“If you’ll recall, I believe I have already not responded to that question at length in previous non-answers which I was not at liberty to provide, and in repeated and categorical non-comments which I did not, cannot and will not continue to not not-make on the subject of an ongoing investigation. I stand by those non-assertions, and I see no point in not-not non-elaborating on them further.”
October 19th, 2005 at 2:18 pm#36 It’s achievable, were it not for the depths of corruption fueled by greed. It all boils down to greed.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:18 pm[…] As we reported earlier, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan disputed the New York Daily News article reporting that Bush knew about the leak two years ago by saying the White House disputed its “overall accuracy.†McClellan was asked about the story again in the on-camera White House press briefing, and here’s what he said: QUESTION: Scott, did the president talk to Karl Rove two years ago about the leak? […]
October 19th, 2005 at 3:01 pm[…] serving in the White House, McClellan orchestrated the White House’s stonewall on the leak story. Time and again, he claimed he could not answer questions about […]
March 7th, 2007 at 12:16 pm