McClellan Walks Back Denial of NY Daily News Story
McClellan Walks Back Denial of NY Daily News Story
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?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question. That’s a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and I’m just not going to have further comment while that investigation is under way.
McClellan would not even go as far as simply reaffirming his denial of the accuracy of the story:
QUESTION: … you could say it’s true or not true.
MCCLELLAN: No. As you have known for some time now, we’ve been saying that, while this is an ongoing investigation, what we’re going to do from the White House is cooperate fully with that investigation and let the special prosecutor do his work. We’re not going to speculate or prejudge the outcome.
If McClellan could deny the accuracy of the Daily News story in the morning gaggle, why couldn’t he do so in the briefing? Does the White House now agree with the story that Bush knew Rove was a leaker two years ago?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
18 Responses to “McClellan Walks Back Denial of NY Daily News Story”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why doesn’t McClellan just show up with duct tape across his mouth since he isn’t going to say anything. That will save everyone a lot of time and get the point across easier.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:03 pmSo…if Bush did know about this two years ago is he tied in enough to actually be held accountable for anything? Unfortunately, he was not onder oath when Fits questioned him, so he can’t have purjured himself.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:07 pmThe war was supposed to be over forgotten and under the rug by now. Jokes on me!
October 19th, 2005 at 3:10 pmAnd, oh, go f*ck yourself.
I don’t think its a perjury charge that they are worried about. McClellan is very choosy about what he actually will comment on, and he is avoiding anything that might be either incriminating or that might be proven in short order as a lie. The best way for pathalogical liers to not get caught in lies is to not say anything at all. Apparently the WH has no opinions on anything… just ‘talking points’.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:12 pmWHOA.
Arrest Warrant Issued For DeLay:
http://sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/ n/ a/ 2005/ 10/ 19/ national/ w112706D64.DTL
When is it considered too early to celebrate?
October 19th, 2005 at 3:21 pmIs “I appreciate the question” a euphamism for, “That is not on the talking points list for this conference, so I won’t be answering”?
October 19th, 2005 at 3:22 pm#6 Still too early.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:22 pmDoes the WH really think that this guy can convince anyone of anythng?
Well, uh… we’re, um… Ok, I’ve said before we’re not going to… uh, comment, uh hum, on… what you know is, um… an ongiong, uh… criminal investigation except, ahh, to uh… deny that uh, anyone in this, um… administration, did anything ever. And you know that because I said it before.
We need a photo montage of his bumbling and contraditictory utterances. He can make the point that the WH is full of babbling sycophants better than anyone else can.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:25 pmTranslation:
“This is related to an ongoing investigation” = “GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!”
October 19th, 2005 at 3:38 pmThe transcript was hilarious. Man, these morning gaggles have been getting better and better.
#6- WTF?! I’m waiting for the mug shots. Couldn’t happen to a better person.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:41 pm#9: Well, uh… we’re, um… Ok, I’ve said before we’re not going to… uh, comment, uh hum, on… what you know is, um… an ongiong, uh… criminal investigation except, ahh, to uh…
Think about the other individual that works in the White House and can’t make a coherent sentence. I think they truly want McClellan to be the “voice of the President.”
October 19th, 2005 at 3:50 pmI will be glad to see DeLays mug photo spread on every liberal and progressive blog.
Then the same photo can be used on anti-DeLay campaign literater.
When that photo goes up, it will be a great day in this nation.
When Bush is charged with lying to an investigator and named as an un-indicted co_conspirator, then we know the world really is round.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:52 pmPablo, my man, AGREED.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:56 pmPablo,
That’s why he’s been desperate to avoid being booked. It will be the photograph used by every democrat in every election in the country as the symbol of republican greed and corruption!
October 19th, 2005 at 4:07 pmIs Bush going to get “Clintoned”? If Joe Wilson brings a civil suit against Bush for being DIRECTLY involved in traitorgate, and the Pres. is forced to testify UNDER OATH, to what he knows, won’t it be a fine irony; the bogus, politically-motivated precedent
October 19th, 2005 at 6:00 pmwhich they used to impeach Clinton might also seal Bush’s fate!
Ironic indeed, dano347.
October 19th, 2005 at 6:03 pmHypocrisy is the right’s only value and
it creates big problems down the road.
Joe Wilson has the option of filing a civil suit against the shrub, and I hope like hell he does it. I knonw several hundred attorneys up there who would take the case on a contingency basis, nothing out of pocket for Wilson.
With a civil suit all the lies the shrub has told about this will be put in one place. His protection of Rove will be exposed. His knowledge of the Plame affair will be known.
Wilson could possibly strip him of every dime he has if he were to succeed in a case like this. Every dime the shrub has except for the couple billion in a bag that came out of Iraq that Dan Senior saw to it is well hidden.
October 19th, 2005 at 7:39 pm[…] What did the President know and when did he know it? Yesterday, the New York Daily News reported that, according to a “presidential counselor,” an “angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair.” According to the article, the run-in occurred “shortly after the Justice Department informed the White House in September 2003 that a criminal investigation had been launched.” If the report is true, it raises serious questions about the integrity of President Bush’s statements about the investigation. (At yesterday’s press conference, White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to dispute the specifics of the article.) The report also suggests that testimony provided to the special prosecutor by Bush and Rove may have been inaccurate. […]
November 6th, 2005 at 4:38 am