Until Yesterday, White House Frequently Discussed “Staff-Level Meetingsâ€
Until Yesterday, White House Frequently Discussed “Staff-Level Meetingsâ€
During yesterday’s press briefing, Scott McClellan told the press he was not going to discuss any “staff-level meetings” White House staff may have had with Jack Abramoff:
Q: Who was in the staff meetings [with Abramoff]?
McCLELLAN: I don’t get into discussing staff-level meetings.
Q: Why not?
McCLELLAN: Well, if you got something to bring to my attention, Elisabeth, I’ll be glad to look into it. If you’ve got something specific, I’ll be glad to take a look into it.
Q: Did [Abramoff] meet with Karl Rove, for example?
McCLELLAN: We don’t – we don’t ever tend to get into those staff-level meetings.
In fact, in previous press briefings, McClellan has repeatedly discussed both internal staff meetings and meetings between White House staff and outsiders, even detailing by name which officials were involved.
A few examples below from just the last six months:
McCLELLAN: Remember, last week the President met with Senators Specter and Leahy and Senator Frist and Senator Reid. That was part of the consultation process, and White House staff — Harriet Miers, our Counsel, Andy Card, Chief of Staff, and Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff, have been reaching out to listen to ideas from members of the Senate.
McCLELLAN: We also want to look at other unnecessary spending and find ways to cut that. And that’s why our OMB director has been meeting with members of Congress to discuss some of those issues. We have some other officials that will be going up to the Capitol later this — later this week from the Budget Office as well as, I believe, a representative from the inspector general’s office at the Department of Homeland Security. [...]
Senator White House staff, such as our counsel, Harriet Miers, and Chief of Staff Andy Card, Karl Rove, and others have been reaching out to members of the Senate, as they did before, to listen to their thoughts and their ideas on what they’re looking for in terms of attributes and qualifications for a potential nominee.
McCLELLAN: The president has had conversations with some Democrats. I don’t think that at this point it’s necessary to get into all those conversations. Andy Card has reached out as well, and other members of the White House staff, including our legislative team. And we will continue to do so.
McCLELLAN: Andy Card, before the vote on Monday, reached out to Senator Biden and said: look, we want to work in good faith. … And then just last night, Andy Card again reached out to Senator Biden and spent time with him on the phone, said, look, we’re willing to provide you with the information that was provided to the ranking Democrat and ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence committee.
Q: One other question. The Hubbard-Bernanke-Bolten meeting this afternoon; after they get done with the president, they’re going to be outside. Should we –
McCLELLAN: It’s not a meeting with the president. It’s a meeting of the president’s economic advisers. They have a weekly meeting where they talk about important economic matters. Now, they meet regularly with the president, too, but this is a meeting with those — with the economic team.
Q: I stand corrected.
McCLELLAN: Andy Card had a discussion with Senator Biden just yesterday.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Don’t these guys know that everything they do and everything they say is recorded in some fashion or another. The tactics they used might have worked back in the 1800s, but not anymore.
WE KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE SAID!!!
January 18th, 2006 at 4:40 pmHuh? Scotty wasn’t telling the truth? Whoa!
January 18th, 2006 at 4:41 pmThursday, 011906 @ 1100 EST
Washington Post White House Reporter Michael Fletcher discusses on-line the latest in political news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/13/DI2006011301042.html
Come on down. We can’t make it to Washington but guess what? These dudes are already there AND this is their job. Ask them about it.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:45 pmI’m just waiting for Ms. McClellan to throw out that tired defense of the group knowing him and that they should trust him like he’s done with the plame/rove/libby attrocity.
Once, just once, I want to see someone stand up and say “that’s a lie, no we don’t trust you, answer the f**king question”
January 18th, 2006 at 4:49 pmGo easy on Scottie. He’s now nothing more than a squeaky-toy for the WH press corps, his mom’s bolted the Repub party and his brother is now overseeing the Medicare Part D fiasco.
There is a curse on Clan McClellan.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:51 pmScottie and the truth have never met. I wonder if he throws up before each briefing? I would if I were him. What would happen if the press corps, the minute Scottie walked in the door, got up, turned around, and walked out?
January 18th, 2006 at 4:51 pmIn other words, they have a policy that allows them to choose to comment or not to comment, whenever they please.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
January 18th, 2006 at 4:57 pmBut none of that is relevant… NONE of those comments show the White House in a bad light.
Z.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:02 pmIn other words, they have a policy that allows them to choose to comment or not to comment, whenever they please.
Hell, when haven’t they?
January 18th, 2006 at 5:03 pmZ.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:07 pmWith the scandals (rove, libby, cheney, abramoff) and the criminal activity (illegal war, NSA spying, missing funds) and the gross incompetence (Katrina/FEMA, medicare, economy), there is no light upon which you can view the whitehouse that would be “good”.
If Scott is paid by the lie, he’s going to retire richer than Cheney and Rumsfeld put together.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:09 pmI love your pic, Spudge!
January 18th, 2006 at 5:09 pmMy comp. is 6 yrs. old, so I can’t see a lot of detail, but is that a sweat soaked back?
Too Funny!
Z. The comments aren’t meant to show the White house in a bad light. They are to show that Scott is lying when he says that he doesn’t “ever” get into discussing staff meetings. Here are examples where he has clearly done that. So his excuse that he won’t duscuss Abramoff’s WH meetings because they don’t ever discuss those is a lie.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:10 pmIs it even worth reporting stories about McClellan?
Is he even taken seriously by anyone anymore?
The press whores even seem disgusted with him.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:10 pmTrue Blue,
Yes, that is a sweat soaked back. Ewwwww.
That’s after doin’ some hard work. He was fighting with a cedar and comparing it to battle wounds.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:12 pmIs it even worth reporting stories about McClellan?
No kidding. What’s the point of taking questions if he’s not going to answer any? They should just quit the whole farce and declare Bush the Tsar already.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:13 pmMore bullshit from the White House.
CNN
January 18, 2006
White House: Reporter’s release a priority
What happened to:
January 18th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Favorite quote of the day.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Wayne and Optimist, I was providing a cynical excuse as I imagine the White House might.
If you notice Optimist the things that the McClellan is willing to talk about are mostly irrelevant in the grander scheme of things.
I think the real policy is simply “We will only discuss things that don’t paint us in a bad light.” In which case all of the inconsistencies between them being willing to talk about X but not Y vanish.
Z.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:28 pmRight Punch,
Did he really say that?
Wow!!
Spudge,
January 18th, 2006 at 5:30 pmTotally off topic:
I now have enough $$ to buy a new comp, but have no idea what to buy. What’s a good name?
Everyone else,
Sorry I made you read this…!
#8, Spudgeboy
January 18th, 2006 at 5:31 pmOh, that it were true!!
True Blue,
Send me an e-mail: spudgeboy@gmail.com
January 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pmThanks! ;-)
January 18th, 2006 at 5:40 pmFair’s fair. If TP is going to employ witch hunt tactics like this, then it should likewise call for Harry Reid and James Clyburn to make public all their “staff-level meetings” relating to Abramoff or his clients.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:41 pm#8: Dream on!
January 18th, 2006 at 5:42 pmTrue Blue,
Why yes he really said that. I was so proud I almost teared up like in one of those ‘liberal hollywood’ movies :)
It’s nice to see some fight left in the Democrats.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:42 pm“Fair’s fair. If TP is going to employ witch hunt tactics like this, then it should likewise call for Harry Reid and James Clyburn to make public all their “staff-level meetings†relating to Abramoff or his clients. Blue State Red”
I’m all for it, and I’ll go one step further call for a special prosecutor to go after ALL of the parties involved. Do you agree, or does your partisan fear make you quake at the prospect of what will be found. It should :)
January 18th, 2006 at 5:43 pm“#8: Dream on! Blue State Red”
That’s true. The day when a republican would resign – out of Courage and respect for the office of the President – when caught betraying the constitution went away with Nixon. Bush should resign, but everyone knows he doesn’t have the courage or respect for the constitution. He’s a disgrace to the office of the President and to the American people, as are those that defend him.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:46 pmBSR,
I would support fully a fact finding mission on ANYONE involved directly with Abramoff. Your addition of his “clients” is wrong from a legal standpoint, however. Especially when one of Abramoff’s crimes is that of swindling his clients. Seems to me that you are trying to cast a net far enough that it will encompass everyone so as to deflect the focus on the criminals involved in this abomination.
Do you have any other “factual” connections that you wish to expose?
January 18th, 2006 at 5:46 pmBSR,
So, you agree that there should be a special counsel to go after ANYBODY, no matter the party affiliation or rank in government, to go after any and all of the people involved?
Where can I sign the petition.
And just to be fair, the right wing blogs need to start posting about corrupt republicans.
I’ll agree to that 100%.
Wanna shake on it?
January 18th, 2006 at 5:46 pmNone of those samples had non-Gov’t persons listed.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pm#20 Gotcha, Z. Sorry to jump on you (politely, I hope).
January 18th, 2006 at 5:49 pmReally, can you imagine, Harry Reid taking money from GAMBLING COMPANIES/TRIBES…. What state does he sit in the Senate for? I have half a notion to go there and gamble away my children’s inheritance. Oops! Dumbya beat me to it! Damn that bastard!
January 18th, 2006 at 5:49 pmNo Problem Wayne, it’s not always easy to discern intent. I didn’t feel put upon, just misunderstood. At least I can clarify… :-)
Z.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pmSo, when we say sure, let’s break this whole thing wide open with an investigation, BSR runs away.
Standard pussy troll tactic.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pm#35 Z.
Ahh, that misunderstood feeling, I know it too well. :)
January 18th, 2006 at 5:56 pm#20,
I hear you. Imagine what it would be like if Ms. McClellan decided not to lie and deceive and instead just avoided all questions whose answers would provide a negative view into the workings of the whitehouse. I think that I can simulate, here we go….
(crickets)
January 18th, 2006 at 5:57 pm“I’ll go one step further call for a special prosecutor to go after ALL of the parties involved.”
I see the fever swamp has suddenly re-discovered its affection for special prosecutors. That kinda smacks of hypocrisy, given the near hysterical protests against alleged special prosecutor abuses during the Clinton administration.
No, I’m not in favor of a special prosecutor receiving a broad mandate to investigate ALL 535 members of Congress, plus the President and ALL his cabinet members. I believe in political solutions for ethical violations, and criminal solutions for criminal violations. The Bush DOJ has done a fine job of investigating corruption so far [see, for example, the Cunningham and Abramoff cases]. It is the MSM and “progressive” sites like TP that need to become more bipartisan in their focus. That’s what I’m talking about.
BTW, has anyone heard from Patrick Fitzgerald lately? It looks like any hopes for an indictment of Karl Rove have begun to fade.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:08 pmSorry, that link to the ad did’nt take.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:12 pmFYI BSR, bribery is a criminal, not political, matter. Republicans are obviously in favor of special prosecutors deposing sitting Presidents under oath, so let’s get to it!
January 18th, 2006 at 6:12 pmAre you kidding me? Special Prosecutors are the best.
Why we haven’t heard from Fitzgerald? Because he is doing his job, not running a circus like Ken Star did.
Now, you want to agree that the whole thing should be blown open or do you wanna continue with your worthless attacks.
I love how when we agree with you, first, you run off and hide, then you change to attacking.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:15 pmPS: I also believe that the mere fact of meeting with someone is not evidence of corruption. Even politicians enjoy freedom of association and freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:16 pmBSR,
Ken Starr’s abuses were actual.
As for Patrick Fitzgerald, someone said he had been busy on a case in Chicago that he just wrapped up, so we can expect to hear from him soon. Karl Rove’s troubles have not gone away. He hasn’t weaseled his way out of it and he won’t.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:19 pmBSR, do you believe confession of bribery is evidence of corruption?
Let’s get Bush under oath, I bet we can set a perjury trap for him. Republicans love perjury traps, remember?
January 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#43 BSR,
Members of Congress are expected to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Since many do not understand what this means (and recent stories show that prominent Republicans are among them), this is why we have corruption.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:22 pmOh yeah? So then you don’t think that people who took money from Abramoff’s clients should be investigated, because his clients are only associates?
January 18th, 2006 at 6:23 pm“I see the fever swamp has suddenly re-discovered its affection for special prosecutors. That kinda smacks of hypocrisy, given the near hysterical protests against alleged special prosecutor abuses during the Clinton administration. Blue State Red”
I can see how someone naive and unworldly might hate the way you do. The problem was a special prosecutor law that permitted congress to insitute one for political purposes when no law related to the government was violated. For instance the failure of an arkansas savings and loan doesn’t qualify as ‘federal emergency’ worthy of a special prosecutor – but bribery of congressmen and the president clearly does.
The Special Prosecutor that took down Libby was a great example of a Justice Department special prosecutor that was put into place when a crime was basically proven to have been committed. The same is true here. Abramoff confessed, so it’s time for the Attorney General to recuse himself from managing the case and appoint a special prosecutor.
“No, I’m not in favor of a special prosecutor receiving a broad mandate to investigate ALL 535 members of Congress, plus the President and ALL his cabinet members. I believe in political solutions for ethical violations, and criminal solutions for criminal violations. The Bush DOJ has done a fine job of investigating corruption so far [see, for example, the Cunningham and Abramoff cases]. It is the MSM and “progressive†sites like TP that need to become more bipartisan in their focus. That’s what I’m talking about. Blue State Red”
Sounds great, an investigation must begin with Abramoff and Cunningham since they’ve confessed. Lets investigate all of the crooks, and get rid of the 60+ republicans that Abramoff says he bribed. As for the mainstream media, heck they’re the ones that keep lying about this being a ‘bipartisan’ crime, when Abramoff only gave money to Republicans. Clearly they respond to their rightwing masters by producing propaganda to decrease your appropriate political losses.
“BTW, has anyone heard from Patrick Fitzgerald lately? It looks like any hopes for an indictment of Karl Rove have begun to fade. Blue State Red “
You’re such a silly child. You compliment the Bush DOJ, and then you criticize Fitzgerald who’s the DOJ investigator of this crime.
Do you even know what a special prosecutor is? Do you realize that they’re a DOJ employee under the current system? Are you sure you’re an american?
I’m sorry you’re so afraid of all of the criminal convictions that clearly your Republican leaders deserve – but face it. You’ve become the party of the corrupt, and until you hold your leaders accountable the way the Democrats did in the 1990s and axe them from your leadership – this will continue to happen. Heck, the keating 5 republicans including McCain are still kicking in congress and pretending to be honest. You guys have a long history of corruption and immoral leadership – it’s just finally coming back to haunt you.
It’s OK for you to forgive your republican theives and crooks who fooled you, but make sure you hold them accountable or they’ll continue to make you look stupid.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:24 pm“PS: I also believe that the mere fact of meeting with someone is not evidence of corruption. Even politicians enjoy freedom of association and freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Blue State Red”
They why do you hypocritically accuse Democrats of criminal acts when they clearly are in this boat. I know you’re a scared little boy, but when you grow up you’ll learn this lashing out inappropriately was just the result of bad parenting that you can overcome. Just because you’ve been caught doing criminal acts doesn’t mean you ’should’ or ‘want’ to attack others to ‘make it even’. That’s just the silly actions of a scared little boy who won’t take personal responsibility for his actions – and you don’t want to seem like a scared little boy do you?
January 18th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
January 18th, 2006 at 6:31 pmSorry, I got off topic folks, but this type of corruption people need to see.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:32 pmMoveOn has posted a petition to call for Independent Inquiry.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:33 pmhttp://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw?id=6669-6609965-YLM1a83awucJstsxLhOAUQ&t=2
Let’em have it.
When it suits their purposes, the WH is not averse to talking about staff meetings. It is only now that they are guilty of unseemly conduct that they don’t want to discuss it.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:40 pmFirst there’d be questions about Abramoff, then questions about Jeff Gannon, then who knows who else?
In case anyone is interested, one can find the postings of sane liberals at http://www.bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/ and http://www.mydd.com/. Not that I agree with those guys, but at least they can rise above name-calling and still make sense. That’s what the average voter wants to hear – honest debates on the real issues.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pmIt seems like it’s a brand new theory of government-press relations to put the burden of finding a reason to ask probing questions about the government on the PRESS!! So, now we can’t ask our government questions unless we have a credible evidence against it?!?! The Bush administration is making another power grab, this time against the press!!
January 18th, 2006 at 7:21 pmMcClennan lost his credibility long ago. He has been redundant,evasive, and been an obvious shill for Bush and his cronies. He outright lied about the number of meetings Abramoff and Bush had. There are so many unpopular issues that the administration supported. Social Security, Schiavo, Spying, Libby, Iraq, etc. It goes on and on. Finally, we are starting to see dissent. Are the “silent majority” waking up? It is time for progressives, liberals, and Democrats to find common ground and voice.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:31 pmMore examples of staff meetings that were discussed in previous gaggles by Little Scotty and others here.
White House staff met with Cindy Sheehan, John Roberts, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Scotty had no trouble discussing those meetings.
Of course, none of them were confessed felons. Guess that’s the difference.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:32 pmKnow what tomorrow is? It’s the fifth anniversary of the pardon of Marc Rich. How convenient that all the fever swamp rats on this Clintonista site have such short memories!
January 18th, 2006 at 7:34 pmBSR: I remember that. Wasn’t it one of Clinton’s last pardons?
January 18th, 2006 at 7:47 pmThen explain the attacks on Al Gore’s speech. That was an honest debate.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:48 pmFirst this:
Then this:
Can anybody besides me say hypocrit? I knew you could.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:50 pmNot that I agree with those guys, but at least they can rise above name-calling and still make sense.
Comment by Blue State Red — January 18, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
How convenient that all the fever swamp rats on this Clintonista site have such short memories!
Comment by Blue State Red — January 18, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
It’s so sad to see people who don’t even live up to their own standards…
January 18th, 2006 at 7:50 pmYou beat me to it, SpudgeBoy!
January 18th, 2006 at 7:51 pmBSR,
As you twist and squirm to attempt to deflect attention from the corrupt, criminal, and treasonous behavior of this administration, you have convinced me of two things:
1. You are a hypocritical coward who places party above country and your actions and attitude are nothing short of traitorous.
2. You hate america and all that it stands for.
It’s sad, really. How you can place a political party, or even your “president”, above ethics, morals, values, and law is beyond me. You are a traitor, sir, no two ways about it. And you are a yellow bellied coward, which is despicable.
I really wish there was something that I can say to turn you around, but I don’t believe that there is. After everything that you are condoning right now, I really don’t know what it would take to get your attention.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:54 pm“but at least they can rise above name-calling and still make sense. That’s what the average voter wants to hear – honest debates on the real issues.” BSR
OK, so get to the job you were paid to do. Convince us all that the Republican Syndicate is the most ethical and honest bunch of Americans we’ve ever seen in Congress.
It really does suck to be you and the rest of the uncritical Beta-Monkeys. Ever day you have to sign on and promote yourself as a clueless apologist for Bush Republicanism. Those that support you are equally deluded or worse, doing it to just make a buck. You must inhabit a really lonely world. Here, have a banana -> (
January 18th, 2006 at 8:01 pmBSR,
Just checking out your suggestions for Left wing sites to blog on. and found this at your first one.
How very right wing of a “left wing” blogger. That person does not hold the same opinion of anyone on the left and a lot of people on the right.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:03 pmWith the scandals (rove, libby, cheney, abramoff) and the criminal activity (illegal war, NSA spying, missing funds) and the gross incompetence (Katrina/FEMA, medicare, economy), there is no light upon which you can view the whitehouse that would be “goodâ€.
Comment by Optimist #11
Optimist,
So why is the MSM glossing over and ignoring these gross Bushite missteps, lies, violations of law, etc., to focus on Ray Nagin’s “chocolate city” remarks and apology and Hillary Clinton’s “plantation” remarks?
January 18th, 2006 at 8:31 pmbig papa,
The “liberal media” story is just that, a story. It is not true. The media is controlled by big business, who are in bed with the republicans.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:38 pmTo distratct with “misspeaks”. Change the direction. Get everybody to forget they are breaking the laws. They feel teh American people are stupid, will forge, adn go back to “American Idol”.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:39 pmSorry for the typos.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:40 pmBlue State Red,
You forgot to mention the pardons of the first bush, where he pardoned Iran Contra Republicans who also subverted the constitution and american laws to wage illegal wars, funded by illegal arms and drug sales. Republicans have a long history of breaking the law in a big way, pretending it didn’t happen, and pointing the finger at silly unrelated and important issues that Democrats supposedly did.
I’m sorry that you feel the pressure to be so partisan and to not hold your party accountable. I mean, for you to equate the pardon of a man for tax evasion to the pardon of traitors to the constitution is really sad. You’re sad fellow who seems driven more by his irrational fear of liberals than for any compassion, love or tolerance of your fellow americans. Is that what being rightwing means, a free pass to anyone who lies and says they’re one of you? How sad that you have so little care american values. I forgive you of this slander, clearly your hate and irrational fear has made you say things that I’m sure you’d otherwise feel sorry for.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:04 pmI went through my history books and the last honest Republican I could find was named Abe and the last one that anyone liked was named Dwight. Quite a record for abouit 150 years!
January 18th, 2006 at 9:10 pmhey blue red..if you do not like what is posted on this site get the f..k off of it! I am just waiting to smack the shit out of some of you and your buddies kind anyway.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:22 pmMcClellan the slob another pete ziegler and little else. They all know he is lying when he slobbers from that podium. I am waiting for a journalist who has the BALLS to tell it like it is and confront him by saying we are sick and tired of your lies. Actually, Lying is a major force of abuse. It is used by people who have little regard for values, Integrity and most important,contempt for the people being lied to.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:26 pmHeads Up Folks…..read the next Republican Corruption bomb on the horizon: posted at DU-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×179499
Frist and DeLay day trading in their Congressional Offices!
I hope this isn’t another Rovian set-up, but, if true, it’s now: “Trading their way to Treason”
January 18th, 2006 at 11:55 pmPress: “Mr. McLellan, are there any pictures of you with Jeff Gannon’s balls’ resting on your chin?”
Scott McLiar: “I am sorry I can’t discuss low level staff meetings”
January 19th, 2006 at 12:08 am#7 Spudgeboy, AWESOME!
January 19th, 2006 at 12:10 amMcLiar aint talking. Ol Jack-off has gone down on him so many times its caused him to go braindead.
Call Frist, he can cure the braindead! (reverse suck)
January 19th, 2006 at 12:13 amWhen Time Magazine has a cover like that > BUSH RESIGNS, then every bottle of champagne in the entire world will be opened! It would be the biggest party in the history of the entire planet > lol.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:26 amHey, give Scott McClellan a break, mmmkay? He has the hardest job in the world. He needs to answer every single question journalists have for the president and the other staff of the white house and he has to answer consistently! That is not an easy task when you’ve got a bunch of lying, cheating, law-breaking, ignorant, criminal, keeping-you-out-of-the-loop-kind of bosses, led by the thief-in-chief, we’re-too-rich-to-care-about-the-people Bush-family.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:03 amVideo clip of that portion from the White House Press Conference yesterday
Video clip from the 17th-Herman and Gregory on the 17th Asking about Bush/Abramoff Staff Meetings
on CanOFun
January 19th, 2006 at 7:33 amI really wish there was something that I can say to turn you around, but I don’t believe that there is. After everything that you are condoning right now, I really don’t know what it would take to get your attention.
Comment by Optimist #64
PURGE
January 19th, 2006 at 8:39 amGo easy on Scottie. He’s now nothing more than a squeaky-toy for the WH press corps, his mom’s bolted the Repub party and his brother is now overseeing the Medicare Part D fiasco.
There is a curse on Clan McClellan.
Comment by RunningDogLackey #5
The curse is working
January 19th, 2006 at 8:42 amHow can any thinking, feeling human being play the part of The Mouth Of Sauron day after day after day? Even a Reich Wingnut (and every one with the brain of a reptile; no insult intended, actual reptilians). Geez, Scottie must be a Genuine Human Turd… a Huge Soft Turd.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:18 amYeah, you know, McClellan’s a liar, but I’m starting to think the White House press corp. is falling into this trap where they beat McLellan, he resists, then they move on to other things and never get the truth.
It’s almost a game now. And, God knows, McLellan deserves his beatings, but the game’s become the story, versus who Bush met with and when.
Obviously, the White House strategy is to stonewall on a subject until the pressroom forgets about it and moves on to something else, and it’s working…..
At least Sam Donaldson used to get beyond that by yelling his questions to the president during photo ops, then showing the response, or non response.
Too bad the media are all republican now. If they were still independent, they might get around the White House Press Corp. game by getting some investigative reporters working on ferret out answers.
That’s what any good city newspaper would do if something stunk in a mayors office. (You think they’d go to the Mayor’s press guy for the truth?)
Bad mood Friday, I guess.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:05 amthe White House press corp. is falling into this trap where they beat McLellan, he resists, then they move on to other things and never get the truth.
Comment by Bush Bites #85
Bush Bites,
With this criminal, pathologically dishonest administration why is there any need for a “White House press corps”?
It would appear all that is necessary for the daily propaganda session are television camera’s and MCClellan’s prepared propaganda points…
…Oh that’s righ, the press is owned by (Bushiva’s base)the “conservative” corporate right wing propaganda networks…
January 20th, 2006 at 9:48 am[...] There was also a link on it to a story on Think Progresss about Scott McClellan changing the White House story about Staff meetings. I liked the faked Time magazine cover in the comments section. If only it were real. [...]
January 21st, 2006 at 11:15 pm