Comments on: McClellan: Media Should “Publicly Apologize” For Reporting On Mobile Weapons Lab Story http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/ Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:51:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: The Smirking Cynic » Are You a Good Leak, or a Bad Leak? http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-508719 The Smirking Cynic » Are You a Good Leak, or a Bad Leak? Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:58:43 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-508719 [...] I had posted late Friday about the latest article from Murray Waas of the National Journal. To my disappointment, the subject was not raised during the Sunday talk shows, but I suppose that’s to be expected when the Washington Post doesn’t write the nationwide version as they did a week ago with Murray’s previous column. Maybe they didn’t want to be accused of writing an “embarrassment” by Scooty McCliar again. [...] [...] I had posted late Friday about the latest article from Murray Waas of the National Journal. To my disappointment, the subject was not raised during the Sunday talk shows, but I suppose that’s to be expected when the Washington Post doesn’t write the nationwide version as they did a week ago with Murray’s previous column. Maybe they didn’t want to be accused of writing an “embarrassment” by Scooty McCliar again. [...]

]]> By: James Rodgers http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-507424 James Rodgers Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:05:57 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-507424 Scott McClenan's performance as administration spokesman is a new low in the positioin and well below the Ron Ziegler minimum. Scott McClenan’s performance as administration spokesman is a new low in the positioin and well below the Ron Ziegler minimum.

]]> By: James Rodgers http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-507423 James Rodgers Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:05:55 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-507423 Scott McClenan's performance as administration spokesman is a new low in the positioin and well below the Ron Ziegler minimum. Scott McClenan’s performance as administration spokesman is a new low in the positioin and well below the Ron Ziegler minimum.

]]> By: Becky http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-507399 Becky Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:50:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-507399 How does he get up and come to work every day? The thing is, no matter who has that job, they have the same problem---lying to the press and then when they're caught, trying to put some spin on it so to make us believe we didn't really hear what we thought we heard. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the American people, we now have video cameras. How does he get up and come to work every day? The thing is, no matter who has that job, they have the same problem—lying to the press and then when they’re caught, trying to put some spin on it so to make us believe we didn’t really hear what we thought we heard. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the American people, we now have video cameras.

]]> By: Cafe Politico » http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-507021 Cafe Politico » Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:32:31 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-507021 [...] Unbelievable. [...] [...] Unbelievable. [...]

]]> By: This is a real dumb country http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506815 This is a real dumb country Fri, 14 Apr 2006 04:23:13 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506815 Scottie needs to take a class on righteous indignation. That was pathetic. Scottie needs to take a class on righteous indignation. That was pathetic.

]]> By: mad mac http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506626 mad mac Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:10:40 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506626 Scotty doesn't know that Scooter and me dropping dimes on Good old Valerie. Scotty doesn't know. Scotty doesn't know. Scotty doesn't know Scotty doesn’t know that Scooter and me dropping dimes on Good old Valerie. Scotty doesn’t know. Scotty doesn’t know. Scotty doesn’t know

]]> By: oldman http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506595 oldman Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:41:47 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506595 the drugs these fools take before a news conference must be quite good cause it adles the mind and you blurt out nonsense and stupidity...maybe they can legalize it and pass it on to the citizens so we can see wht they are seeing.hmmmmm.... the drugs these fools take before a news conference must be quite good cause it adles the mind and you blurt out nonsense and stupidity…maybe they can legalize it and pass it on to the citizens so we can see wht they are seeing.hmmmmm….

]]> By: Thorrific http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506509 Thorrific Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:44:43 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506509 this is a little off topic, except for the hypocritical asshole part: why doesn't anyone ever ask Snottie McClellan about all the gay bars he used to frequent in Austin? Tons of people have seen him there, it's no secret, Snottie. Come on out of the closet and quit working for people who hate your kind! It's ok to be gay! this is a little off topic, except for the hypocritical asshole part:
why doesn’t anyone ever ask Snottie McClellan about all the gay bars he used to frequent in Austin? Tons of people have seen him there, it’s no secret, Snottie. Come on out of the closet and quit working for people who hate your kind! It’s ok to be gay!

]]> By: R U Serious http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506460 R U Serious Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:10:43 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506460 I think the President owes us an apology for acting as if he were looking for WMD's under his desk at a press dinner, to the laughs and giggles of everyone there. Send apologies to SGT Stephen R Sherman KIA 3 Feb 2005 Mosul, Iraq C 1-5 IN He was my Soldier and I dont think that shit was funny then or now. I think the President owes us an apology for acting as if he were looking for WMD’s under his desk at a press dinner, to the laughs and giggles of everyone there.

Send apologies to

SGT Stephen R Sherman
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
C 1-5 IN

He was my Soldier and I dont think that shit was funny then or now.

]]> By: Sean http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506307 Sean Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:01:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506307 There's a nice warm place in hell waiting for Scott and the rest of the administration There’s a nice warm place in hell waiting for Scott and the rest of the administration

]]> By: Think Progress » McClellan Still Won’t Say When White House Learned Of Report Debunking Bio Lab Claims http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506275 Think Progress » McClellan Still Won’t Say When White House Learned Of Report Debunking Bio Lab Claims Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:36:45 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506275 [...] Yesterday, Scott McClellan was asked when senior administration officials became aware of a Pentagon report which found that trailers in Iraq “had nothing to do with biological weapons.” McClellan said he was “looking into it.” [...] [...] Yesterday, Scott McClellan was asked when senior administration officials became aware of a Pentagon report which found that trailers in Iraq “had nothing to do with biological weapons.” McClellan said he was “looking into it.” [...]

]]> By: Helen Liggett http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506203 Helen Liggett Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:08:48 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506203 Either Bush knew the trailers weren't for weapons use and lied to the public OR he didn't know something that he darn sure should have - either way he is unfit to govern. Either Bush knew the trailers weren’t for weapons use and lied to the public OR he didn’t know something that he darn sure should have – either way he is unfit to govern.

]]> By: Camilo Ramirez http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506166 Camilo Ramirez Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:49:58 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506166 This is our local version of the Iraqi Information Minister, and just as poignant. This is our local version of the Iraqi Information Minister, and just as poignant.

]]> By: buermann http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506124 buermann Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:11:49 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506124 "Since the liberation of Iraq, we have discovered Saddam's clandestine network of biological laboratories" -- George W. Bush, October 22nd 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031022-12.html “Since the liberation of Iraq, we have discovered Saddam’s clandestine network of biological laboratories” — George W. Bush, October 22nd 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031022-12.html

]]> By: The Smirking Cynic » Shame http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506075 The Smirking Cynic » Shame Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:43:16 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506075 [...] But yesterday, Scooty McCliar took the cake. The man has obviously lost contact with mission control and is operating under his own orders. I say this because his answer to the Washington Post story I mentioned yesterday was so off the mark I think he needs check-up for the neck up. (hat-tip ThinkProgress) You know, I saw some reporting talking about how this latest revelation — which is not something that is new; this is all old information that’s being rehashed — was an embarrassment for the White House. No, it’s an embarrassment for the media that is out there reporting this. [...] [...] But yesterday, Scooty McCliar took the cake. The man has obviously lost contact with mission control and is operating under his own orders. I say this because his answer to the Washington Post story I mentioned yesterday was so off the mark I think he needs check-up for the neck up. (hat-tip ThinkProgress) You know, I saw some reporting talking about how this latest revelation — which is not something that is new; this is all old information that’s being rehashed — was an embarrassment for the White House. No, it’s an embarrassment for the media that is out there reporting this. [...]

]]> By: Rob http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-506074 Rob Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:41:53 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-506074 McClellan says it's <em>irresponsible </em>for the Washington Post to issue a report with material that may well be factually correct, but nonetheless leaves the impression that there's more to the story. I agree completely. Wordsmithing to try to convince the public of an conclusion for which one has no evidence (or, worse, knows to be false) is scandalous, and is worthy of scorn and derision. As an example, in 2002 and 2003, the administration repeatedly and blatantly manipulated words to dupe the public into believing that (1) Iraq / Saddam Hussein had been involved in the 9-11 attacks, and (2) Saddam had the means and the desire to attack the US, and that such an attack was imminent and could only be prevented by invading. The MSM obediently relayed their words, and thus left the strong impression that these were actual facts for a large portion of Americans. This was just about as irresponsible a job of collective journalism as one can imagine. Finally though, when anyone bothered to call the administration on these <strong>lies</strong>, they would simpley respond that they never said those exact words.: they never said directly that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 (they only claimed he gave material support to Al Qaida, itself a factual error); they never said that an attack from Iraq was "imminent", they don't ever recall using that word. Examples like these abound; you can probably think of four or five of them yourself over a cup of coffee... Such dishonesty is so common with these people that I doubt they even know when they are really telling the truth. In typical fashion, they tried to tamp down the current furor by citing findings in the Robb-Silverman report that seemingly absolved the administration of any wrongdoing here. Of course, the argument is falacious because the report only stated that there was no evidence that the Administration pressured the Intelligence Community to produce certain findings. That's not what the WaPo seemed to imply in its story. The Post only seemed to imply that the Administration chose not to discuss items they felt would contrtadict the story they were telling. Could this be true? Is it any coincidence that the President talked at length about a CIA white paper (written by non-experts) that said exactly what the President wanted it to say, but has never even mentioned the findings of the DIA report (written by top experts) that contradicted him -- even three years after the report was written? You see: they didn't pressure the intelligence community, they simply buried all the intelligence that they didn't like! McClellan says it’s irresponsible for the Washington Post to issue a report with material that may well be factually correct, but nonetheless leaves the impression that there’s more to the story. I agree completely. Wordsmithing to try to convince the public of an conclusion for which one has no evidence (or, worse, knows to be false) is scandalous, and is worthy of scorn and derision.

As an example, in 2002 and 2003, the administration repeatedly and blatantly manipulated words to dupe the public into believing that (1) Iraq / Saddam Hussein had been involved in the 9-11 attacks, and (2) Saddam had the means and the desire to attack the US, and that such an attack was imminent and could only be prevented by invading. The MSM obediently relayed their words, and thus left the strong impression that these were actual facts for a large portion of Americans. This was just about as irresponsible a job of collective journalism as one can imagine. Finally though, when anyone bothered to call the administration on these lies, they would simpley respond that they never said those exact words.: they never said directly that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 (they only claimed he gave material support to Al Qaida, itself a factual error); they never said that an attack from Iraq was “imminent”, they don’t ever recall using that word. Examples like these abound; you can probably think of four or five of them yourself over a cup of coffee…

Such dishonesty is so common with these people that I doubt they even know when they are really telling the truth. In typical fashion, they tried to tamp down the current furor by citing findings in the Robb-Silverman report that seemingly absolved the administration of any wrongdoing here. Of course, the argument is falacious because the report only stated that there was no evidence that the Administration pressured the Intelligence Community to produce certain findings. That’s not what the WaPo seemed to imply in its story. The Post only seemed to imply that the Administration chose not to discuss items they felt would contrtadict the story they were telling. Could this be true? Is it any coincidence that the President talked at length about a CIA white paper (written by non-experts) that said exactly what the President wanted it to say, but has never even mentioned the findings of the DIA report (written by top experts) that contradicted him — even three years after the report was written?

You see: they didn’t pressure the intelligence community, they simply buried all the intelligence that they didn’t like!

]]> By: big papa http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-505989 big papa Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:46:23 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-505989 <strong>McClellan</strong> should <strong>apologize</strong> for being a skanky <strong>Bushite propaganda who*e</strong>... ...why they (the <strong>WH press corp</strong>) don't <strong>just skip </strong>his lying <strong>propaganda sessions</strong>... ...is beyond me... McClellan should apologize for being a skanky Bushite propaganda who*e…

…why they (the WH press corp) don’t just skip his lying propaganda sessions…

…is beyond me…

]]> By: Marc http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-505970 Marc Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:36:11 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-505970 <strong>The administration is saying that the President couldn't have known that his May 29 claim about the bio-labs was false because 'it takes at least a couple of days to process the raw data' and get it into a form that can be presented to the President (the raw data being from May 27). So why didn't Bush come back and clarify his claims after the data was 'unrawed'??? Maybe it got lost in the 'bowels of the administration' as Ccoonnddoolleezzaa might say.</strong> The administration is saying that the President couldn’t have known that his May 29 claim about the bio-labs was false because ‘it takes at least a couple of days to process the raw data’ and get it into a form that can be presented to the President (the raw data being from May 27). So why didn’t Bush come back and clarify his claims after the data was ‘unrawed’??? Maybe it got lost in the ‘bowels of the administration’ as Ccoonnddoolleezzaa might say.

]]> By: Marc http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/comment-page-5/#comment-505969 Marc Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:36:07 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/#comment-505969 <strong>The administration is saying that the President couldn't have known that his May 29 claim about the bio-labs was false because 'it takes at least a couple of days to process the raw data' and get it into a form that can be presented to the President (the raw data being from May 27). So why didn't Bush come back and clarify his claims after the data was 'unrawed'??? Maybe it got lost in the 'bowels of the administration' as Ccoonnddoolleezzaa might say.</strong> The administration is saying that the President couldn’t have known that his May 29 claim about the bio-labs was false because ‘it takes at least a couple of days to process the raw data’ and get it into a form that can be presented to the President (the raw data being from May 27). So why didn’t Bush come back and clarify his claims after the data was ‘unrawed’??? Maybe it got lost in the ‘bowels of the administration’ as Ccoonnddoolleezzaa might say.

]]>