25
Jul
More blogging from the White House
I went to the White House twice last week, trying to ask a question that had been suggested to me by Brad Friedman when I was on his Brad Show a couple of weekends ago. The question, which I never got to ask because Scott refused to call on me, was about the Pentagon’s failure to deliver a legally-required report to Congress on the status of the war in Iraq. (I guess Congress figures it’s owed something in return for all those $80 billion dollar checks.) Last Thursday, Secretary Rumsfeld finally handed in his paper ten days late. Here’s my summary of the 23-page report:
1. Everything’s going as planned.
2. We’ll be in Iraq until the Iraqi forces become competent.
3. The level of competence of the Iraqi forces is top-secret information that “must not be disclosed publicly.”
4. The biggest problem with the Iraqi forces is that they tend to disappear whenever they’re asked to do something (as this excerpt from the report attests: “Still, units that are conducting operations and units that relocate elsewhere in Iraq experience a surge in absenteeism.“)
Today, however, I had better luck, and got to ask Scott this question at the press briefing:
Last Thursday the White House threatened to veto the defense bill if it includes standards for the humane treatment of prisoners, drafted by Republican Senator John McCain. And also on Thursday the Pentagon refused to comply with a court order to release photos and videos of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Don’t these documented cases of abuse suggest that the U.S. military should adopt higher standards for the humane treatment of prisoners?
This was Scott’s answer (with an interjection near the end by Helen Thomas):
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple things, and I appreciate the question. We did put out a position paper that is available for you to look at, talking about some of our concerns when it comes to the defense authorization bill that the Senate is moving forward on. We certainly would have concerns if there are amendments that some people seek that would interfere with the President’s ability to effectively conduct the global war on terrorism. And there are some amendments that people have suggested that we believe might be unnecessary or duplicative. We want to make sure that there is nothing that restricts the President’s authority to be able to do what he needs to do to protect the American people and prevent attacks from happening in the first place, and bring to justice those who seek to murder innocent civilians.Now, in terms of issues relating to allegations of abuse of detainees, this administration has taken those allegations very seriously. That’s why we have moved forward to hold people accountable, and we have made sure that justice is served to those who were involved in any wrongdoing. But there are laws and treaty obligations that are in place and that we follow. And the Department of Defense has made it very clear that when it comes to detainees, that they treat them in a humane fashion. And that’s consistent —
Q But they’re not being treated humanely.
MR. McCLELLAN: — with what our laws and obligations call for.
In other words, the President needs to be able to abuse prisoners, and no former POW like Senator McCain is going to stop him.
The last question asked during the briefing was interesting too:
Q There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute in the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove. The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in terms of decisions regarding the investigation, those are matters for those overseeing the investigation to decide.
That question was asked by Paul Sanford, a lawyer from Aptos, California, who has just been accredited as a White House reporter for Air America Radio. Today was his first day in the briefing room. We met while going through security, and I was able to give him some pointers on what to expect during the briefing. Welcome to the White House, Paul, and great question!
================
UPDATE: Welcome back, Atrioids. Feel free to wander about.
![[Furl]](http://www.furl.net/images/logo-favicon.ico){kind=logo}
![[Newsvine]](http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/images/identity/button_seednewsvine.gif){kind=small}
![[Email]](http://www.feedburner.com/fb/feed-styles/images/email.gif){kind=small}
Yes. Welcome to the big leagues, Paul. You sound like a natural. Where have you been hiding?
July 25th, 2005 at 12:59 pmScottie, since you are aware that participation in an ongoing crime is
July 25th, 2005 at 1:00 pmconsidered conspiracy, and that is a felony - have you gotten yourself a lawyer yet?
A British reporter (for something like ‘NewsRadio’ or ‘TalkRadio’) actually asked Scottie a week or so ago whether he’d allow his counsel to speak to the press along the lines of Karl Rove’s lawyer. I don’t think I’ve seen a quicker ‘next question’ from him…
July 25th, 2005 at 1:14 pm[…] Air America gets a White House reporter! • • • […]
July 25th, 2005 at 1:40 pmQuestion to ask:
Is the President at all concerned that by not taking immediate action to place Karl Rove on leave or to remove his security clearance, and instead waiting for the lawyers to do there work and complete this criminal investigation, that he is in fact undermining the confidence that under cover agents have that they will be protected by their government, and that this may in turn undermine national security and the war on terror.
And a follow up, in general, does the President believe that government officials suspected of treason should have security clearance until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or does he believe that there are cases where American citizens have a right to be more confident of the administration.
July 25th, 2005 at 1:46 pmAt the next press conference, what about asking the question, “Has the President apologized to Valerie Plame for the actions of his (as yet unnamed) staffer — or does he intend to?”
July 25th, 2005 at 2:42 pmCould you please ask that famous question, “What did the President know and when did he know it?”
July 25th, 2005 at 2:48 pmAnd the same goes for Cheney too. Thanks.
The question I want asked is:
Why didn’t the President simply instruct whoever on his staff to inform him if they had in fact leaked Plame’s identity? Couldn’t this matter have been settled in a day?
July 25th, 2005 at 3:01 pmHow and why in hell did they ever give an AAR reporter White House credentials?
What the…?
Not that I mind…it just begs the question–what were they thinking?
Are they TRYING to give Scott McClellan a well-deserved nervous breakdown?
July 25th, 2005 at 3:04 pmwhy doesn’t somebody just ask, “why did bush agree to the national security-threatening release of the plame information in the first place?” ’cause i’m sure it wouldn’t have happened otherwise. i’d love to see scotty tie himself in knots answering that!
July 25th, 2005 at 3:50 pmPlease ask one of the following: 1) Is the President and/or Vice President a subject or target of the Special Prosecutor’s investigation? 2) Have the President and/or Vice President testified under oath in the proceedings regarding the naming of Valerie Plame.
I’d love to hear Scotty give a “no comment” or “next question” on either one! “White House Refuses to Deny that the President is implicated…”
July 25th, 2005 at 5:13 pmI’d like someone to ask ” When is it O.K. for the president to lie? “
July 25th, 2005 at 5:47 pmAsk if bushcheney would answer ANY questions under oath ?
July 25th, 2005 at 5:56 pmQuestion for Scottie: Is the administration trying to protect the rapists or the rape surviors by defying a court order to release the photos and videos unearthed in the investigation of abuses of deatinees at Abu Ghraib prison - and if it is the survivors - and I use that word instead of the usual words “rape victim” because we have no information as of yet to suggest they were killed afterward - in what way is further concealing the identities and evidence implicating the guilty in line with offfical Administration policy?
And the followup would be, since we know for a fact that US citizen contractors are pictured in the photos of abuse that have been seen by the public, and that these men have yet to be charged with any crime, are we to assume that if the rapists turn out to be citizen contractors, they too will go free?
July 25th, 2005 at 6:04 pmI prefer “Eschatard”! Keep up the good work.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:48 amSend this email to your friends and to others on political mailing lists. Thank you.
Send this text in email or fax to a company you can afford to boycott which either heavily supports Republicans or should know better that we need progressive legislative change.
We demand that your company get the Republican Party to hold a press conference and accede to these demands. Until such a press conference happens I will boycott your products.
We demand that the Republican party end their aggressive and hateful action to end a woman’s right to choose abortion or not.
We demand the resignation of Tom Delay.
We demand that the Congress of the United states and the president of the United States enact a law to increase the minimum wage to TEN dollars an hour and also to extend unemployment benefits for all people whose unemployment benefits expired after 6 months even though they still seek work.
We also demand that the Congress of the United States to not privatize social security benefits in any form including taking a percentage of the social security tax and placing it in private accounts. People can already create their own pensions with money after taxes in the private sector.
We also demand that the congress make all of a person’s earned income taxable for social security FICA tax purposes and remove the 88,000 dollar salary cap. This will make social security solvent for many years to come.
We demand the congress increase the payroll tax in order to make social security solvent as well.
We also demand congress and the president enact a prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part B which covers 80 percent of medication cost, with no extra premium, no extra deductibles, no means test and no coverage gaps.
We also call for the complete repeal of the faulty Medicare law HR 1 / S 1 passed by congress in Nov 2003.
We also demand vote by mail throughout the United States of America. This will prevent Republicans from vote suppression by skin color which happened electronicly and in person in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Demand that your state implement vote by mail with ballots easy to fill out and difficult to change or invalidate by Republican Party officials.
We demand Civil servants on every state payroll should keep track of voter registrations and vote counting of mail in votes in each precinct and not companies such as Choicepoint. We need to take the Republican Party out of the business of keeping track of voter registration and counting votes.
We demand States ban the secretary of state from engaging in politics especially acting as a campaign official for a presidential campaign.
We do this in the spirit of peaceful resistance to a congress that refuses to enact this legislation
If you don’t support what the Republicans did since they took over the House of Representatives in 1995 and don’t support the Republican party’s plans for this year then Join the revolution for progressive legislation and sign the petition at
http://www.boycott-republicans.com
HIT REPUBLICAN CONTRIBUTORS IN THEIR WALLETS !!
Write this url on your one, five and ten dollar bills in the white areas in Pencil.
——————–
Join the revolution for progressive legislation
http://www.boycott-republicans.com
progressive activism group on myspace.
http://groups.myspace.com/revolutionforprogressivelegislation
my web log
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/blog/maximus
Liberal America forum.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/259017
http://www.cafepress.com/revolution09
The Revolution for progressive legislation podcast
I have created 2 podcast files you can download.
Take back America
http://savefile.com/files/5476481
National Security
http://savefile.com/files/1011845
For the complete list of podcasts look here
http://savefile.com/projects/330309
July 26th, 2005 at 1:43 amIt kills me when I hear Scottie say “I appreciate the question”…
He only says that to the questions that you know he DOESN’T want to answer. You never hear it on a question that he actually gives an answer to. It must be right out of the Rove playbook, because Mehlman does the same thing.
The statement is so disingenuous, that everything else that comes out of their mouths after it should automatically be assumed to be bullshit!
July 26th, 2005 at 4:20 amThe question I want asked every time is, “Since the first Gulf War, every videotape or other public statement from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda has been explicit: they attack those western nations whose troops are on the ground in Islamic states, and will continue the attacks until the troops are gone.
Now, while we may have good reason to keep our troops where they are, when will the Administration acknowledge Al Qaeda’s explicit, stated motive and stop insisting that ‘they hate our freedom,’ which Al Qaeda has NEVER said? Why has the President insisted on misrepresenting our adversaries?
Not that these guys answer questions, but it’s high time somebody put that one to them.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:43 amWould you please ask McClellen if the Pres. plans to further water down his comment about firing someone “if they committed a crime”? Elliott Abrams, Special Assistant to the Pres pleaded guilty to 2 charges of lying to Congress (essentially perjury) during the Iran-Contra Scandal. Former Total Information Awareness head, Adm. Poindexter was found guilty of 5 felonies including obstruction of justice (all counts against Poindexter overturned on appeal).
July 26th, 2005 at 7:21 amHe has already employed people guilty of crimes and we’re not talking parking tickets.
These seem entirely relevant since they are the charges that the Plame leaker might face.
Thanks.
The next time Scottie says, “I appreciate that question…” to any question you know he doesn’t want to answer (and most likely _won’t_ answer), he should be interrupted with, “Then, if you appreciate it so much, would you please ANSWER THE F-ING QUESTION!?!”
Just saying…
July 26th, 2005 at 8:12 amand that is a felony - have you gotten yourself a lawyer yet?
Never use the word “gotten” in any way, except in the case of “ill gotten gains”. It just sounds awkward.
July 26th, 2005 at 9:23 amSometimes I imagine what the real answers to these questions would be. And then I blog about it. It helps me with that heavy feeling I have in my gut when I hear the runaround-answers.
July 26th, 2005 at 10:08 amStill Hot. Still Humid. Still Blogging
On-air blogs and bonus blogs from The 5:30 Report with Doug Krile on KWBF in Little Rock, AR
July 26th, 2005 at 11:25 amAAR personality Randi Rhodes doesn’t know of a AAR reporter as of the 2:30 hour PDT
July 26th, 2005 at 12:19 pmInside the Bubble: Working for the Man. Or Eric Alterman, Whatever.
• Air America gets all up in McClellan’s face! Because no one else has. [BTC News] • We somehow missed the chance to mock Eric Alterman. [Gawker] And again! [Fishgirl] • Now that’s what we call a leak: “Karl Rove…
July 27th, 2005 at 2:51 pmWhen making a sale, the most important line to remember is, “I can appreciate that”… it’s what you say when the client is pushing a need that you can’t meet. It’s what you say to calm the client down and maintain control of the sale.
September 21st, 2005 at 8:45 amHas anyone followed up on the Karl Rove/treason question I asked McLellan in the White House on 7/25/05.
Just wondering…
Paul Sanford
January 29th, 2006 at 8:22 amThey will always blow hot air as long as they get away with it..
February 20th, 2006 at 4:09 pmYeah I’m wondering about that Karl Rove thing too…Please inform…
February 20th, 2006 at 4:27 pm