PDA

View Full Version : McLellan Grilled...again!


Adam54
04-07-2006, 08:45 PM
It's been a while since I've heard of Scotty going through a briefing like this one. And he handles it with his usual uncanny ability to dance around direct questions, which, in his defense, is his job, I suppose.

Enjoy!

"Q Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.

But let me point out a couple of facts, step back from this legal proceeding. The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation's security. Now, the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified -- portions of it were declassified. We made sure that we did not -- that we continued to protect sensitive sources and methods within the National Intelligence Estimate.

But let's go back to the time period that you're talking about, because I think it's important for the public to know or recall that time period.

There was a lot of debate going on about the pre-war intelligence that was used in the lead up to the decision to go into Iraq and remove a brutal tyrant from his position of power. There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. That was flat-out false. The National Intelligence Estimate was a document that was provided to members of Congress. It is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. And because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that's exactly what we did.

Q I understand the reason why you thought it needed to be declassified, because of the debate at the time. The question was, when was it declassified. And you were asked that day, when -- the question was, "When was it actually declassified?" And you said, "It was officially declassified today."

If it had been officially declassified on July 18, 2003, then 10 days before, when the information was given out, it was still classified at the time.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're going back to an assertion that is made in a filing related to an ongoing legal proceeding when you talk about the second part of your question. There is no way for me to separate that question and talk about this issue without discussing an ongoing legal proceeding. And I can't do that. We have a policy that's been established, and I'm obligated to adhere to that policy.

Q But answer the question, it's a factual question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but you can't separate that question from the legal proceeding --

Q Was it declassified that day --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- because of one of the assertions that was made in the filing.

Well, you can go back and look at comments that were made at that time. That was when it was --

Q Those were your comments.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that was when it was publicly released at the time. I haven't looked back at exactly what was said at that time.

Q Well, let's be really clear about this. It says right here on July 18th, "When was it actually declassified?" Mr. McClellan, answer, "It was officially declassified today." Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking me to get into the timing. I'm not backing away from anything that was said previously -- that's when the document was released, so that's when it officially --

Q They don't say "released." They say "declassify."

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, Jim. Let me tell you. That's when it was officially released. So I think that's what I was referring to at the time. I'd have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I'm not changing anything that was said previously, so let me make that clear.

Q But if you were --

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, secondly, the question you're going to, again, relates to the timing of when certain information was declassified --

Q I'm not going to that question --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but there's no way you can separate that question out from the ongoing legal proceeding --

Q Scott, you are very careful with your words here. I think if you wanted to say "released," you would have said "released." You said, "declassified."

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q Well, what does that tell --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's when the information was released publicly.

Q Scott, did you not know --

MR. McCLELLAN: But there was --

Q That's not what --

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, for the National Intelligence Estimate, Jim, it did go through a declassification process; you are correct. And the information was carefully looked at by the intelligence community before the portions of the National Intelligence Estimate were made available to the public --

Q But, Scott, you said, "declassified." If it's declassified on that day, it wasn't declassified before. And you're saying you're sticking to -- you're not taking back anything you said before, and what you said that day is it was officially declassified.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd be glad to take a look at exactly what I said, and I'll do that.

Q You didn't say -- I mean, we've got that here --

MR. McCLELLAN: I can't do that here in this room right now, but I'll be glad to take a look at it --

Q Then why are you saying you're not backing up from anything if you --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what I'm saying is that -- I think what I was referring to is the fact that that was when it was made available to the public. So all that information is officially declassified at that point.

Q Then why are you saying you won't back off anything you said before if, in fact, we have transcripts here where you say that's when it was officially declassified? Are you still saying that's when it was officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's when it was made available to the public. So it's officially --

Q When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- so it's officially declassified at that point. I think we're talking past each other a little bit. I'll have to go back and look at the specific transcript -- and I'll be glad to do that -- and we can talk about it further later.

Q Okay. When was it officially declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of the timing of when information may have been declassified, that gets into a question relating to the legal proceeding in a filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald earlier this week.

Q What were you referring to on July 18th, then? Was that the official release, or official declassification?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I'll have to check. I'll have to go back and look. But my sense is, and my recollection is -- while we're sitting here talking about it is -- I was referring to the fact that was when it was officially declassified for the public.

Q Scott --

Q Can I just -- one more here. In terms of releasing information and leaks, you know the President has been highly critical of people who leak --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- not just classified material. He has said in the fall of 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Now, whether the argument from the administration is he declassified this, so it wasn't classified information -- I know you're not going the get to the legal issues here -- but he has criticized people who leak, not just classified information. And there were clearly leaks coming out of this White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: What was the context of my comments -- about leaking of classified information, I believe.

Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.

Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let's make clear what the distinction is.

Q He said, "displeasure with leaks," not just classified leaks, though, Scott.




That's about half of it. go here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060407-3.html#c

for the rest.

tstone
04-07-2006, 09:57 PM
It would suck to have his job. Public bulletcatcher.

kah
04-08-2006, 09:02 AM
I can't even read that. It's painful. The stuttering, repetitive, backtalk. It might have made a little more sense hearing him say it, but reading it makes my eyes bleed.

Adam54
04-08-2006, 12:10 PM
There's a video over there too, but oddly, I couldn't get that portion of it to load.

sickness
04-08-2006, 12:27 PM
Anyone else find it humorously ironic that McClellan does exactly what Bush accused Kerry of but tenfold?

God, I miss Ari Fleischer. I thought he was the biggest ******* in the world but at least he could give a straight answer.

tstone
04-08-2006, 12:56 PM
Between this and the Delay thread, it shows how much trouble the GOP is truly in nowadays, when not one of the many right wing debate club shows up to try to blow these things off somehow.

I guess when you have so much reality glaring through, it makes even a half hearted defense highly improbable.

Ok, good, but that's not as much fun, is it?

Space Tycoon
04-08-2006, 01:27 PM
I'm just a foreign observer from a strange and exotic land, but... I think both parties have basically outlived their usefulness. The ruling wing of the Republican Party simply is not conservative anymore. More like an alliance of Evangelical fundies, oil execs, and neocons.

My idea of a conservative leader, or any real political leader for that matter, is someone who is self-made, battle-tested, perhaps even an intellectual. A real Marcus Aurelius type.

I know they're out there. Hopefully the growing insurgency within the Republican Party will produce someone who embodies those values. But it is not today, from what I've seen. More's the pity.

You know what I would say... time for a new conservative/libertarian party to represent the right in US federal politics. Hopefully a third party will rise in 2008 to shake up the status quo.

But I have to say this, tstone, having lived in a country which has experienced liberalism up the yin-yang for decades... I still couldn't vote Democratic if I was an American.

There's got to be something better.



.

tstone
04-09-2006, 02:53 AM
Again, Space, it all comes down to a balance. You need both, government and private sector. They both have their place and all you need to do is research a bit to see the excesses of both laiseze faire and too much interference.

But you need both. The wisdom is finding the balance. BTW, such leaders exist on both sides, and you don't need the label of "conservative" to find one.

Just wise.

jayce78
04-10-2006, 03:05 PM
Darth Vader slips out'a his helmet and says:


''That McCLELLAN , . . .rain , lava , snow or shine you gotta love'm.''

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3655/sru4bq.png (http://imageshack.us)

sickness
04-10-2006, 03:47 PM
Darth Vader or Uncle Fester?

Asonokirk V 2.0
04-10-2006, 08:40 PM
Who's this McClellan guy?

Adam54
04-10-2006, 10:57 PM
G. Dub's fantastic waltze...er...line dancin....um...dodge....fuck.

Press Secretary! That's the one!

Asonokirk V 2.0
04-11-2006, 02:49 AM
G. Dub's fantastic waltze...er...line dancin....um...dodge....fuck.

Press Secretary! That's the one!

Oh. Why are we even paying attention to these yahoos anymore?

I've given up listening to the Bush administration. They are airheads.
Let's just get to 2008 in one piece and go forward.

Kaeos
04-11-2006, 03:53 AM
This will be my constant theme and mission during the next year and a half.

Be who you are, don't bow to party lines. Blind Liberalism is just as bad as blind Conservatism.

Believe what you believe in. Don't attack a candidate because they've been labeled by another party.

Vote your concience. Don't fear crossing party lines.

Register Independent. Make these bastards work for your vote. They don't campaign in areas they "already know" will vote along their party line.

kah
04-11-2006, 07:12 AM
I miss Ross Perot.

tstone
04-11-2006, 08:54 AM
Now, you see here, Larry? Look over here at this pretty pie graph I've got...

Asonokirk V 2.0
04-11-2006, 09:15 AM
This will be my constant theme and mission during the next year and a half.

Be who you are, don't bow to party lines. Blind Liberalism is just as bad as blind Conservatism.

Believe what you believe in. Don't attack a candidate because they've been labeled by another party.

Vote your concience. Don't fear crossing party lines.

Register Independent. Make these bastards work for your vote. They don't campaign in areas they "already know" will vote along their party line.

I believe we need someone with some vision and common sense, someone willing to think outside the narrow foreign policy box we seem to have climbed into. Someone who is willing to discard things that don't work in favor of at least trying to find something that will work. Someone who respects the feelings and beliefs of others. Someone who knows that freedom isn't something given to people (at the point of a gun, for example), but freedom is something a peoples have to reach out for and grasp. Someone who can admit it when they've made a mistake. Someone who won't just surround themselves with "yes" men, but with people willing to make a stand for what is right in all things. Someone who truly knows the differences between what is right and what is wrong. Someone who is willing to work as hard as they possibly can to create a climate of cooperation and willingness in this country.

Someone who knows that the government that governs best is that which governs least. Someone who understands that freedom means that sometimes the bad must be tolerated along with the good. Someone who understands that our future should not be mortgaged for the present.

Someone who can bring some hope into all of our lives.

Sadly, I don't know of anyone who fits this description. Any ideas?

kah
04-11-2006, 10:12 AM
Lol- at least with the pie charts, no one could say they couldn't understand. It was all right there.

I agree with Asono, but I need to take it one further. I think we need someone who has successfully taken a business from a single customer to a worldwide enterprise, yet still pays him/herself a modest salary. Someone who is interested in what is best for his customers AND his business. I say Jim Sinegal (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779) from Costco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco).

Asonokirk V 2.0
04-11-2006, 03:09 PM
You might be onto something there. It is probably time we start drawing our political candidates from pools in which we don't normally fish for them.

I think there has to be a basic shift from dogma and mantra to enlightenment and humility within government. Someone has to start freaking THINKING in Washington and elsewhere. I just am dumbfounded by the abject lack of awareness by a good many of our political leaders. I mean these are people who have forgotten where they are.

Is it just me, or do I see our country becoming a de facto totalitarian state, one in which the tyranny is imposed by ourselves onto ourselves? We have to start voting people into office who know what the hell they're doing, and not just those who look good on TV. Wake up, America.

Kaeos
04-11-2006, 05:57 PM
I agree with Asono, but I need to take it one further. I think we need someone who has successfully taken a business from a single customer to a worldwide enterprise, yet still pays him/herself a modest salary. Someone who is interested in what is best for his customers AND his business. I say Jim Sinegal (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779) from Costco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco).

I don't know if that person exists. Anyone in that role is bound to be profit driven and the profit hungry corporate America is a big part of the problem right now.

There are plenty of decent people who are willing to compromise and who are willing to meet in the middle. UNfortunately those people are instantly made a villain by the opposing party and thier own parties. McCain, Leberman and the like are the current targets for having the audacity to work in a bi-partisan fashion.

Again I say it.

Vote your beleifs, not your party.

kah
04-12-2006, 07:03 AM
I don't know if that person exists. Anyone in that role is bound to be profit driven and the profit hungry corporate America is a big part of the problem right now.



Some of us are just not that greedy. Yes, he could take a multi-million dollar salary, and make his stock soar, but he is better than that. He still makes a few hundred thou a year. Isn't that enough? Sometimes I think we are too naive and sometimes, rarely, we are just too cynical.

Kaeos
04-13-2006, 03:20 AM
Sometimes I think we are too naive and sometimes, rarely, we are just too cynical.


:smirk:


http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:rPov9QikUQrZoM:pbskids.org/backyardjungle/files.php/162845_discovery_f.jpg



:D