Scott McClellan (1 Viewer)

[hipsterdufus]

Scott McClellan aka Puffy McMoonface the Whitehouse spokesliar reminds me more and more of former Nixon spokeperson Ron Ziegler every day.

So yesterday, Puffy is demanding that the media to apologize for reporting the truth on the Mobile Weapons Lab Story.

It's either gross incompetence that Bush didn't bother to read the field report which totally refuted this flase claim, or Bush made a conscious choice to ignore the evidence that these labs were basically big toilets.

And the Washington Post should apologize why?

McClellan: Media Should “Publicly Apologize” For Reporting On Mobile Weapons Lab Story
On May 29, 2003, President Bush said “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” This morning the Washington Post revealed that a Pentagon field report transmitted to Washington on May 27, 2003 “had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons.”

Today during the White House press briefing, Scott McClellan demanded a public apology from the news media for covering the story:

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.

I brought up with some of you earlier today some of the reporting that was based of this Washington Post report. And I talked to one of network about it…they expressed their apologies to the White House.

I hope they will go and publicly apologize on the air about the statements that were made, because I think it is important given that they had made those statements in front of all their viewers. So we look forward to that happening as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/

Washington Post story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

 

[aps]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

Scott McClellan aka Puffy McMoonface the Whitehouse spokesliar reminds me more and more of former Nixon spokeperson Ron Ziegler every day.

So yesterday, Puffy is demanding that the media to apologize for reporting the truth on the Mobile Weapons Lab Story.

It's either gross incompetence that Bush didn't bother to read the field report which totally refuted this flase claim, or Bush made a conscious choice to ignore the evidence that these labs were basically big toilets.

And the Washington Post should apologize why?


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/12/mcclellan-demands-apologize/

Washington Post story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

How is this anything new with respect to McClellan's behavior? I wish a reporter would say, "We'll have the media apologize to you after the Bush administration apologizes to the American people for cherrypicking the intelligence to go to war."

So the "white paper" said that they could be weapons lab and there was a unanimous report from 9 experts that said essentially "no way, no how." And Bush and his administration keeps asserting that they are bio labs? It would be one thing if they said, "We are investigating and there are opinions both for and against a finding that these are biolabs" but they were saying that they were bio labs without acknowledging that there was evidence to the contrary. That is completely dishonest.

 

[aquapub]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

1)Scott McClellan aka Puffy McMoonface the Whitehouse spokesliar reminds me more and more of former Nixon spokeperson Ron Ziegler every day.

So yesterday, Puffy is demanding that the media to apologize for reporting the truth on the Mobile Weapons Lab Story.


2) It's either gross incompetence that Bush didn't bother to read the field report which totally refuted this flase claim, or Bush made a conscious choice to ignore the evidence that these labs were basically big toilets.

1) Translation: "McClellan is on the other side, I hate him. McClellan is on the other side, I hate him...Now expect my accounting of the facts to be objective." :roll:

2) Or it is that they are taking an extremely unreasonable position, not taking into account at all how things work in these situations.

Also...

This doesn't belong in the media bias forum. McClellan doesn't represent the newsmedia. However....Aps apparently got his Move On email full of talking points and fresh instructions for manufacturing outrage against those evil Republicans BEFORE you. He started a thread based on MSNBC's reporting this slanted story. Of course they weren't UTTERLY one sided about it like the Post was here. Buried deep within the text (way further than most people are willing to read) they did include this:

"Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified."

Something tells me (color me shocked) that the liberal talking points for this morning might just be leaving out the other side of the story while smearing someone who dare's not jump on the conspiracy theory-toting, "defend Clinton, crucify Bush for far less" bandwagon. :roll:

 

[hipsterdufus]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

This doesn't belong in the media bias forum. McClellan doesn't represent the newsmedia.

I did ponder whether to put this post here or not. This is media bias though. Puffy is the media representative of the Whitehouse and is spewing falsehood after falsehood while attacking the media at the same time.

 

[aps]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

This doesn't belong in the media bias forum. McClellan doesn't represent the newsmedia. However....Aps apparently got his Move On email full of talking points and fresh instructions for manufacturing outrage against those evil Republicans BEFORE you. He started a thread based on MSNBC's reporting this slanted story. Of course they weren't UTTERLY one sided about it like the Post was here. Buried deep within the text (way further than most people are willing to read) they did include this:

"Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified."

Something tells me (color me shocked) that the liberal talking points for this morning might just be leaving out the other side of the story while smearing someone who dare's not jump on the conspiracy theory-toting, "defend Clinton, crucify Bush for far less" bandwagon. :roll:

aquapub, come on, do you even pay attention to the pink symbol under my name? I am a WOMAN.

Anyway, the article I posted from MSNBC was the exact same article in the Washington Post. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328/
I chose the MSNBC site because I remember someone told me one time that they could not read the Wash Post link I provided (unless one registers with that website). Hence, the MSNBC site. You'll find the paragraph you site in this article and notice that under the title of the article, it says, "The Washington Post." Good to know you thoroughly read the MSNBC article.

Compare this portion of the article:

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved[this is me--the report showed that the authors unanimously determined that these were not bio labs]. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

Now re-read your paragraph the one that comes after it:

Two teams of military experts [which is not the same as "scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons"] who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

The technical team's [as opposed to the military team] findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."

So why did the DIA have to obtain a second opinion? And why would they give the military experts' findings more value than those of the scientists and engineers? If you notice, aquapub, there is no discussion on the kind of expertise these military "experts" had. Why? Probably because people would see that they weren't as qualified to make that the determination.

Rather than acknowledge there was evidence to the contrary (an issue that is "hotly" debated involves conclusions that are opposite), the Bush Administration made assertions as though there was NO evidence to the contrary. That is dishonest. That is the definition of cherry picking.

 

[BWG]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

aquapub, come on, do you even pay attention to the pink symbol under my name? I am a WOMAN.

I am woman, hear me roar-Helen Reddy :lol:

Rather than acknowledge there was evidence to the contrary (an issue that is "hotly" debated involves conclusions that are opposite), the Bush Administration made assertions as though there was NO evidence to the contrary. That is dishonest. That is the definition of cherry picking.

Sometimes, it's not WHAT you say, but what you DON'T say.

 

[scottyz]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

McClellan was calling the media irresponsible for reporting the story at all. Wasn't it also irresponsible of Bush to declare that the trailers were full of wmd stuff before all the facts were in?

 

[Captain America]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

Can't we all just get along?

 

[jfuh]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

McLellan was hired for his job for this exact reason, he knows how to spin, and he knows how to say "I'm not going to answer". He has no responsibility to the american public, only to his boss. And his boss is very happy with his ability to just give the media zero respect and nothing at all. So why is there even a press conference? Oh right, to make a show that they are there for the public as well as to give statments of his other propaganda and so on.

 

[Pen]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I can't think of a less desirable job than being the Press Secretary to President Bush at this time. He is the apex of the *visable* spin machine for the administration and his words will be remembered.

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I can't think of a less desirable job than being the Press Secretary to President Bush at this time. He is the apex of the *visable* spin machine for the administration and his words will be remembered.

Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan remind me of someone else. Baghdad Bob.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I would like to introduce legislation that would put these people like Puffy under oath when they are doing White House briefings, Press Conferences or other official affairs.

What we have now is a total waste of time: a silly cat and mouse game.

 

[akyron]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I would like to introduce legislation that would put these people like Puffy under oath when they are doing White House briefings, Press Conferences or other official affairs.

What we have now is a total waste of time: a silly cat and mouse game.

Sort of like this thread.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I really have to feel sorry for McClellan, Press Secretary to the President has to be the worst job ever because:

1) All you are is the scapegoat for whitehouse officials when they make a mistake and don't want to face public humiliation.
2) The media hates you
3) no one knows why
4) the people don't care what you have to say

 

[cascadian]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I really have to feel sorry for McClellan, Press Secretary to the President has to be the worst job ever because:

1) All you are is the scapegoat for whitehouse officials when they make a mistake and don't want to face public humiliation.
2) The media hates you
3) no one knows why
4) the people don't care what you have to say

Guess that's why he's resigning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060419...PGovYms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

 

[KCConservative]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

Guess that's why he's resigning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060419...PGovYms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Your link cites none of the reasons Larry gave above.

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

Your link cites none of the reasons Larry gave above.

No one in Wahington ever gives those reasons. Is it possible that they just say they want to spend time with their family so the media doesn't go berserk on the president?

Did anyone notice how nervous McClellan sounded at the press conference? I have no idea why he sounded nervous, but he did.

 

[cascadian]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

Your link cites none of the reasons Larry gave above.

Just a lead in joke to seque a relevant article, KCConservative.

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

Wait, it just dawned on me. McClellan is off the drugs and that is why he is quitting his job and sounding nervous. :rofl Sobriety will do that to a person.

 

[KCConservative]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I'd be interested in seeing data on how often a president changes Press Secretaries. It happens a lot. Bush has had 3 or 4. Clinton had at least that many.

 

[shuamort]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I'd be interested in seeing data on how often a president changes Press Secretaries. It happens a lot. Bush has had 3 or 4. Clinton had at least that many.

Here's a list of 'em:
2003–2006 Scott McClellan
2001–2003 Ari Fleischer
2000–2001 Jake Siewert
1998–2000 Joe Lockhart
1994–1998 Mike McCurry
1993–1994 Dee Dee Myers

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I'd be interested in seeing data on how often a president changes Press Secretaries. It happens a lot. Bush has had 3 or 4. Clinton had at least that many.

I believe that McClellan was Bush's second one. Yes Clinton had at least three. I would think that no matter who the president is, it is the worst job of all. You are a professional liar, but everyone knows that you are lying with that position.

 

[Captain America]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

The article I read regarding McLellan stepping down also mentioned a shift in the duties of Karl Rove.

New Rove duties
Also, a senior administration official revealed another move in the ongoing shake-up of Bush’s staff, saying Rove, the president's longtime confidant and adviser, is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections.

The source told NBC that the shift was “an acknowledgement of the tough political climate.”

Rove “is the best pitcher in the league in terms of politics and strategy,” the source added, so “it’s obvious” he should focus on the mid-term elections. <snip> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12387465/

Looks like we can look forward to another election cycle chock full of leaks, lies, spin and mudslinging! Rove's the best in the business. He's one of the reasons the Press Secretary's job is so difficult I would imagine.

 

[shuamort]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

I've got a grinchy idea, let's ask for Rove to be the new press secretary.
(/Cue lightning crashes and blood curling screams).

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: Is Scott McLellan on Drugs?

The article I read regarding McLellan stepping down also mentioned a shift in the duties of Karl Rove.

New Rove duties
Also, a senior administration official revealed another move in the ongoing shake-up of Bush’s staff, saying Rove, the president's longtime confidant and adviser, is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections.

The source told NBC that the shift was “an acknowledgement of the tough political climate.”

Rove “is the best pitcher in the league in terms of politics and strategy,” the source added, so “it’s obvious” he should focus on the mid-term elections. <snip> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12387465/

Looks like we can look forward to another election cycle chock full of leaks, lies, spin and mudslinging! Rove's the best in the business. He's one of the reasons the Press Secretary's job is so difficult I would imagine.

Rove may have been the best. I think that the moderate voters are wise to his ways. I think he may have become a liability to the republicans. He is associated with Bush. If, and that is a big if, dems are smart they will take anything negative said and turn it around as a Rove attack. Bush's Brain association with candidates will discredit them.

Back on topic. Maybe Rummy could resign as SOD and become the press secretary. It would be good fodder for late nite TV. We could have daily "unknown unknowns" quotes.:lol: