All that stonewalling must take a lot out of a guy

July 14, 2005

Even though the White House refuses to comment publicly on the Plame scandal and Karl Rove’s involvement in it, the White House press briefings continue to offer some interesting comments.

Yesterday, for example, Scott McClellan started feeling sorry for himself.

Q: The Washington Times editorial page this morning published a cartoon comparing White House correspondents to sharks. My question, do you think that they were wrong to make this comparison? (Laughter.)

Q: Go ahead, Scott, let her rip.

McClellan: I have a picture up in my office that everybody can look at…. It may not look like it, but there’s a little flesh that’s been taken out of me the past few days. (Laughter.)

Yeah, poor Scott. Not answering questions must really take its toll on a guy.

It was also interesting to see McClellan’s take on how he’s approached Rove-related questions this week. As far as he’s concerned, McClellan and the press corps have already had an in-depth discussion of the situation.

Q: Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you’ve just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you’re parsing words, and you’ve been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn’t he?

McClellan: No, David, I’m not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don’t want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we’ve been round and round on this for two days now.

Q: Even if it wasn’t a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday — perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House — that when you’re dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

McClellan: Again, we’ve been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don’t have anything to add to what I’ve said the previous two days…. I think we’ve exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Exhausted the discussion? There hasn’t been a discussion. Reporters ask serious questions that deserve answers, McClellan refuses comment. Thankfully, reporters immediately responded by telling McClellan, “You haven’t even scratched the surface.”

On a related note, I wonder how long the press corps will remain engaged. After a while, there are only so many ways someone can rephrase a question that won’t be answered. Will reporters keep hammering away, writing down McClellan’s “no comment” response, indefinitely?

Would he answer this question:

“What has changed about the investigation over the past couple days that has made the White House unavailable for comment on it, seeing as it had no problem commenting on it before?”

  • This story, because indictments are in the offing, will keep. The GOP is just now getting a taste for how hellish it can be to be in their own shoes. So what if the media turns toward SC appointments? If someone in the WH gets charged with a felony, then McClellan will look back on this week as when things were quiet and civil.

  • “Yeah, poor Scott. Not answering questions must really take its tool on a guy.”

    Didn’t you mean ‘Not answering questions must really take it’s toll on this tool.’?

  • Two quick things.

    “What has changed about the investigation over the past couple days that has made the White House unavailable for comment on it, seeing as it had no problem commenting on it before?”

    Alex, you’re on the right track. Reporters did ask that one on Monday and Tuesday, but got no response. It’s a good question, though.

    Didn’t you mean ‘Not answering questions must really take it’s toll on this tool.’?

    Chris, I wish I had thought of that.

  • I suspect this is a minority viewpoint here, but I really feel bad for McClellan. Ari Fleischer was a ridiculous hack, but he was a perfect fit with the medaciousness of the Bush Administration. He would run rings around the press by denying things that were obviously true, throwing reporters on the defensive and preventing them from even asking the question. Here’s how a typical exchange might go:

    Q: Ari, the president said that if the sun rose in the east today, he would rescind his tax cuts. Seeing as how it did, does he now plan on …
    A: The sun didn’t rise today!
    Q: Er, yes it did. So anyway, does that mean …
    A: I think if you go back and check, you’ll see that there clearly was no rising, and even if there was, it was in the West.
    Q: But Ari, that’s completely ridiculous, and against all laws of physics!
    A: Look, I’m not hear to discuss astronomy with you. Next question.

    McClellan, on the other hand, is simply not that bright. He can’t come up with creative non-answers the way Fleischer did. All he can do is stand there and robotically refuse to comment, using the exact same phraseology, over and over again. This might be merely annoying in the context of a normal news day, but the press smelling scandal, he’s clearly pissing them off. But it’s not his fault that he works for a corrupt administration, and all he’s qualified to be is chum.

  • I concur with Don Gato; Ari had a magical gift for bullshit (in the pure Frankfurtian sense) that made him perfect for the Bush/Rove style of politics. McClellan really suffers up there.

    After a while, there are only so many ways someone can rephrase a question that won’t be answered.

    So far, though, the press corps still seems to be having fun with this. They’re continuing each other’s questions, for one thing, and laughing at the pathetic attempts to change the subject.

    Let’s face it: Even though the press is pathetic these days, it’s not hard for them to see that a major scandal could be about to erupt. They have to stick with this for a while.

  • I still think some email to these guys and gals would help. Anyone got links? I can track down emails for specific staff at specific outlets, but not a list of the white house crew.

    Bottom line, these guys are paid to write what people read. If we let them know that this is precisely what we want to read, I think they’ll go after this more.

  • “…and laughing at the pathetic attempts to change the subject.

    And therein lies the secret to success. If we can laugh at the GOP *and* get the centrists/moderates to laugh at the GOP, we will win. Okay, that combined with reassuring them that the Dems are trustworthy on national security issues. We need our own version of “there you go again” that can be repeated on late night talk shows and around the water cooler.

  • The press should ask whether the President stands by his past call for accountability (if they have and I missed it, I apologize). It has nothing to do with current happenings in the case. Does he or does he not believe whoever is responsible should be properly dealt with? If McClellan says that Bush doesn’t comment on current investigations, ask him 1) why it was appropriate to comment before, and 2) does that mean Bush is backing off from his previous statements? There is no mention of Karl Rove and the question does not have any connection to other “issues” around the case except whether the President thinks the outing of an undercover CIA agent is wrong.

    • Comments are closed.