McClellan’s empty rhetorical quiver

January 17, 2006

The vaunted White House political machine had a full day to craft a compelling, persuasive response to Al Gore’s sweeping condemnation of the president’s warrantless-search program (among other things). They had time to work with language, do plenty of research, and come up with the best spin possible.

And yet, they’ve got nothing.

The White House accused former Vice President Al Gore of hypocrisy Tuesday for his assertion that President Bush broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval. “If Al Gore is going to be the voice of the Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said […]

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

Three points. First, the AP’s Nedra Pickler, who wrote the piece quoted above, mentioned McClellan’s claim about Clinton-era searches, but failed to explain to readers that the claim is completely false. He-said/she-said reporting is annoying enough, but this doesn’t even reach that level. It’s the kind of article the White House loves — it repeats the bogus claim with no fact-checking in sight. (Update: Pickler added a paragraph to show how wrong McClellan is. The first version lacked this explanation.)

Second, it suggests the White House simply has nothing else to offer in the way of a response to Gore. Given 24 hours notice, the best McClellan and his colleagues could come up with is a demonstrably false claim. Where’s the creativity? The skillful spin? I’m disappointed with the mendacity, but also with the laziness. McClellan might as well mock Gore for inventing the internet. It’s about as accurate and nearly as clever.

And third, I actually agree with McClellan on one thing: if Al Gore is going to be the voice of the Democrats on national security matters, I welcome it too. We could do a whole lot worse.

McLellan lies his ass off. Press writes it down. Yawn.

  • Besides, legislatively speaking, Al Gore did invent the internet. We are grateful for it, too.

  • “(Update: Peckler added a paragraph to show how wrong McClellan is. The first version lacked this explanation.)”

    And changed (her?) name too. Sorry, CB, couldn’t
    resist. Anyway, I was really pleased to see the
    correction. They’ve got to nail these guys on their
    lies, even if investigative journalism is a lost art.

    Is this pathetic response to Gore’s speech deliberate?
    To keep it under the radar?

  • I don’t know if you watched the Lincoln special on the History Channel last night (very good, I thought), but some of the parallels between Gore and Lincolnare pretty striking. Lincoln left elected office (albeit under different circumstances) a few years before he ran for President; Lincoln found one grave and important issue (slavery) which helped him find his voice while he was “lost in the desert”–the time between his leaving public office and his run for the presidency; and Lincoln’s speeches on this issue directly led to his successful run for White House in 1860. Now, I am sure Gore is no Lincoln, but if he is half the man Lincoln was, and Gore sure shows signs of being at least that, Gore might be a solid choice to pick up the pieces after the Bush Debacle. It is truly amazing, though, how being freed from the bonds of strict political association (i.e. not having to worry about elections anymore) can bring out the better nature in some. Too bad Gore didn’t show more of this in 2000.

  • And changed (her?) name too. Sorry, CB, couldn’t resist.

    Damn, it’s really not my day for typos.

  • Google Nedra Pickler’s name and find a history of slanted reporting. You really gotta watch her.

  • Anytime they say they want someone to run against, they’re lying.

    Remember all the BS about how they wanted us to pick Dean?

  • Normally when they ‘craft a response’ it’s simply a swift personal attack on the speaker, stating how unbelievable it is that this person could so insult the American people and be so unpatriotic. I’m guessing they figure that if they don’t acknowledge it, the media, not having a controversy to cover, will soon drop it.

  • They used Ames as their defence against Gore? The scumbag who basically wiped out the CIA and MI6’s humint networks in the USSR from the 1980s? If I remember correctly, the FBI had to come in and get all the warrants to eavesdrop on Ames because the CIA wouldn’t clean their own house.

    Damn, the WH must be running out of strawmen.

  • “I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

    I’m suprised that dispicable, gelatinous fuck knows the word ‘hypocrisy’ and doubly suprised the sewage drain he calls a mouth is able to form the necessary syllables to say it.

    I think out of all of the awful people running (ruining) our country today, their mouthpiece is the most nauseating.

  • doubtful–he only was able to utter that line because he heard it in the movie Tombstone. They aren’t even original in their spin.

  • Yeah, they’re lying about the Ames stuff. But the American public doesn’t have the interest to look into it and once the lie is stated, it is truth. Welcome to NeoCon America.

    “Clinton did the same thing.” – Might as well be written in stone for 2/3 of the American public. And that goes for the press too. It’s easier to repeat it than to actually substantiate or refute it.

  • One more thing…

    For a bunch of people who hated Clinton and wanted to change the way he ran government, they sure have no problem using him as justification for their own actions.

    So, it was wrong when Clinton did it, but since he did, it’s okay if Bush does it?? That’s their argument? I guess the moral high ground is a lot lower today than it was 8 years ago.

  • They probably knew it was false but spun it anyway. Getting it out there is all that matters. Even if they refuted their bullcrap in a hand-delivered factchecked message, it would be too late because they who heard it and want to believe it will believe it. And they know this from lots of experience.

  • Anyone need to throw up read fox news article on the response from the white house, nooooooo, no unfair and unbalenced coverage there. How do people get away with this trash?

    • Comments are closed.