White House communications director runs into a Wolf

Last Friday, Nicolle Wallace, Bush’s communications director, was asked on the Today Show if it was appropriate for the White House to argue that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has endorsed the “policy positions of Michael Moore and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.” Wallace said:

“Well, we can’t shy away from having a very honest debate about the policies.”

It was an odd thing for the White House communications director to say. By equating Murtha with Moore, the Bush gang was avoiding a policy debate, not engaging in one. And considering the Bush gang’s mendacity, hearing Wallace talk about “a very honest debate” might have been hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

To his enormous credit, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer did some follow-up work with Wallace yesterday. Blitzer isn’t known for being too aggressive with administration officials, but he made it pretty clear yesterday that “a very honest debate” is perhaps the last thing Wallace wants (via Dan Froomkin).

Wallace: [C]ertainly the policies that Congressman Murtha advocated are not debatable. He was very clear. He advocated an immediate withdrawal from the battle space in Iraq.

Blitzer: He didn’t advocate an immediate withdrawal. He said over the next six months, and then to keep the troops in neighboring states like Kuwait, Qatar, over the horizon, to go back in if necessary.

Wallace: Well, look, you’ve had him on your air for a lot of the last five days and I think he’s probably articulated his position much more clearly than I can do. We disagree with the…

Blitzer: That’s what he articulated the first day when he made his long statement.

Wallace: Well, I’m not sure what you want to debate me on, Wolf.

Blitzer: I’m not debating. I’m just saying he didn’t call for an immediate withdrawal.

Wallace: Well, what he is advocating differs from current White House policy. And, frankly, I only saw two other Democrats, Democratic colleagues of Congressman Murtha’s side with his position. But this is a healthy debate to have.

Blitzer: I want to be precise on this, Nicolle, because words matter.

Wallace: Absolutely.

Blitzer: The resolution that was in the Congress used the words “immediate withdrawal.” And there were three Democrats who voted for that. Congressman Murtha talks about a six-month phased withdrawal and then keeping troops in the region, which is significantly different.

Wallace: We still oppose anything other than a conditions-based withdrawal from Iraq.

In effect, the White House communications director was afraid to concede that she was badly mischaracterizing what Murtha said, so in effect she concluded, “Whatever it is we think of Murtha’s plan, we’re against it.”

Kudos to Blitzer for conducting an interview the way it’s supposed to be done.

Amazingly, Blitzer was not instantly struck by lightning and melted down into gooey sludge. Maybe his survival of the encounter totally unscathed will encourage others in his line of work to finally grow a spine, too.

I love it when journalists make the White House cry. Doesn’t everyone?

  • Wallace: “We still oppose anything other than a conditions-based withdrawal from Iraq.”

    What condition?

    Is Saddam dead? No.

    Well, we can’t withdraw.

    That’s the condition they are waiting for.

  • Kudos to Blitzer for conducting an interview the way it’s supposed to be done.

    Yes, but it isn’t it a shame we’re impressed when a TV journalist just does what he’s supposed to do? We expect crappy interviews and are impressed when someone points out facts. How’d things get like this?

  • I am soooo happy to see someone finally do what Wolf did. On MTP Sunday, Russert kept saying “immediate withdrawal” to Murtha and Murtha did nothing to correct him. I got into a small argument on another thread about this. Somehow the statement “Immediate redeployment consistent with the safety of the troops (slight paraphrase ) in Murtha’s original statement got translated into “immediate withdrawal”. I guess they’re just fixated on the use of the word “immediate”. Typical. Good for Wolf.

  • If any of you ever get the chance to go to the UK, try and catch a programme on the BBC called Newsnight. It has a number of hosts, one of whom is called Jeremy Paxman. On one occasion he asked the same question 9 times because the politician he was interviewing (Michael Howard, former leader of the Tory party) refused to give a straight answer. It was a delight to watch Howard squirm uncomfortably in his seat as he kept trying to avoid giving him what he wanted – Paxman, to his great credit, kept pursuing the same line of questioning until Howard stopped his bullshitting. That interview should be shown to every TV interviewer in this country as an example of how to conduct an interview with a politician who won’t answer the question you throw at him.

  • Blitzer: The resolution that was in the Congress used the words “immediate withdrawal.” And there were three Democrats who voted for that. Congressman Murtha talks about a six-month phased withdrawal and then keeping troops in the region, which is significantly different.

    Actually I believe that there were two Democrats and one Republican that voted for it, and yes, words do have consequences.

  • Blitzer did a fairly good job, but he let a blatant lie pass. Wallace said “And, frankly, I only saw two *other* Democrats, Democratic colleagues of Congressman Murtha’s side with his position.”

    Murtha voted against the silly Republican resolution which called for immediate withdrawal. The word “other” makes the statement false. Of course the phrase “his position” also makes it false, since the house did not vote on Murtha’s resolution and, instead voted on another resolution. Blitzer pointed this out, but the fact that Murtha voted no makes it clear that Wallace was lying.

    It shows that she is a shameless and blatant liar, since her claim was demonstrably false. It is completely implausible that she didn’t know. I admit it took me 5 minutes with google to get to fair and balanced proof that she lied

    “Like most Democrats, Murtha voted against the measure”
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933

    The Rovian approach of trying to create confusion with blatant lies is not likely to work if the issue is whether they lie. Busy people might not follow every issue, but one would have to hide one’s head in the sand not to notice proof that Bush communication policy includes blatant shameless lies.

    Sorry for long comment arguing something that everyone here knows.

  • Comments are closed.