Mark it down on your calendars boys and girls. July 11th, 2005 – the day the mainstream media finally grew a spine and challenged the Bush maladministration!
NBC’s David Gregory and others are finally asking pointed questions and not letting Bush’s mouthpiece, Scott McClellan, get away with ducking and dodging. The talking points, once taken verbatim as truth by our intrepid reporters, are now being torn into like Michael Moore into a bag of Doritos.
Here’s why Bush, Rove, and McClellan are in such hot water. Back in September 2003 when the Valerie Plame leak surfaced, McClellan came out and said that leaking that info was a very serious national security matter and that he’d get to the bottom of it and punish anyone who was involved. Afterwards a grand jury investigation was then underway. Nine months later, June 2004, Bush directly said he’d fire anyone involved. McClellan repeatedly said he spoke to Rove and Rove indicated he wasn’t involved at all. McClellan characterized the idea of Rove going to jail for the leak as “totally ridiculous”.
Now that Cooper’s e-mails have been made public and it’s clear that Rove was involved, McClellan is suddenly mum on the matter. He wants us to believe that they don’t want to comment while an investigation is underway… even though they did just that throughout 2004.
Through the magic of my Universal Bullshit Translator you can see for yourself how today’s White House Press Briefing turned into a nightmare for Scotty.
Actual White House Briefing Universal Bullshit Translator QUESTION: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative? Chimpy said he’d fire the person involved in leaking Plame’s name. Was he bullshitting? MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.
The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Oh, shit, here we go. We’re still trying to figure out how to keep Rove’s ass out of jail, so we ain’t sayin’ shit.
QUESTION: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?
Nice try, slimeball. Chimpy said he’d fire anybody who was involved. Rove’s definitely involved. When does the firing start?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium.
And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation — or questions related to it.
Hey, didn’t I say we’re not sayin’ shit? What’s with the follow-up? Our lawyers have told us to STFU so we’re shuttin’!
We just don’t talk about the shit while it’s being investigated.
QUESTION: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved, so why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?
That’s funny, this shit was being investigated in September 2003 and June 2004 and you guys talked about this shit plenty. You got awful quiet now that there’s some evidence of Rove’ s treason, huh?
MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
You uppity mofo! We ain’t sayin’ shit!
I know we said shit before, but now we ain’t sayin’ shit!
QUESTION: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not? So, now that y’all got caught, you’re changing the rules? MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Jesus, when did you guys grow balls, anyway? We were all cool about sayin’ shit when we thought we wouldn’t get caught. Now we’re better off not sayin’ shit.
QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime? You guys have fucked up good, haven’t you? MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don’t think you should read anything into it other than: We’re going to continue not to comment on it while it’s ongoing. What, now you think I’m stupid enough to answer that kind of question? Bugger off!* QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, I’ve gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this? Do you stand by that statement?
So, back in the fall of 2003, did you lie for Rove, or did Rove lie to you? MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we’re not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well. What part of “I ain’t sayin’ shit” do you have a problem understanding? QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you’re going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you’ve decided not to talk. You’ve got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
Did you lie to us back then or not? MCCLELLAN: I’m well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation… La la la la la I can’t hear you la la la la la… QUESTION: (inaudible) when it’s appropriate and when it’s inappropriate? Hey, asshole! MCCLELLAN: If you’ll let me finish. I can’t hear you… QUESTION: No, you’re not finishing. You’re not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson’s wife. So don’t you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn’t he?
HEY! We’re not going away this time, Scotty! You said Rove didn’t talk about Plame. Now we all know he did.
We demand an answer!
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it. Demand all you want; we ain’t sayin’ shit. QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you’re saying today? It’s not gonna work this time, Scotty… MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve responded to the question. I told you, we ain’t sayin’ shit! QUESTION: You’re in a bad spot here, Scott… (LAUGHTER)… because after the investigation began — after the criminal investigation was under way — you said, October 10th, 2003, I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this, from that podium. That’s after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.
When you thought you could get away with it you had no problem blabbing during the investigation, but now Rove’s caught red-handed and suddenly you clam up. We ain’t stupid, Scotty.
MCCLELLAN: No, that’s not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.
And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I’m just not going to do that.
That ain’t it. We were blabbing about it and then the investigators told us to stop blabbing This whole TIME Cooper e-mail thing is just a coincidence.
Believe me, President Bush wants to pin this on someone other than Karl Rove as fast as he can.
Other than that, we ain’t sayin’ shit!
QUESTION: So you’re now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven’t. So, after you said Rove was innocent, then the investigators told you to STFU? MCCLELLAN: Again, you’re continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I’m just not going to respond to them. Lemme try this another way: Eeway ain’tway ayingsay itshay! QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date? When did they tell you to STFU? MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period. Uh… not last week. Way back when I said Rove was innocent. QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan? So Chimpy disobeyed the STFU order nine months later? MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response. (singing) “I-yi-yi ain’t sayin’ shee-it…” QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson’s wife in the decision to send him to Africa?
(singing) “I won’t back down, gonna stand my ground…” What did the president know and when did he know it?
MCCLELLAN: I’ve responded to the questions. For Christ’s sake, you guys… QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been… Did Chimpy lie to us… again? MCCLELLAN: I’ve responded to your questions. …whatever happened to the good ol’ days?… QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president’s word that anybody who was involved will be let go? Will you guys really fire Rove like you promised? MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point. …when you’d ask something, I’d deflect it, and we could just go on? QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove’s lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here? How come Rove’s lawyer can talk about this but you can’t? MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction. (sigh) Rove’s lawyer ain’t us, and we ain’t sayin’ shit! QUESTION: Scott, there’s a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action… Remember “that depends on the meaning of the word ‘is’?” MCCLELLAN: (inaudible) (sotto voce) “aw, fuck…” QUESTION: Can I finish, please? We’re still here… MCCLELLAN: I’ll come back to you in a minute. I don’t care… *My Universal Bullshit Detector sometimes translates in British vernacular.
