Okay, did anyone else see the White House's fake "conversation" between Bush and the troops? It was absolutely brutal. I know that all presidental appearances are well choreographed, but for crying out loud this thing was so badly done that it was embarrassing to watch. There needs to be a word for that embarrassment you feel for someone else when you watch them do something that is so bad that it makes you uncomfortable to watch it, and that's exactly how I felt watching this thing.
The fact that the President's press secretary gave a huffy, "What are you suggesting?" response when a reporter asked him if the questions were staged in advance - after the networks had already aired the footage showing a White House staffer telling each soldier what would be asked and how precisely to answer it - just goes to prove what I've said all along, that Scott McLellan (and every other press secretary, regardless of party) is no better than Baghdad Bob. Their job is to stand in front of the press every day and lie.
Speaking of which, you really should read (or watch) McLellan's press briefing from Wednesday. The crap was so thick you would have needed a shovel to leave the room. The press corps was actually laughing at him - and quite justifiably, I might add - after this exchange over Harriet Miers:
Q You did that to me yesterday, too. One question just before we go. Some conservatives have suggested this week, or speculated, that while President Bush would never withdraw Miers' nomination, that she might decide that she can't weather the storm and withdraw. Can you give us just some idea of her tenacity to be able to withstand all this fire from the right and the left?MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, "all this fire"? I would disagree with that, because those who know Harriet Miers are strongly supportive of her nomination, and strongly support her being confirmed to the United States Senate [sic] --
Q Well, you can't deny that there's a lot of fire --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can't deny that some people are clearly setting a different standard for the confirmation. Because the standard has always been, are you qualified to serve on our nation's highest court.
Q But, bottom line, does she have the tenacity to weather this fight?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, let's talk about how -- the way you're approaching things. This should be based on a person's record and qualifications and their judicial philosophy, and she greatly exceeds all the standards that have been set for meeting what is needed to serve on our nation's highest court. She is exceptionally well-qualified. And I would encourage you -- I know you don't necessarily want to do this -- but to look at her qualifications and record.
Q Excuse me?
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen you out there reporting about some of her qualifications and her record, and I see by the tone of your question that you want to get into some of these side issues. Let's look at the record --
Q You divided your own party?
Q Wait a minute --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- let's look at the qualifications.
Q But, Scott, yesterday you yourself said that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying everybody. I'm just saying I haven't seen John report on the qualifications record.
Q Yesterday you talked about some prospective nominees who decided that they didn't want to go through this, this laborious process. The question was, is it possible that she would be overwhelmed enough by this laborious process that she might consider pulling out.
MR. McCLELLAN: Bob, anyone that knows Harriet Miers knows that she's exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court, and no one that knows her would make such a suggestion. And no one that knows her record and her qualifications would make such a suggestion. We look forward to people getting to know her like the President knows her. She is someone who has not sought the limelight, but she is someone who has served with great distinction and has a distinguished career and record. And that's what this should be about when it comes to the Supreme Court. I welcome the opportunity to engage in this discussion, because this should be based on qualifications and experience and judicial philosophy.
Some people want to create a different standard. And, Jim, you can sit there and shake your head, but she's exceptionally well-qualified.
Q Wait a minute, wait a minute -- excuse me --
Q Scott, yesterday both you and President said that it was important for --
MR. McCLELLAN: Anyone -- anyone that knows her record and experience wouldn't be making such a suggestion.
Q Scott, yesterday, both -- yesterday the President himself said that the American --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, some of you all wanted to focus more on religion. We focused on her qualifications and record.
Q Scott, isn't the idea we ask the questions and you provide the answers?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I was providing the answer. Can I not say what I want to say?
Q Don't you wish that Scott would get back to you?
Q Can you characterize --
MR. McCLELLAN: Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?
Q I defend your right, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: You all want to focus on side issues like religion. We've said from the beginning --
Q Side issues --
Q You focused on religion.
MR. McCLELLAN: We've said -- no, we have always publicly talked about --
Q When has religion been a side issue?
Q Scott --
MR. McCLELLAN: Come on, Jim, we've always talked about her record and her qualifications --
Q You call this a side issue.
Q Scott, yesterday --
Q The opposition to her is in your own party. What are you going to do about that?
Q Yesterday, Scott, the President said that the American people did want to know about her background, and that her religion was part of that. And you pointed out repeatedly that her religion was part of that, as a means of letting the American people know more about who Harriet Miers is. The question was whether or not she is the type of person that has the tenacity to deal with any criticism in a confirmation process. Could you describe her and who she is, relative to her tenacity? The President has called her a pit bull in size six shoes. Could you elaborate?
MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, what we have talked about publicly is her record and her qualifications and her judicial philosophy. Some have chosen to focus on other issues. We have focused on her record and her qualifications, because that's what this should be based on. That's why the President selected her, and that's why he knows that she will make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And some people don't want to talk about the record and qualifications. They're interested in setting different standards --
Q But you also called her a woman of faith, a person of faith, yesterday. Those words came out of your mouth, she's a person of faith.
MR. McCLELLAN: She is -- and she is.
Q And so we've reported on the qualifications and --
Q But what's the relevance if you're saying it's not relevant?
The only people who have been making an issue of Miers' religion are the President and the people the White House has sent out to meet with religious right groups to assure them that Miers is one of them because she attends a conservative, pro-life church and so forth. To stand there and accuse the press of making a big deal out of it and claim that the White House has never done so is simply to lie through his teeth. And press briefings are like this every day. You simply cannot get any spokesman for the government to give a straight answer. Democracy, it seems, is government by bullshit.
- Log in to post comments
And the really bad part was when he tried to do something unscripted with the woman soldier he had previously "met" at the WTC. She had no clue what to do.
I admit the delay did not help much.
In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the Pentagon has denied the event was staged.
Then the Pentagon is lying. On NPR last night they broadcast the practice answer and the answer when the President asked the question. They were pretty much identical.
Sounds staged to me.
I was being sarcastic, but FOX is reporting just that:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172262,00.html
"There needs to be a word for that embarrassment you feel for someone else when you watch them do something that is so bad that it makes you uncomfortable to watch it..."
How about "exomortification"?
Exomortification isn't bad. Damn, I wish Rich Hall were still around!
Word up on that "woman soldier" that he recognized. She couldn't admit why she was so familiar since she was one of the real shills, real flacks of that group. This from Media Citizen today:
"The soldier in question is Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo; she works in public affairs for the military as spokesperson to the media. While she's emerged elsewhere in mainstream reports on Iraq, she hasn't always been identified in her role.
A New York Times story from April correctly cited Lombardo as a "military spokesperson." Another report in the Albany Times-Union merely cited her as a "24-year Guard veteran." In his report, Times-Union scribe Tim O'Brien quoted Lombardo extensively as she praised the hard work of her division and drew special attention to their successful cooperation with local forces to "rebuild Iraqi infrastructure."
"I enjoy what I'm doing over there and enjoy getting to know the Iraqi people," Lombardo tells the Times-Union stenographer. "The support of my family has been tremendous."
It tugs at the heart, but there are likely more insidious forces at play. Lombardo's job is to make the handover to Iraqi forces look good. During yesterday's PR stunt, she got into a pre-scripted back and forth with the president.
Bush could have let the American people in on this political theater. He could have pointed out the flak as that person in military garb regurgitating the White House line. Instead, he pretended that Lombardo was a grunt, like the other soldiers seated at her side, engaged in a frank conversation about the state of the war."
I think the quotes from the Scott and press exchanges are becoming worthy of Emmy nominations for comedy TV programming. How can one man, so boldly and baldly, continue to spew such distorted rhetoric over and over, being able to defy his questioners almost to the point of suspension of belief, as he ignores and contradicts statements he alone has made hours earlier???
I truly miss Ari Fleischer. Sure, he was a pathetic liar, but at least he was an asshole. McClellan is just a pathetic liar. Putting a mumbling boob in that position just goes to show how little regard the Bush Whitehouse has for the press. Look who we're providing to answer your questions -- a moron. That what we think of your questions. At least Ari gave the whole thing an in-your-face aura of sneering contempt. Compare that to McClellan, who merely implies contempt by virtue of his incompetence. Ari, we miss you brother...
If you don't like McClellan, you should probably watch Texas' gubernatorial election next year. His mother, Carol Keeton Strayhorn, is positioning herself to oppose incumbent Rick Perry. Go see her office's official homepage: http://www.window.state.tx.us/
She's probably a much better qualified candidate than Perry.
Kinky Friedman is also running as an independent. Politics down here could get fun again.
Putting a mumbling boob in that position just goes to show how little regard the Bush Whitehouse has for the press.
I'd put it a little stronger. It shows the contempt that the Bush administration has for the press.
But, quite frankly, the American press has put itself into that position. If they ignored the "daily press briefings" and went and did a little investigation on their own, they might have a little more respect. That they don't is the reason that Jon Stewart's daily show is probably the most highly-regarded news ("fake news") show on television.