From today's (7/17) press briefing... The White House can't even admit Bush has responsibility for what he says... _________________ QUESTION: Regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the White House for that line, I'm wondering where does the buck stop in this White House? Does it stop at the CIA, or does it stop in the Oval Office? Scott McClellan: Again, this issue has been discussed. You're talking about some of the comments that -- some that are -- QUESTION: I'm not talking about anybody else's comments. I'm asking the question, is responsibility for what was in the President's own State of the Union ultimately with the President, or with somebody else? Scott McClellan: This has been discussed. QUESTION: So you won't say that the President is responsible for his own State of the Union speech? Scott McClellan: It's been addressed. QUESTION: Well, that's an excellent question. That is an excellent question. (Laughter.) Isn't the President responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth? Scott McClellan: We've already acknowledged, Terry, that it should not have been included in there. I think that the American people appreciate that recognition. QUESTION: You acknowledge that, but you blame somebody else for it. Is the President responsible for the things that he said in the State of the Union? Scott McClellan: Well, the intelligence -- you're talking about intelligence that -- sometimes you later learn more information about intelligence that you didn't have previously. But when we're clearing a speech like that, it goes through the various agencies to look at that information and -- QUESTION: And so when there's intelligence in a speech, the President is not responsible for that? Scott McClellan: We appreciate Director Tenet saying that he should have said, take it out. QUESTION: But it's the President's fault. Scott McClellan: In fact, if you look back at it, I mean, we did take out a different reference, a reference based on different sources in a previous speech because it was said -- the CIA Director said, take it out. QUESTION: Let me come back to your "nonsense" statement here, and let me slice it as thinly as I possibly can, just growing out of what Scott asked. Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information included in the State of the Union and negotiated with the CIA to find a way to put it in to the State of the Union? Scott McClellan: I'm sorry? QUESTION: Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and went through negotiations with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech? Scott McClellan: That there were discussions? Speech drafts go -- we've stated that these speeches go out to the principals, it goes out to the State, it goes out to DOD, it goes out to CIA, when it's going through the drafting process. QUESTION: Scott, you said it was "nonsense" to say that the White House was pressuring the CIA to put this in the speech. Is it nonsense to say -- Scott McClellan: I think the question that you asked about was that someone was insisting -- QUESTION: Durbin said, a White House official insisted -- Scott McClellan: -- insisting that it be put in there in an effort to mislead the American people, I think is what -- QUESTION: You didn't explicitly give a motive. Scott McClellan: And I said I think that's just nonsense. QUESTION: I'm just trying to slice it a little bit narrowly, to say, is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech? Scott McClellan: Are you asking me to characterize the discussions that occur going on during the speech drafting process? I don't -- QUESTION: I'm saying, does your "nonsense" statement apply to the idea that the White House wanted it in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech? Scott McClellan: I think that it still goes back to, these drafts go to the various agencies, it goes to the CIA, this is an intelligence matter. It was based on information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That's the consensus document of the intelligence community, and that's what the information was based on in that speech. QUESTION: So what I asked you about in that speech, your "nonsense" statement -- Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you -- QUESTION: You're trying to walk me out the door. (Laughter.) Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through this. QUESTION: So your nonsense statement doesn't apply to what I just asked you? Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through the drafting process. And that's why I was trying to put it in context, so you understand how this occurs. QUESTION: Scott, on Keith's question, why can't we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that's a non-answer. Why can't you just say that? Scott McClellan: This issue has been addressed over the last several days. QUESTION: Why won't you say that, though, that's, like, so innocuous and benign. Scott McClellan: The issue has been addressed.
I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, 'no controlling legal authority.' I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that--I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not good for the country. George W. Bush October 3rd, 2000 President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue. Associated Press July 11th, 2003
haha. talk about a tough first week on the job for Scott McClellanKeetonRylanderStrayhorn. Ari Fleischer's mama didn't raise no fool.
Wow. That's pathetic. Funny if it weren't about such a serious and literally deadly matter. There's more...earlier this week I actually saw a prominent Bush apologist Republican member of the House...Santorum? Is that right?... trying to lay the blame, no joke! at the feet of the speechwriters...Saying that we need to get to the bottom of this, and find out who the three speech writers were, and fire them for serving the President so poorly. God, it's come to this... Who are you voting for in the next Presidential Speech Writer of America...as apparently that is now the position of ultimate authority, and Bush is basically Ted Baxter, poor man, who just reads what he's told to read...
I don't get why their needs to be so much dancing. The British stand by their evidence. That was the evidence we got, the war was highly succesful on all fronts, in terms of casualties, cost, and what it accomplished. I don't think Bush should dance around at all, but that is just how sad American politics and the media have gotten. I admire Mr. Blair for the stand he took today. I thought he was a class act and represented the ideals of the war quite nicely. I don't even agree with all his politics but the man stood up and said this was what needed to be done. I think W. should stick to that, no more of this spin crap.
And the blame the media card has now been played. The war has been highly successful on all fronts? I don't think many Americans would agree with your statement.
finding WMD capturing or killing Sadaam and his sons keeping casualties on both sides to a minimum earning the trust and respect of the Iraqi people
we removed a dictator from power...given the task we were called to do...and the projections from the outset from the chicken-littles about this war, i'd say we have definitely kept casualties to a minimum...
Those projections were based on the Administration's dire prediction of WMD's, which now looks like a con job. You can't have it both ways.
i don't remember the administration's estimates...i do remember the dems in congress talking about casualties in the tens of thousands...
Nor do I remember specific numbers, but if they projected low, it wouldn't jibe with the WMD claims and if they went high, it ran the risk of eroding support. Thus, opponents were left with rhetoric about WMDs as the only basis for an attempt at projected casualties. (They may have come out with a number now that I think about it, but I have to get ready for work... see in a few hours.)
Anyone mind if I get back on topic? When asked if he took responsibility for what he had said in the State of the Union Address, Bush ducked that one too, claiming that he took responsibility for removing Saddam Hussein, for putting out troops in and for defending the American people. Anyone remember the Charles Durning song from Best Little Whorehouse In Texas? Oh,. and another point, and i might as well raise it here...Max, you said somewhere, I don't recall which, that if this one issue...the uranium issue, or the " 16 words" Bush apologists have seemingly decided somehow marginalizes the concern, is the only significant misrepresentation, then it's bad but not that bad. I don't agree with that premise, but it's moot anyway. Was watching BBC today, and a guy actually defending Bush to some extent pointed something out: Cheney made an even more specific and alarmist claim. Two or three weeks before the war he said that " Iraq has reconstituted nuclear weapons." Not program, not attempted to reconstitute...that's a categorical statement, made without any qualifier. Was that another mistake? And there have been several more...the tubing, the connection to 9-11 that was asserted, etc....many of them covered in the Ten Lies thread...I disagreed with the rebuttles of some of those 'lies', but the statements themselves were dead on quotes, and many don't even need rebuttles, but stand as pretty clear indications of, if you want to avoid a claim of dishonesty, a massive bungling of intelligence and statements whose outcome coincidentally was desired in the first place. I'm going to make a longer post soon going over my feelings/thoughts about the whole post-war unraveling of the pre-war diatribe, but for now, Max, I thought that this would give you something to chew on. Cheney flat out said that they had active weapons...on national tv. There is no way to look at the accumulation of 'mistakes', 'errors', and 'misstatements', and realize that the effect of all of these is exactly what they wanted, and not conclude that there was a ghost in the machine.
It's true...I had heard it at the time, and have since...but in the wake of all the crap coming out it took this guy, the former asst. sec. of State under Clinton ( who was actually defending Bush and the war to a degree) to point out that he was surprised that this wasn't getting more play, as it is a lot more literal than the 16 words, before I kinda took specific notice. Anyone want to respond to my usual plea for link-help? It was on one of the main politalk shows, This Week, or similar.