20 April 2006

Curtain Call

October, 2003
Q: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to
Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask
them if they were the leakers. Is that what
happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe
the conversations you had with them? What was the
question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C.,
at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and
innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that
are made. And that's exactly what happened in the
case of these three individuals. They're good
individuals, they're important members of our White
House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so
that I could come back to you and say that they were
not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning,
but I like to check my information to make sure it's
accurate before I report back to you, and that's
exactly what I did.

Q: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically
those three individuals were not the leakers or did
not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. I've spoken with

July, 2005
Q: Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question
relating to an 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.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of
2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl
and Elliott 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?

MR. 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.

Q: Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, 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 decided not
to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you
stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

December, 2005
“Is Scotty here? Where's Scotty?” Bush asked, half-
grinning, according to two people who were in the
meeting but asked not to be quoted by name because
they were discussing a private event. Bush scanned
the room for Scott McClellan, the White House press

“I want to especially thank Scotty,” the president
said, looking at his aide. "I want to thank Scotty for
saying" -- and he paused for effect...


At which point everyone laughed and the president
left the room.

April, 2006
McClellan is a flea on the windshield of history. On
the podium, he performed his duty as a slow-flying
object swatted by a frustrated and flustered press
corps. Inexpressive, occasionally inarticulate and
displaying a limited vocabulary, his virtue was his
unwavering discipline in sticking to his uninformative
talking points, fending off pesky reporters, and
defending the president and all the president's men
to the last full measure of his devotion. Inside the
Bush White House, he was a non-player, a factotum,
the instrument of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political
strategist and deputy chief of staff. McClellan played
no part in the inner councils of state. He was the
blank wall erected in front of the press to obstruct
them from seeing what was on the other side.
McClellan's stoic façade was unmatched by a stoic
interior. He was a vessel for his masters, did
whatever he was told, put out disinformation without
objection, and was willing to defend any travesty. He
is the ultimate dispensable man.

ENCORE: Countdown's Tribute to Scotty

19 April 2006

Siyanora Scotty

It looks like we won't have Scott to kick around anymore.

Bush said McClellan had "a challenging assignment."

"I thought he handled his assignment with class,
integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard
to replace Scott, but nevertheless he made the
decision and I accepted it. One of these days, he
and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas
and talking about the good old days."

So where is Bush going to find a new stooge to stand in front
of the cameras and endlessly repeat Republican talking points
while attempting to spin the ever growing list of administration
disasters into Mission Accomplished?

How about Fox News?


13 April 2006

How I Learned to Stop Worrying
and Love the (Tactical Nuclear) Bomb

Ever since Sy Hersh's latest New Yorker piece hit the web
there’s been a lot of scary and confusing talk about a possible
U.S. attack against Iran –- one that might even include the use of
nuclear weapons. Desperate to change the subject from our failure
in Iraq
and pump up the fear factor, the Bush administration is
once again beating the war drums, hoping to drown out anything
resembling logical, rational thought.

And it might actually work.

Which is why you should read this post from John Aravosis.

Iran is ten years away from developing nukes.

I'll say it again, TEN YEARS away. That would be TEN
YEARS at the earliest, according to the best estimate
we have. And that's not according to some peacenik
liberal, it's according to the best estimate of US

From the US State Department's own web site:

Iran is likely years away from producing weapons-
grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Vice
Adm. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in
March 2005 that Iran is expected to be able to
produce a weapon early next decade. According to
one report, the new National Intelligence Estimate on
Iran assesses
that it will be ten years before Iran has
a bomb.

And I'm sure you'll find this to be a big shock, but the
State Department didn't bother mentioning that the
five year "sometime early next decade" estimate has
now been overruled by this ten year estimate. Yes,
the "according to one report" reference State makes
in its document, that would be THE definitive federal
government report on this issue, not just "one"
report. State conveniently mentions the now-
debunked five-year estimate by the DIA director to,
one might suspect, confuse the issue and shorten the
time span.

Which all leads to the rather obvious but essential question…

So why, suddenly, in the second week of April, 2006,
have we found ourselves in a media feeding frenzy of
speculation over whether the US will be soon be
launching a massive (possibly nuclear) attack on Iran
to eliminate an "impending" nuclear threat that won't
appear until 2015?

John has answers (and some useful counter-arguments) at
AMERICAblog. Read it.

Also, in case you were wondering, Digby explains how to make a
tactical nuclear weapon
. (Just don’t tell the bad guys.)

11 April 2006

And no one got shot in the face.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Greeted with loud boos
and some cheers, Vice President Dick Cheney
threw out the ceremonial first pitch Tuesday at
the Washington Nationals' home opener.

He stood directly in front of the mound and
released a ball that hit the dirt in front of home
plate. Nationals catcher Brian Schneider
scooped it up.

Cheney had planned on throwing out the first pitch in the
, but they ran out of Diet Caffeine Free Sprite.

07 April 2006

L’Etat? C’est moi.

Making the case for war with lies and deceptions? (Yeah.)

Leaking classified information for political gain? (Sure.)

Conducting warrantless domestic wiretaps? (Why not?)

And you are never held accountable for these actions? (Bingo.)

It's good to be the king.

[picture from Interventionmag.com]

06 April 2006

"I owe you one."

Chris Matthews: Media Whore

04 April 2006

The Hammer Falls

Associated Press:
President Bush said Tuesday that DeLay had
informed him of his decision Monday afternoon.

"I wish him all the best," Bush told reporters
during a brief White House session, adding, "It
had to have been a very difficult decision for
someone who loved representing his district in
the state of Texas."

Bush said the Republican Party won't suffer
from Delay's decision to resign from Congress.
"My own judgment is that our party will continue
to succeed because we are the party of ideas."

If this is Bush's idea of continuing success, just imagine what
a total disaster would look like.

03 April 2006

Cheesy Equipment

It's never a good sign when your computer smells like
a small electrical fire when you turn it on. So, extra-light
posting this week while it gets fixed.

What are you doing wasting time on the internet anyway?
Spring is here. Go outside and enjoy it.