Re: Blaming the victim? was: Re: from jms: too damned much stuff

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:50:51 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
<jt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:h80ad1d7dkvjuvlg05ahjt7c9kqkskqk77@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> But conservatives, and the business interests that fund them, have
>> found it in their interest to convince the public that science is
>> corrupt, just as they've found it in their interest to discredit the
>> responsible press. They have absolutely no evidence that science is
>> "bought and paid for" -- except, of course, for their own studies --
>> but that hasn't stopped them yet; in that, they're the antithesis of
>> the scientific community that they find it convenient to discredit.
>
>Naturally it's always the other guys who are evil and corrupt and we're
>always righteous and pure.

Rightly or wrongly I just call it as I see it, and I've seen no
evidence that the conservatives are correct here and fairly
overwhelming evidence that they aren't.

One of those pieces of evidence, a reporter, is sitting in jail today
because she wants to protect the public's right to know. What a
contrast that makes with this:

Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the
President did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was
asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he
would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't express
confidence?

McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for
Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the
White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President.
This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.

Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in
the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he
says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in
Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?

McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed
it again.

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a
previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of
answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who
works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would
have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense.
I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been
doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did
something wrong, or doesn't he?

McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President
told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of
an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on
this for two days now.

Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe
that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken
Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White
House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a
senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that
person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in
any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of
days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous
two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the
President said he's not --

Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the
investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about
a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out
whether that person is working as a covert officer.

McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to
questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask
you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple
of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.

***
Q Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island
on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire
anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of
classified information? What were the parameters for those
consequences?

McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we
have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.

***

Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject,
but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any
regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this
family?

McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --

Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This
is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted
there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the
leak that came from the White House that affected a family.

McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an
ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said
that the past couple of days.

***
Q Scott, from Africa, Mrs. Bush says, Karl Rove is a very good friend
of mine; I've known him for years. And she's not going to speculate on
any other part of the case. Well, does the President feel the same way
about Karl Rove, the relationship with Karl Rove, a very good friend
for many years?

McCLELLAN: Yes, he does.

Q And at this point, is it ebbing or flowing? Is that relationship
with the President ebbing or flowing? (Laughter.)

McCLELLAN: Again, this is a creative way to come out to the same kind
of questions.

Q You're right, it is, and I want an answer.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000978734

That's the bottom line for me: white hat principled enough to go to
jail for her beliefs, black hats in the White House giving us -- this.
It's like those big cookies that are half black and half white.

--
Josh


.

Relevant Pages