If McClellan wants to go there…

[Starfury]

Not sure if this has been covered already, but here's some amusing commentary from The Carpetbagger Report regarding Scotty using 2003 briefings to claim that Rovegate questions have already been answered:

If McClellan wants to go there…
Posted 10:54 am | Printer Friendly

At yesterday's White House press briefing, Scott McClellan had a new talking point — rely on an old briefing.

Q: On the leak investigation, does President Bush feel that it was appropriate for there to be an 11 or 12-hour time gap from the time that Chief of Staff Andy Card was notified that an investigation was underway to the time that staff here at the White House, including him —

McClellan: I think the President has said that — and the President directed the White House at the beginning of the investigation to cooperate fully with those overseeing the investigation. And that is exactly what we have done, and that's what we did in that context, as well. If you will recall, back on October 1st of 2003, these questions came up and I addressed it at that time. So you might want to go back and look at that discussion during that briefing.

He seemed particularly fond of this new talking point, referencing the Oct. 1, 2003 briefing on four separate occasions during yesterday's 35-minute discussion. It was almost as if he was daring us to go back and read what he said at the time, as if it would exonerate him and stop all these pesky questions.

OK, Scott, you asked for it. If we take McClellan's advice and "go back and look at that discussion during that briefing," we see that this was the same briefing in which:

* McClellan refused to explain when Bush learned about the leak of an undercover CIA agent;

* McClellan would neither confirm nor deny that Karl Rove had labeled Valerie Plame "fair game";

* McClellan offered reporters this now-inoperative gem: "Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it." In fact, McClellan said he had spoken with Rove directly about the controversy and learned that Rove "didn't condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity."

Why, exactly, would McClellan want us to go back and read this? Does he not realize that reviewing statements that were a) evasive; b) untrue; and c) occasionally both, make him look worse?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4812.html

[flordehinojos]

1. i saw a snippet of mcclellan's press briefing yeterday.

it may not have been this exact Q&A part of the briefing but he seemed to be stuttering out his answer, as if he were trying to repeat from some sort of inner program or memory bank words he had been instructed and rehearsed to say, as if he did not want to mispronounce, misplace, or transpose any one of the words he was supposed to say ... it almost sounded like concrete as it is being churned in the croncete mixer before it comes out as cement--which sort of describes scotty mcclellan as he has a concrete face pouring out words trying to cement the truth about rovegate.