|
I think I'm in love ... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Yes, I'm deducing based on semantics but the answer must be there if McCLELLAN is saying they've already answered the question no?
How is that illogical? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Yes, I'm deducing based on semantics but the answer must be there if McCLELLAN is saying they've already answered the question no?
How is that illogical? |
Because he didn't answer the question. He tried to deflect the question by providing an answer that never answered the question.
But I see you're avoiding all my questions. Is it an exemption? Is Cheney seeking an exemption?
We can play out a mini-WH press briefing right here if you want. I'm actually quite amused. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Well, instead of splitting hairs on the press conference, here's a little more info abeit not much...
Still sounds like they want an exemption to me? :conf:
Anybody find anything else on the matter?
| quote: |
The White House initially tried to kill the anti-torture provision while it was pending in the Senate, then switched course to lobby for an exemption in cases of "clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States." The president would have to approve the exemption, and Defense Department personnel could not be involved. In addition, any activity would have to be consistent with the Constitution, federal law and U.S. treaty obligations, according to draft changes in the exemption the White House is seeking.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Well...here we are...a copy of the actual waiver...
It's pretty conclusive he's looking for an exemption now doesn't it?
While it's true the press secrutary isn't anwering the question in front of him, I think the answer is quite obvious.
What the reporter should have been asking is, is this waiver a backdoor should the U.S. determine that torture is needed to ensure the protection of it's people?
That would have been a more logical question... |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
While it's true the press secrutary isn't anwering the question in front of him, I think the answer is quite obvious. |
Look, he knows the answer, the public knows the answer, the people know the answer. They just won't say the answer because they want to save face. If they say that they want the CIA to have the ability to "torture", people would be up in arms because of the associations that everyone has with the word "torture." By never answering the blunt question, they leave the door open for the idiots who can't decipher the spin and the government supporters that don't want to believe the truth.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
What the reporter should have been asking is, is this waiver a backdoor should the U.S. determine that torture is needed to ensure the protection of it's people?
That would have been a more logical question... |
He wouldn't have answered that one either |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
What can we say?
He's the Press Secretary and it's his job to handle the press.
I'm sure this isn't the first time he's skirted direct questions so is it really that surprising?
They figured they answered the question.
They don't condone torture so long as it's not a national security risk.
If they actually say that though, they'd be no different than any other countries that have much worse records and are known for torturing.
Of course, one could argue that the very existance of the waiver precludes innocence... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Well...here we are...a copy of the actual waiver...
It's pretty conclusive he's looking for an exemption now doesn't it?
While it's true the press secrutary isn't anwering the question in front of him, I think the answer is quite obvious.
What the reporter should have been asking is, is this waiver a backdoor should the U.S. determine that torture is needed to ensure the protection of it's people?
That would have been a more logical question... |
Actually it's still an exemption. The bill passed by the senate explicitly states that all U.S. personnel are prohibited from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. Cheney's amendment is an exemption for all non-DOD personel. Therefore it looks pretty conclusive to me that he's looking for an exemption. Read McCain's bill yourself;
http://balkin.blogspot.com/mccain.amendment.pdf
The fact of the matter is is that the consitution and federal law do NOT protect detainees from torture. Hence the whole point of McCain's bill. So tell me how it's not an exemption?
The whole point of the reporters question is to expose the Bush administration's blatant, and obvious hypocrisy. Of course McClellan knows full well what would happen if he answered the question. It's clear that Cheney is seeking an exemption. If he said no he would be lying. If he said yes the Bush administration would willfully admit to hypocrisy. Hence the avoidance of saying anything pertinent to the question. Again it's not rocket science.
Edit: Oh wait I think I picked up on sarcasm when you weren't actually being sarcastic. Either which way. There is cognitive dissonance between what the administration says and what they do. It's the job of the press corp to expose this , and if it makes the WH look foolish in the process ... well than that's the WH's fault for being so stupid. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Good idea. This is now Scott McClellan appreciation week.
Jump on the bandwagon everyone! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
LOL!
Now he just needs a baret...
Photochop time! :clown: |
|
|
| occrider |
What like this?
 |
|
|
| occrider |
By the way, this was penned by Helen Thomas ... the reporter badgering him to just answer the goddamned question:
| quote: |
White House spokesman no help to media
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- Presidential press secretary Scott McClellan says he can be trusted. But I don't think he should take a poll in the White House press room on that claim. He might lose.
McClellan has lived up to his self-described role as an "advocate" for President Bush.
It's only recently that he admits to wearing another hat -- one that is obligatory, as he put it -- that requires him "to make sure the American people are getting an accurate account of what is going on here in Washington." That will be the day.
Unfortunately, the record shows otherwise. McClellan might be forgiven for declaring from the White House lectern two years ago that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove had told him that they were not involved in leaking to the media that war critic Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.
As it turns out, both men were involved in one way or another in getting that information out. Libby was indicted on several charges including perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the federal investigation of the Plame leak case. Rove is under investigation.
McClellan is not about to finger his colleagues by accusing them of misleading him. But he has a lot more to answer for -- especially in carrying out the administration's battle plan of pumping up the case for war with Iraq with fibs. The most blatant among the falsehoods has been the constant attempt to link the 9/11 attacks to Saddam Hussein, even after the president conceded that there was no connection.
More recently, McClellan sang the praises of the hapless White House counsel Harriet Miers, who was named to a vacancy on the Supreme Court and then sacrificed to Bush's right-wing supporters who blasted the nomination. Day after day, McClellan spoke of Miers' "unique" qualifications for the high bench. He stopped that pitch right after her appointment was pulled.
His technique when briefing White House reporters boils down to "the best defense is offense," and he uses it when the going gets tough.
I used to get phone calls from television viewers asking why I posed such tough questions to the powers that be. Now I get calls -- and I presume other members of the media do, too -- denouncing the "softball" questions they hear during news briefings.
McClellan was recently asked about a news story that a wounded veteran of the Iraq war was getting dunned by a bill collection agency for armor and other items he bought to go to war.
McClellan's response was that the president often visits wounded members of the military at Walter Reed Hospital. The reporter let that answer pass without pushing the envelope.
Obviously, McClellan is on a short leash and comes into the press briefing room with one page of scribbled notes. He does not dare deviate from his prepared answers, no matter what the question, and his responses tend to be robotic. As a result, fewer reporters are showing up at the White House unless they are alerted that it will be a big news day.
McClellan is attuned to the headlines of the day, but he has developed his own style of evasion, often ignoring a question and turning to another reporter.
It worked in the early years of the Bush administration which had a roll-over-and-play-dead press corps to deal with. But lately, White House reporters have become more challenging, more skeptical.
McClellan recently announced to the press corps that he had "faithfully carried out his duties and responsibilities." Maybe so, from the White House viewpoint. But as far as reporters are concerned, his answers leave a lot to be desired.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opini...21_helen11.html
|
|
|
|
| ierxium |
| Perhaps the reporters should consider torturing Mr. McClellan to get some answers. It should be the next step if he continues to avoid simple questions. |
|
|
|
|
