Oct 13, 2005 at 11:14 PM by Political Chase
President Bush seeking to “rally the troops” and improve Americans’ perspective on the Iraq war held a rehearsed, staged video conference.
The president engaged in a carefully choreographed question-and-answer session with 10 American servicemen and women and one Iraqi soldier, whom he saw on a large video screen set up in a room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House.
“Do the Iraqis want to fight, and are they capable of fighting?” he asked. He was told they were.
“The Iraqi army and police services, along with coalition support, have conducted many and multiple exercises and rehearsals,” Capt. Stephen Pratt of Pocatello, Idaho, told Bush. “Along with the coalition backing them, we’ll have a very successful and effective referendum vote.”
1st Lt. Gregg Murphy told the president that at last January’s elections to select an interim government, “We had to lead the way. This time, they’re doing everything. … They’ve got it laid out.”
Before it began, a Pentagon official coached the troops, telling them the president planned to ask questions on three topics: The overall security in Iraq, how they were preparing for the vote on Saturday and how much progress had been made in the training of Iraqi troops.
Allison Barber, a Pentagon official, said Bush would ask them specifically, “In the last 10 months, what kind of progress have we seen?”
She asked who was prepared to answer the question. “Master Sgt. Lombardo,” one said.
After Bush asked just that question, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo responded: “Over the past 10 months, the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces are improving … They continue to develop and grow into a sustainable force.”
Now that’s a great example of integrity, which by the way the president declared in his 2000 campaign he would bring to the White House. Hmm…
While on the topic of White House integrity, we certainly don’t want to leave Scott McLellan out. Scott McLellan flat out lied today when asked about the staged video conference.
Q Scott, why did the administration feel it was necessary to coach the soldiers that the President talked to this morning in Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re suggesting.
Q Well, they discussed the questions ahead of time. They were told exactly what the President would ask, and they were coached, in terms of who would answer what question, and how they would pass the microphone.
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, are you suggesting that what our troops were saying was not sincere, or what they said was not their own thoughts?
Q Nothing at all. I’m just asking why it was necessary to coach them.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the event earlier today, the event was set up to highlight an important milestone in Iraq’s history, and to give the President an opportunity to, once again, express our appreciation for all that our troops are doing when it comes to defending freedom, and their courage and their sacrifice. And this is a satellite feed, as you are aware, and there are always technological challenges involved when you’re talking with troops on a satellite feed like this. And I think that we worked very closely with the Department of Defense to coordinate this event. And I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect.
Q But we asked you specifically this morning if there would be any screening of questions or if they were being told in any way what they should say or do, and you indicated no.
MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t think that’s what the question was earlier today. I think the question earlier today was asking if they could ask whatever they want, and I said, of course, the President was — and you saw –
Q And I asked if they were pre-screened.
MR. McCLELLAN: You saw earlier today the President was trying to engage in a back-and-forth with the troops. And I think it was very powerful what Lieutenant Murphy was saying at the end of that conversation, when he was talking about what was going on in January, how the American troops and coalition forces were in the lead when it came to providing security for the upcoming election, an election where more than eight million Iraqis showed up and voted. It was a great success.
And he talked about how this time, when we had the preparations for the upcoming referendum this Saturday, you have Iraqi forces that are in the lead, and the Iraqi forces are the ones that are doing the planning and preparing and taking the lead to provide for their own security as they get ready to cast their ballots again.
Q But I also asked this morning, were they being told by their commanders what to say or what to do, and you indicated, no. Was there any prescreening of –
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not aware of any such — any such activities that were being undertaken.
It seems that McClellan is opposed to telling the truth and we can easily confirm that by drawing upon his record.
—–
Oct 13, 2005 at 10:41 PM by Political Chase
The contempt order against Judith Miller has been lifted and Arianna Huffington says “it’s put or shut up time” for the New York Times. The Times has said on multiple occasions that as soon as Miller was free from the contempt order, a full accounting of the Miller story would be provided.
In Huffington’s article, she cites considerable internal discontent amongst the Times’ staff over Judith Miller’s saga; apparently many are close to leaving the Times because of the situation and the management thereof.
I have to agree with Huffington. It’s time for the paper of record to put up or shut up. For those of us in the blogosphere, whom Times’ management dismissed as irrelevant, we’re a bit anxious to be “assertive” as characterized by executives at the Times.
—–
Oct 13, 2005 at 9:58 PM by Political Chase
What’s next for longtime White House reporter, Helen Thomas? Will she be renditioned to Egypt and tortured because she poses questions goof ball Scott McLellan doesn’t like or will not answer?
Scott McLellan, like the rest of the Bush administration is so outrageously incompetent, accused Helen Thomas of opposing the war on terrorism. The bafoon began asking her questions and drawing on her record, which caused Terry Moran of ABC News to stand in her defense.
Scott “Robot with Same Answers” McLellan can’t even get the function of his own press briefing right. It’s very simple, reporters pose questions to the bafoon currently impersonating a competent White House Press Secretary and he in turn answers questions and draws on the White House record as appropriate.
—–
Oct 13, 2005 at 8:18 PM by Political Chase
In what is obviously becoming a matter of significant legal maneuvering, Tom DeLay’s (R-TX) attorneys have subpoenaed Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle. The attorneys are seeking Earle’s testimony in two indictments, which Earle brought against Delay.
DeLay’s attorneys cite prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury process which led to the two indictments.
[Dick] DeGuerin [DeLay’s defense attorney] wants Earle to answer 12 questions about conversations he had with grand jurors, including whether the prosecutor became angry when a grand jury decided against an indictment of DeLay and why that decision was not publicly released.
He also wants to know the details of Earle’s conversation with William Gibson, foreman of a grand jury that indicted DeLay on conspiracy charges, whose term has since ended.
William Gibson, foreman of a grand jury that indicted Delay, has denied DeGuerin’s allegations.
In a motion filed last week, the defense team said that from Sept. 29 through Oct. 3, Earle and his staff "unlawfully participated in grand jury deliberations and attempted to browbeat and coerce" the grand jury that refused to indict DeLay.
The motion said Earle then attempted to cover up and delay public disclosure of the refusal, and also "incited" the foreman of the first grand jury to violate grand jury secrecy by talking publicly about the case _ in an effort to influence grand jurors still sitting.
The foreman, William Gibson, gave media interviews after the grand jury finished its work but told The Associated Press that Earle did not ask him to discuss the case.
"That’s a bunch of (expletive) there," Gibson said. "That man did not talk to me."
He said Earle advised him and other grand jurors to keep an open mind as they considered evidence and cautioned them, "What goes on behind closed doors is secret."
By law, grand jurors or witnesses are not allowed to discuss the details of a grand jury review. Given that, DeGuerin’s subpeona is a problem for someone. Assuming DeGuerin’s subpeona is legitimate, then the source for DeGuerin’s accusation ultimately had to come from someone participating in the grand jury’s review of the case, which by default implies one or more individuals broke the law. Conversely, if DeGuerin did not receive information from the grand jury, then how credible are DeGuerin’s accusations?
Furthermore, since Gibson, the foreman of the grand jury, profundly rebuked DeGuerin’s accusation, that clearly reduces the basis and credibility of DeGuerin’s subpeona.
Then there is the matter of the prosectur testifying in a case he is arguing before the court. I could be wrong on this, but as I understand it, if the prosecutor testifies in his own case it may be grounds for a mistrial. That may be exactly what the Hammer and his legal beagles are seeking.
I don’t think we’ve even gotten to the previews of what will be a very long movie. Unlike Plamegate, this case is going to be wide open to the public and DeLay will attempt to have the trial take place in the media before the actual trial convenes.
—–
Oct 13, 2005 at 7:16 PM by Political Chase
Raw Story reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is looking into what role Vice President Dick Cheney may have played in Plamegate.
As I wrote before, I believe Cheney will at least be tarnished by this investigation, if not indicted.
Info via TalkLeft.
Oct 13, 2005 at 5:45 PM by Political Chase
TalkLeft has the beginnings of an excellent detailed chronological accounting of Plamegate
—–
Oct 13, 2005 at 2:58 AM by Political Chase
An NBC-WSJ poll released today on President Bush’s job approval:
Approve – 39%
Disapprove – 54%
—–
