Scottie & Me
(formerly known as Ari & I)
White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan
Mokhiber: Paul Bremer has ruled out quick elections in Iraq. The constitutional law advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority, Noah Feldman, is quoted in today's New York Times as saying "If you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected." Apparently, there is a fear of electing - polls show that the Shiites would gain control in Iraq if there were an election today - there is a fear of electing an Islamic Iraqi government. Does the President agree with Mr. Feldman - if you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected?
Scott McClellan: That's not the way the President of the United States looks at it. One, if you look at the November 15th agreement that was worked on by Iraqi Governing Council and agreed to with the Coalition Provisional Authority, it calls for free direct elections within that framework. It calls for election of the drafters of the Constitution - it calls for direct election on the ratification of the Constitution, and finally, at the end of 2005, it calls for a permanent representative government to be directly elected by the people of Iraq. What you are seeing now is that more and more Iraqi people are assuming the responsibility for their future. This is becoming more and more of an Iraqi-driven process. The UN announced today that they would be sending a team in there. They still need to work with the coalition on security arrangements. And that was something requested by the Iraqi Governing Council - for the United Nations to go in and assess the feasibility of conducting elections by the June 30 deadline for transferring full sovereignty to the Iraqi people. And so we look forward to seeing their assessment and hearing their advice. We've made it very clear in terms of the November 15 agreement that we are open to refinements and clarifications. This is more and more of an Iraqi-driven process. They are assuming more and more responsibility for their future and their decisions. We believe that it is important to move forward as quickly as possible to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. They are in a better position as time goes by to assuming full responsibility now for their future. The decisions about their future permanent government will be made directly by the Iraqi people.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that. And if they say they want an Islamic government and they want the U.S. out, will we get out?
Scott McClellan: There is a fundamental law that they are working on right now. It has some basic principles that will be enshrined. The other aspect in terms of the United States and our military presence along with the Coalition, those are discussions that are being had with the Iraqi Governing Council now as well. I think that the Iraqi people appreciate our efforts to help them with their security. But more and more the Iraqis are assuming responsibility for their own security. They are the largest contributor to security forces right now. I don't know the latest number - I think it is around 160,000 Iraqis who are now involved in their own security. Those discussions under the November 15th agreement are under way now.
Mokhiber: But if they want us out, will we get out?
Scott McClellan: I think I've addressed it.
How the hell did he answer the question? Should they just be permitted to give rambling non-answers to direct questions? Maybe there should be court rules in those briefings: something along the lines of answer the question or be held in contempt.
Why would anyone want a job where they have to spin vast amounts of bullshit, constantly? How could you have any credibility? (well, there was that time Comical Ari got laughed out of the press room, but I digress).
How the hell did he answer the question? Should they just be permitted to give rambling non-answers to direct questions? Maybe there should be court rules in those briefings: something along the lines of answer the question or be held in contempt.
Why would anyone want a job where they have to spin vast amounts of bullshit, constantly? How could you have any credibility? (well, there was that time Comical Ari got laughed out of the press room, but I digress).
HMMMMMMMMM *job title* White House Spokesmen ... Yea that is a licence to spin... and a long long line of spinners it is
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
Vympel wrote:How the hell did he answer the question? Should they just be permitted to give rambling non-answers to direct questions? Maybe there should be court rules in those briefings: something along the lines of answer the question or be held in contempt.
Or, we could reocgnize that the Press Secretary position exists to get the White House's message out.
Why would anyone want a job where they have to spin vast amounts of bullshit, constantly? How could you have any credibility? (well, there was that time Comical Ari got laughed out of the press room, but I digress).
The practice seems to have worked for as long as the White House has had a communications office.
Rev Prez
P. H. Cannady, Class of 2002
Plasma Science Fusion Center
167 Albany St
Cambridge, MA 02139 revprez@mit.edu
Politicians are masters of answer avoidance. One memorable scene from a Newsnight interview saw Jeremy Paxman, a quite vicious interviewer and presenter, put forward the same yes or no question a dozen times to one MP whose name escapes me and watch as everytime the guy said something like "Well I believe" or "The fact is" or some shit paragraph of verbal diarrhoea and not "Yes" or "No".
Vympel wrote:How the hell did he answer the question? Should they just be permitted to give rambling non-answers to direct questions? Maybe there should be court rules in those briefings: something along the lines of answer the question or be held in contempt.
I take it you've never watched CNN. Politicians ALWAYS ignore questions. Here's their thought process:
"Hmmm... someone just asked me a direct question. I'd rather not answer that. Here's a question that's kinda, sorta close to their question that I would much rather answer. That's a good question! I'll answer that."
Why would anyone want a job where they have to spin vast amounts of bullshit, constantly?
Welcome to politics. Everyone ranking representative or higher that I've ever seen on a talkshow has answered questions like this.
How could you have any credibility? (well, there was that time Comical Ari got laughed out of the press room, but I digress).
You really can't.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
The answer to that question is simple, even if it wasn't spoken by the politician in question.
We will never permit Iraq an illiberal - that is, unconstitutional - democracy. We will first oblige them to adopt a constitution that essentially protects the minorities from the tyrannt of the majorities and likewise includes some verbose yet broad and compelling requirement permitting America's "involvement" or "presence" so long as Iraq's national security remains in question.
