CNN’s Wolf Blitzer made little effort to hide his liberal viewpoint during an interview of Scott McClellan on Friday’s "The Situation Room." After asking the former White House Press Secretary about his "revival" of the question of whether President Bush used cocaine as a young man, the CNN host followed-up by asking, "I guess the question is, is the President -- this is a blunt question -- in your opinion, a serial liar?"
Earlier in the interview, which began 12 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program, Blitzer addressed the issue of supposed "war crimes" related to the Iraq war. First, Blitzer played a video question from a viewer who asked McClellan, "Would you now consider testifying about your colleagues at a war crimes trial?" After listening to McClellan’s answer, Blitzer replied, "Knowing what you know now, do you believe war crimes, as this I-reporter suggests, were in fact committed?"
Prior to the airing of the video question, the on-screen graphic hinted at what was going to be asked: "‘Propaganda’ on Iraq: Were Crimes Committed?"
Beside the issue of whether President Bush is a "serial liar," Blitzer, in his first question to the former Press Secretary-turned author, asked whether he had lied during his time in the White House:
WOLF BLITZER: You've caused a lot of commotion by suggesting that is was 'propaganda' that was used to justify the war in Iraq. But you were part of that. Listen to what you yourself in July 2003.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN: The President has been very straight-forward about this from the beginning. He laid out a very compelling case -- a very clear case. It was based on solid evidence.
BLITZER: All right. You don't believe that now, so were you lying then?
Towards the end of the interview, Blitzer brought up how McClellan had apologized to former counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke for reading "talking points" against Clarke’s book when it was released in 2004. The CNN host then asked, "Do you owe the American people an apology... [f]or the years that you served in the White House, and you said what you said, and now, you said a lot of that stuff was simply wrong?" Blitzer, apparently not satisfied with McClellan’s answer, asked again: "Are you sorry? Do you want to say you're sorry to the American people? Do you want to apologize?"
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.















Comments Policy
Wulfie
May 30, 2008 - 18:49 ET by GoodieLook just play the tape of you crying when Gore conceded, Self Serving TV hack.
Wolf Blitzer - History Revisor.
May 30, 2008 - 19:47 ET by dronetekYes Wolf, the 90s never happened, WMD/terrorist links never came up until
Bush 43, UNSCOM didn't completely fail their mission and Clinton never
signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. This all started in 2001!
You gotta love the revisionist history going on this week. Its truly mindblowing.
There's a tape of that??
May 31, 2008 - 00:34 ET by Richard RomanoThere's a tape of that?? Where??
I remember Couric in tears after Gore lost too
May 31, 2008 - 07:48 ET by ChiefE9MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC are so liberal biased.
News people in tears 2004
May 31, 2008 - 08:29 ET by dronetekYeah, I satyed up all night waiting for Ohio and Florida to come in. When they finally had to call it for Bush, all the reporters had glimmering tears in their eye. It didnt surprise me, but was none the less disturbing.
Wolf is a revisionist
May 31, 2008 - 07:45 ET by ChiefE9I can't stand listening to him.
He is so liberal biased and a Bush basher.
The Al Quaida threat has been greatly diministed and they are on the run.
With President Bush-bashing still a national pastime, it's notable how much international terrorism has been forgotten, and how little credit the president has received for keeping Americans safe.
Have no fear, chief. If
May 31, 2008 - 08:00 ET by motherbeltHave no fear, chief. If Obama is elected, the successes in Iraq will be immediate, and sweeping. And we will be able to not only withdraw, but declare victory as we do so. (Do the words "Peace with honor" ring a bell?)
WOLF BLITZER: You've
May 30, 2008 - 19:05 ET by MidAmericaWOLF BLITZER: You've caused a lot of commotion by suggesting that is was 'propaganda' that was used to justify the war in Iraq.
Well here's an old report from Mr. Blitzer's network that chronicles the effort of the US Government along with the UN to use force if necessary if Saddam does not allow WMD inspectors into Iraq to verify the destruction of all of Iraq's WMD programs. The year is 1997.
All of the msm hand
May 30, 2008 - 19:09 ET by bigtimerAll of the msm hand in hand with the dem party has been trying their damnedest to rewrite history because of the POS they put in and defended for eight years plus...
The one and only serial liar we have had for President is Bill Clinton.
You cannot change that Wolf and all of your ilk.
I am sick to death of this all...facts are facts...deal with it.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Agreed, bt...Scott
May 30, 2008 - 19:28 ET by motherbeltAgreed, bt...Scott McClellan doesn't have any evidence that Bush lied. I'm going to keep saying it...all he has done is the same thing that all Bush's enemies have done...using hindsight, guessing that Bush lied, after the fact.
McClellan himself has said
Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided. (emphasis added)
In other words, he later decided that he had been deceived. Now Blizter will have to explain how, if McClellan thought he was telling the truth at the time, he also knew they were lying to him.
Evening mb... I know what
May 30, 2008 - 19:37 ET by bigtimerEvening mb...
I know what they are doing in the leftist msm..you don't have to be a rocket scientist, they are aiding and abetting congress to get ready for hearings that they hope will lead to impeachment, if not at least trying to drag down Cheney, Rove, Scooter and others again...as much damage as they can do before the election, not just that either, they have wanted to do this for years to get even for Clinton and his impeachment, it is as simple as that, these leftists are never satisfied with their vengeance...they will end up doing their own-selves in again with this vendetta and stupid plan...George Soros/MM backed.
These are evil sick puppies...these enemies within.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I loved how Blitzer
May 30, 2008 - 20:01 ET by TEI loved how Blitzer selected that like-minded leftist freak to "ask" the first "question" about "war crimes". That was Blitzer merely using that like-minded leftist freak to serve as Blitzer's conduit to allege "war crimes". The White House better get off their asses real quickly, and demand that Blitzer identify which particular "war crimes" Blitzer is alleging were committed by McClellan's "colleagues". Once Blitzer has identified the particular "war crimes" that he is alleging were committed by McClellan's "colleagues", the White House should demand that Blitzer provide evidence to support his unsubstantiated allegation that "war crimes" were committed by McClellan's "colleagues". Don't be fooled by Blitzer claiming that he was not the one making the allegation by that leftist freak. Blitzer used the technique of selecting particular "viewers" (who share Blitzer's ideology) to "question" McClellan, because Blitzer doesn't have the courage to say what that leftist freak said, so he used the cowardly approach of allowing his like-minded leftist viewers to "ask" the "questions" with no evidence to support their/Blitzer's claims.
Serial liar, lol? How about
May 30, 2008 - 19:25 ET by ckc1227Serial liar, lol? How about proof of just one? Not feelings, proof.
Meanwhile, wasn't it CNN who was propagandizing for Saddam from Iraq for years?
Thanks for asking
May 30, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistRefer to the following webpage and note the quoted text from a speech delivered in Buffalo on April 20, 2004. That, my friend, is what we call a lie.
http://en.wikipedia....
Good Job
May 30, 2008 - 21:11 ET by the curatorAG,
Brilliant find. Perfect example.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Selective find would be
May 30, 2008 - 21:58 ET by PeskyDaneSelective find would be more appropriate. Calling a link to Wiki brilliant, huh? Lib standards just keep hitting the seafloor and then it's time to break out the drilling equipment.
So Bush didn't say that?
May 30, 2008 - 22:26 ET by balboaSo Bush didn't say that?
Bal... Give it up. You
May 30, 2008 - 22:32 ET by Clear thinkerBal...
Give it up. You are missing the point (as usual).
"Abstain from McCain"
Well, playing the ol' "You
May 30, 2008 - 22:34 ET by balboaWell, playing the ol' "You got that quote from Wikipedia?" card is pretty lame (as usual).
bal... Show me where I
May 30, 2008 - 22:42 ET by Clear thinkerbal...
Show me where I poo-pooed Wiki as a source.
You can't because you are talking out your ass (as usual).
"Abstain from McCain"
Um, I never said you did. My
May 30, 2008 - 22:45 ET by balboaUm, I never said you did. My ass was responding to Pesky Dane.
bal... Then why did you
May 30, 2008 - 22:50 ET by Clear thinkerbal...
Then why did you reply to me instead of Pesky? Are you getting weaker?
"Abstain from McCain"
I didn't.
May 30, 2008 - 22:57 ET by balboaI didn't.
Then you evidently don't
May 30, 2008 - 22:58 ET by Clear thinkerThen you evidently don't understand how this blogger forum thingy works.
"Abstain from McCain"
OH MY GOD. I'm going to have
May 30, 2008 - 23:06 ET by balboaOH MY GOD. I'm going to have to draw you a picture, aren't I.
PeskyDane, at 21:58 says that citing Wikipedia is hardly brilliant.
At 22:26, I respond TO HIM AND HIM ALONE, "So Bush didn't say that?"
You jump in with "Give it up" at 22:32.
I respond at 22:34 that the dismissal of Wikipedia is lame --DONE BY PESKY DANE -- is lame.
You, at 22:42, ask where you poo-poo'd Wiki. Something I never claimed you did. And at 22:45, I state as much.
You ask at 22:50 why I replied to you then, when originally I had replied to Pesky Dane, NOT YOU, which I state at 22:57.
And finally, at 22:58, you claim I don't know how these forums work.
Happy?
You still don't get
May 30, 2008 - 23:14 ET by Clear thinkerYou still don't get it.
Do you know how the "reply" button works? Think about it.
"Abstain from McCain"
(sigh) What happened to that
May 30, 2008 - 23:21 ET by balboa(sigh)
What happened to that famous conservative logic I keep hearing so much about? Did you miss that day at Vulcan College?
C'mon
May 30, 2008 - 23:24 ET by Clear thinkerC'mon bal...
Think!
"Abstain from McCain"
Balboa
May 31, 2008 - 02:18 ET by man_from_outer_spaceI'm with Balboa. I don't understand what you are trying to do other than deflect away from what Balboa posted. Maybe I missed something as well.
Here's the picture, bal
May 30, 2008 - 23:44 ET by Indiana Joe"I respond at 22:34 that the dismissal of Wikipedia is lame --DONE BY PESKY DANE -- is lame."
Yeah, but you hit the "reply" button on Clear Thinker's post, so it indented under his. This makes it appear to be a reply to his post.
Glad to help. ;^)
Indiana Joe...
May 31, 2008 - 03:52 ET by JerYou state:
Yeah, but you hit the "reply" button on Clear Thinker's post, so it indented under his. This makes it appear to be a reply to his post.
Glad to help.
Indiana, your efforts are appreciated, but you and Clear Thinker are still missing bal's point: While it is true that he replied to Clear Thinker's post, bal never claimed it was Clear Thinker belittling the Wikipedia source. He was simply communicating his observation to Clear that [Pesky Dane's] "playing the 'You got that quote from Wikpedia' card is pretty lame".
Bal obviously and quite properly stated this opinion in a reply directed to Clear Thinker because the latter had just interjected a dismissive comment to bal.
Hope this helps.
Jer
"bal never claimed it was
May 31, 2008 - 13:42 ET by Indiana Joe"bal never claimed it was Clear Thinker belittling the Wikipedia source."
I understood bal's point completely. I was merely informing him of CT's point, and why there was confusion regarding it.
If bal had replied to the post that did include the wiki reference, all would have been clear. Or, if he wanted to address CT, just put the word "him" before the word "playing" in bal's post. That would also have avoided the confusion.
Indiana...In the grand
May 31, 2008 - 15:35 ET by JerIndiana...In the grand scheme of things, the issue is hardly worth belaboring, but C T's snide and crude retort to bal ["you are talking out your ass (as usual)"] suggests Clear Thinker was hardly "thinking"--much less "clearly".
If bal had replied to the post that did include the wiki reference...
Bal had, in fact, already replied to PeskyDane's wiki-reference post. The fact that he didn't expressly allude to the ubiquitous wiki-slamming at NB until his reply to C T is irrelevant...and in no way implied C T had made the claim. It was readily apparent he was referring to its inclusion in PeskyDane's post--not Clear Thinker's.
Jer
Indiana Joe...Bingo!I
May 31, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Clear thinkerIndiana Joe...
Bingo!
I was starting to worry that nobody else would figure it out. I knew the whole time that bal's response was not for me, but I couldn't help myself because... he did 'reply' to my post.
Having fun with libs is actually pretty easy.
"Abstain from McCain"
Bal, before this thread gets
June 1, 2008 - 07:02 ET by PeskyDaneBal, before this thread gets too old, I'll clarify. I was not condeming the Wiki reference, but rather the circle jerk between Agarian and Curator. While giving a Wiki reference is without a disclaimer to begin with is what is truly lame, calling it "brilliant" should be a cause for embarrassment. Even if you clain to be complimenting the "find," well, where was it found? My point, which you really did miss, is that there is nothing brilliant about quoting Wiki (especially without a disclaimer) when other credible open sources are available. Hope this puts it into context.
Yeah, I hear ya', Pesky.
June 1, 2008 - 13:13 ET by balboaYeah, I hear ya', Pesky.
"AG, Brilliant find.
May 30, 2008 - 22:19 ET by ckc1227"AG,
Brilliant find. Perfect example."
It's a perfect example alright. Yet another perfect example of libs feeling like he lied versus proving that he lied.
ckc and liars...
May 30, 2008 - 22:25 ET by Clear thinkerI went to AG's wiki link and finally found what he was talking about. After reading it in context I have come to the conclusion that the president did NOT lie.
But as you have pointed out, the libs only see a lie where they want to. If libs are twisting the truth, doesn't that make them the liars?
"Abstain from McCain"
That depends...
May 31, 2008 - 05:04 ET by Cortillaen...on what the definition of "is" is.
I was considering a serious reply to this topic, but I'm too busy laughing at the hypocrisy to bother. "Bush lied!". "Bush started an illegal war!", and "Bush is spying on citizens!" are the constant mantras, regardless of what the facts may be. I wonder, where was the outrage over Clinton's completely proven, carve-it-in-stone lies? Where was the outrage when it came to light that his staff, Hillary included, was listening in on political opponents' cell phone calls? Ah, but I must be forgetting that any negative acts by a democrat must really be for the good of the people, right? Give me an ever-lovin' break...
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
AG... I have read damn
May 30, 2008 - 21:57 ET by Clear thinkerAG...
I have read damn near everything on the wiki site you linked to and cannot find the quoted speech. Before I can take your word that it's a lie I would like to see for myself. Please be a bit more forthcoming as to where on that page I can find what you are alluding to.
"Abstain from McCain"
Here you go...
May 30, 2008 - 21:59 ET by the curatorIn a speech in Buffalo, New York on April 20, 2004, he added that:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."[116]
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Curator... The
May 30, 2008 - 22:06 ET by Clear thinkerCurator...
The embedded links for that particular date will not take me to where you want me to go. All I get is http://null/wiki/2004
A little more help would be appreciated.
"Abstain from McCain"
Very weak Curator...
May 30, 2008 - 22:21 ET by Clear thinkerI finally found it on my own.
As to the quoted speech... I found nothing wrong with what the president said, and I certainly don't see a lie. Especially when you read the presidents next quotes....
"What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why." "This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States [...] I told you it's a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you."
"Abstain from McCain"
CT...
May 30, 2008 - 22:23 ET by ckc1227Here's a link to the entire speech.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Ct,
May 30, 2008 - 22:26 ET by Indiana Joe<edit> Your post after finding the speech makes mine moot.
Joe... Thanks for
May 30, 2008 - 22:28 ET by Clear thinkerJoe...
Thanks for trying.
"Abstain from McCain"
Ct,
May 30, 2008 - 22:32 ET by Indiana JoeDe nada ;^)
The president was speaking
May 30, 2008 - 22:04 ET by PeskyDaneThe president was speaking in terms of probable cause and due process based on suspicious activity at home, Hawking. On the other hand, if your phone number was found in a captured laptop in Mosul, then all bets were off. No mystery here. No lie either. I can't even give you a "nice try" here.
laptop in Mosul
May 31, 2008 - 02:23 ET by man_from_outer_spaceI think the point is there still wasn't a warrant - despite the president's claim to the contrary. This seems like a pretty obvious lie.
You are seeing what you
June 1, 2008 - 07:17 ET by PeskyDaneYou are seeing what you want to see. If it is a domestic issue and there is probable cause, then the rules of due process and civil rights apply. If a call from an Al-Qaeda source outside the United States is intercepted, then the NSA not only has the right to listen in, but an obligation to do so. So much for the "obvious" lie.
Further, and I am getting tired of repeating the same glaring grade school level insight to you people - if your phone number was found in a capture laptop or cell phone over there, then you have forfeited any right to privacy. Once again, that is not what the president was talking about.
I think Wolfe is suffering
May 30, 2008 - 19:52 ET by JerryI think Wolfe is suffering from an 8 year lapse in memory, he still thinks Clinton is in office....
"I smoked but didn't inhale"
"As a child, I witnessed black churches burning in Arkansas"
"Oral sex isn't sex"
"I did not have sex with that woman..."
"I only broke those campaign laws because we need tougher campaign laws"
"I didn't know anything about it till I read it in the papers"
"It depends on what the meaning of the word IS is"
"Jennifer, as long as we both deny it, there isn't a problem"
"I don't know who hired Craig Livingstone"
"I don't know anything about Waco, that was Reno's call"
"I was not alone in the hotel with Paula Jones, there were other people in the hotel."
"I didn't know I had claimed executive privilege until I read it in the papers"
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
...but Clinton did it, too!
May 31, 2008 - 02:25 ET by man_from_outer_spaceAh. The greatest comeback ever... My personal fave. So much for raising the bar on bringing back honesty and integrity to Washington, eh?
Excuse me? I didn't say
May 31, 2008 - 07:59 ET by JerryExcuse me? I didn't say anything about "he did it TOO", nor did I imply that ANYONE did it TOO. This is about there being ONE PROVEN LIAR, who is canonized by the press, while an HONEST man is being called a serial liar.
BTW, it was the press that propogated that brilliant defense used by all 5 years olds, "everybody does it", to defend Clinton's LIES.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Why even ask?
May 30, 2008 - 19:29 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistIs Bush a serial liar? The only thing remarkable about the question is that a prominent newsman, who has watched this administration for the past seven years, felt he had to ask it.
He didn't have to ask, he
May 30, 2008 - 20:46 ET by ckc1227He didn't have to ask, he wanted to ask. Why deviate from their standard theme of the past 7 years that Bush is a liar who stole the election? Sure, McClellan has no more proof than anyone else, but what does that matter?
Only because he didn't have
May 30, 2008 - 20:56 ET by fitzfongOnly because he didn't have to ask that same question for the eight years prior to "this administration"...everyone already knew the answer (Yes. Because he could. Because he lives for lying. Because he doesn't know the definition of "is". Because his wife would eagerly harass those who accused him of doing so. Because it was his religion.)
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
no, Scott is a liar
May 30, 2008 - 22:46 ET by txcoBush is not a liar..he was for the war at the beginning, and even though things have been harder than expected, he is still for the war...even when it isn't popular.
The liars are the ones that have been on both sides of the war issue....Scott seems to have joined them now....sleep well with your new hate America friends.
Scott is a liar
May 31, 2008 - 02:26 ET by man_from_outer_spaceI agree, but he is now trying to make ammends for it.
Actually, he is trying to
May 31, 2008 - 02:37 ET by RESTLESS 1Actually, he is trying to profit from lying now.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Ammends?
June 1, 2008 - 23:34 ET by txcoFunny how those ammends started on the same day as his book release....wonder why????
Good ol' CNN...
May 30, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Extirpaterthe most busted name in "news".
Forgot Something
May 30, 2008 - 19:51 ET by JohanThis stuff must have got dubbed out:
"[I]s the President -- this is a blunt question -- in your opinion, a serial liar? Like the NYTs? Like Dan Rather? Like MSNBC? Like Larry King? Like me?"
Is the Pope Catholic?
May 31, 2008 - 02:27 ET by man_from_outer_spaceYet another in a series of shocking questions.
Bob Dole/Perino/Conyers
May 30, 2008 - 19:55 ET by bigtimerHere's what Bob Dole thinks of the man (which I use the term "man" lightly) you are questioning Wolfie baby...here is also what congress is getting ready to do , first we have Wexler screaming for hearings, now Conyers, Senate will be next...I see where Perino says the WH can prevent him from testifying in the same link...all I can say is good.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Wolf, are you a newsman or a
May 30, 2008 - 20:08 ET by Chris NormanWolf, are you a newsman or a serial partisan hack?
Here's A Thought
May 30, 2008 - 20:14 ET by BourbeauRather then sit here and agree with each other how utterly stupid Wolf Blitzer was in this interview of McClellan, go to CNN.com, and scroll down to the Situation Room, and give your candid feedback directly to Blitzer. They read this feedback! I have had several encounters with Jack Cafferty emanating from this forum. That's exactly where I'm going after I send this and let him know how offensive it was for him, of all people, to suggest that the President was a serial liar. It's mind boggling to see how, with the President's leadership, we're making continued progress in Iraq and the War on Terror, and rather then acknowledge the success and give the President some credit, these morons entertain themselves by interviewing this shallow minded ex-Press Secretary.
No Blitzer, Bush isn't a Serial Liar, You and CNN are
May 30, 2008 - 20:26 ET by JayTeeYou wouldn't Recognize the Truth if someone shuved it up your....uhhh..your....your uh...Camera.....and turned it sideways with a Twist.
Honesty has left he Election, the Politicians and COngress have abandoned TRUTH along with the MSM Networks. Don't talk to me about Lies, Mr. CNN Dufus.
The Truth about Ethanol is that Corn Planting is behind in Key Corn planting states, and Ethanol prices may make Gas Prices go even higher, along with Food.....and then the Dems will want to Take excess Profits from the Farmers.
Talk about the Ethanol LIE Mr. Blitzoe...but Tell the Truth.
"Refer to the following
May 30, 2008 - 20:38 ET by ckc1227"Refer to the following webpage and note the quoted text from a speech
delivered in Buffalo on April 20, 2004. That, my friend, is what we
call a lie."
Here's an idea: instead of me scrolling through a 20 page Wikipedia entry trying to find what it is I'm supposed to see, how about quoting it here. At least then I'll know what it is I'm supposed to see instead of guessing. And while you're at it, you can also tell us which part is the lie.
Tell wolf how you feel!
May 30, 2008 - 20:43 ET by dronetekGo tell him what a moron he is.
http://www.cnn.com/f...
Thanks Dronetech, but I don't wanna dis-allusion CNN into
May 30, 2008 - 22:27 ET by JayTeeThink that they have an Audience, by sending them a nasty E-mail.
CNN is the News Network that Paid for Access to Saddam in Iraq, by filtering what kind of Iraq stories they would broadcast..... as a pre-requisite to having a CNN connection in Iraq.
Kill a few thousand Iraquis', no story, no problem Saddam....Blow up one American Military Vehicle and Kill Americans, and it's all over the CNN headlines.....WIN A WAR, and the News Reports from IRaq Dry up.
Wolf who ? I worry more about Cow Flatulance than Blitzo....he doesn't appear on my Event Horizon.
Besides "HE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH !!"
As much as I know that Wolf
May 30, 2008 - 21:15 ET by fitzfongAs much as I know that Wolf Blitzer is a willing tool of the left (especially the Clintonoids), I can't say that I see much wrong with his line of questioning here. McClellan is looking for an easy ride on the talk show circuit. He's hoping that he can escape the promotional tour looking tough enough on the Administration to placate the left and sell books, yet soft enough on the Administration so he can salvage the one or two on the right who'd still at least cross the street to spit on his shoes. Wolfie may be coming at this with a predictable liberal bias, but at least he's not letting this charlatan off the hook to have it both ways. That's worthy of applause.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
I agree fitz.I think you
May 30, 2008 - 21:25 ET by the curatorI agree fitz.
I think you and I commented on this yesterday with Viera's questioning.
I've seen a few of McClellan's interviews now... and he seems to be doing the same thing (go figure, a fmr spokesperson using talking points)... he keeps saying "as I say in the book" and "I write about this..."
And he won't say 'lie.' Whether or not you or I believe the administration lied is a different argument. But, McClellan obviously does - he just doesn't have the cajones to come out and say it directly. That's what Wolfe was going after. A solid statement of McClellan's position instead of dancing around it. And - as I think you agree - you have to give any reporter credit for trying to get it out of him.
The whole bit about the 'war crimes...' I thought it was a bit of a stretch. But, Conyers has come out and said he may want hearings... th WH has already said it would try to block them... and we're talking about alleged lies in a run up to a war. Yes, 'war crimes' may be a stretch, but you can logically say the question can be raised. Exlpored deeply... I wouldn't think so. But, the question can at least be legitimately floated out there.
Going back to McClellan for a sec... I find it ironic that he keeps saying he has 'come clean' about everything when he really isn't. If he wanted to come clean, he'd actually use the word 'lie' instead of euphamisms (sp).
McClellan is looking for an easy ride on the talk show circuit. He's hoping that he can escape the promotional tour looking tough enough on the Administration to placate the left and sell books, yet soft enough on the Administration so he can salvage the one or two on the right who'd still at least cross the street to spit on his shoes.
BTW, that's maybe the best analysis I've read on McC so far.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Thanks, curator. Under
May 30, 2008 - 22:05 ET by fitzfongThanks, curator. Under the circumstances, it would be easy for some of these journalists to allow McClellan to simply dangle this rather loaded implication unchallenged. That way, he could maintain the status of "whistleblower" while having enough plausible deniability to still claim he never accused the Administration of lying. He's straddling a fence he's not entitled to straddle and at least Blitzer and Vieira have enough integrity to make his position on the fence more uncomfortable.
And, by the way, as much as I hate the public grandstanding this Congress has engaged in, I really hope they do haul McClellan before the committee. Cards on the table...it's time to call his bluff.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
"Whether or not you or I
May 30, 2008 - 22:05 ET by ckc1227"Whether or not you or I believe the administration lied is a different
argument. But, McClellan obviously does - he just doesn't have the
cajones to come out and say it directly."
Nor the proof to back it up, unless he's keeping it to himself, which I doubt. Anyone who could provide that proof would be set for life.
Wolf has succeeded in
May 30, 2008 - 21:59 ET by SnappyWolf has succeeded in showing himself as a two bit hack pandering to the left.
Bob Dole on the other hand has shown himself to be a very handy and adept wordsmith.
Self defense
May 30, 2008 - 22:26 ET by ScrapironI see a lot of left wing hacks who had better become self defense experts fast. Millions of people will stomp their pudgy a**e* into the cracks in the sidewalk if they ever meet them on the street.
The WMD rants started on Slick's watch and congress passed whatever congress passes authorizing the removal of Saddam. (lately they don't pass anything that makes sense) I have a list of at least 50 quotes from these same idiots saying Saddam had WMD and Saddam must go. They didn't have the balls to do it and and now their ego is wounded because someone did. Cowards and backstabbers to the core. Just like the loss of the election in 2000, the democrats can't stand that someone is 'better' than they are. I consider any wino on the street better than 99% of them.
Can't people get it through their heads that the idiots of the country will write books of fantasy and lies as long as the left wing idiots buy them.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Watching Anderson Cooper
May 30, 2008 - 23:48 ET by jaywlCooper is picking up after Blitzer, asking McClellan if the President owes the American people an apology. Cooper even has the guts to say every day he reflects on whether or not he has shown bias! Best of all he said that since the press secretary is a civil servant his job was not to serve the President but to always tell the American people the "truth". What an idiot. If the Press Secretary knew what the "truth" was on all things who would need the President, or a Priest, or judges!
Cooper is really chewing him up, though. Poor Scott, born with idealism. By that I mean that based on the answers he has given here and elsewhere, I believe McClellan really thought his book would expose the evil ways of Washington and what it has done to a good man from Texas. He had no idea the book, defined for him, is about the lying, deceitful bumbler who has killed thousands of people. Poor Scott, he still has no idea what Washington is about. When the MSM are finished with him, he will return to Texas, count his money, and disappear.
Hey jaywl... I saw some
May 30, 2008 - 23:56 ET by bigtimerHey jaywl...
I saw some of that chewing up Scottie was getting, enjoying it too...went elsewhere and my husband had the audicity to turn the channel..he's got a hold of the clicker...how dare he!
LOL!
I'll have to catch the rerun later, if I do that is...
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Wolf Blitzed
May 31, 2008 - 11:29 ET by rammingspeedWolf Blitzer is a cookie cutter twerp who is sent out to ask inflammatory questions intended create the kind of hiss needed by CNN et al to have the stories they want. The fact is, McClellan's book contains nothing new, and nothing headed toward proving Bush did bad things, and everything he say has already been picked over for years by Bush haters, in the hopes of getting someone to provide a smoking gun. No smoking gun exists - not because bad things have been so well hidden, but because they didn't happen - and Wolf and his fellow pissants on the extreme/silly left are tilting at windmills.
This book buzz will fade as people catch on that it's just warmed over warmed over.