From Sublime Twistedness to Absurd Bending of the The Law: Just Another Day For Scott McClellan and the W, Rove And Co War Mongers

I've been having fun reading press conference transcripts for a while now. They are perhaps the best source of spin your taxpayer dollars can buy. But today, with the President's approval - well more aptly, disapproval rating - at the bottom of America's shithouse, you have to just marvel at the spin coming out of Scott's mouth. Let's break this down, becuase today was a doosy - bear with me, it's a long, but worthy post at the tail end of the day.

Of course, you know that earlier today, the W, Rove and Co. announced their plan for a "National Security Strategy". But in terms of what's going on in Iraq, where we are giving the bad guys lots of on the job training, here's a legit question:

Q But in terms of making American streets safer, what that's going on in Baghdad, and as reflected in this document, how does that make any street safer in America right now?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're laying the foundations of peace for generations to come. Iraq is a central front in the broader war on terrorism. All you have to do is look at what terrorists like Zawahiri and Zarqawi have said about Iraq. They understand how high the stakes are in Iraq. And by spreading freedom in a troubled region of the world, we're advancing our long-term security for generations to come. This is about laying the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren. The President's number one priority is protecting the American people. And that's why winning in Iraq is so important to our overall efforts to lay that foundation of peace.

Are we really "laying down foundations of peace," or do we largely foment bitter anger and hatred that will spur on generations of new "terrorists" for us to "hunt?"

Every time Scott says something like, "ever since Nine Eleven, we have to fear lurkers and terrorist every where," I think we should ask him this: "But, I thought you said large scale attacks on Iraqi civilians was laying foundations for peace. Don't we have every right to think the terrorist threat level is to go down instead of up given your rosy assessment?"

But really, who authorized the attacks? Karl Rove?

Q Scott, can I ask you a question about this operation underway in Iraq? Does the President think that an offensive like this, high profile, is necessary, in part to turn public opinion around in this country about the war?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, our commanders in the theater have the authorization to make tactical decisions about the operations that they undertake. And there have been a number of operations that have been undertaken over the course of the last several months to really go after the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists who want to return to the past of oppression and tyranny. So this operation is part of our ongoing efforts to help move forward on the security front. And this includes --

Q Are you saying the President specifically did not sign off --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I think the military said that this includes American and Iraqi forces. So what we're continuing to do is train and equip those Iraqi security forces, and also focusing our efforts on the enemy, going after those who are seeking to derail the transition to democracy.

Just today, this morning, less than three years after the decision to go in and remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate the Iraqi people was made, the parliament of a fully constitutional, elected government of Iraq met to begin the process of moving forward on putting in place a national unity government. And the discussions have been going before today, and those discussions continue, but it's important that we continue to act on all fronts that the President outlined for our strategy for victory.

Q You raise the point -- are you saying that the President did not specifically authorize this?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he knows about the operation, he's been briefed on it, but this is a decision that is made by commanders who are in the best position to make the tactical decisions about the operations that are undertaken.

Q Therefore he didn't have to give the go-ahead order, he was just told after the fact.

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to see a successful operation, and we look forward to a successful operation.

Q Can you just clarify that point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q He was told after the decision had been made to do it, or did he have to say, yes, let's do this?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this was not something that he needed to authorize.

Okay, so they are launching missions as needed. Makes sense, but it does make you wonder why now? Oh, and by the way, Scotty didn't really address the question completely. The reporter forges on:

Q But my question -- I'm sorry, but you aren't done with my question, which is, beyond the merits of this particular operation, we are coming to the three-year anniversary of the war. Support for the President is at rock bottom; support for this war is at rock bottom in this country. Does the President think it's important as a show of U.S. and Iraqi force to mount these kinds of operations, to try to change public opinion in this country?

MR. McCLELLAN: I can't accept the premise of your question because this was a decision made by our commanders. And it's important that the commanders have the flexibility to make these type of tactical decisions in order to prevail --

Q But does the President have an opinion on it?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we're making a lot of important progress on the ground in Iraq. But this is a difficult time period. We have seen recent violence and some sectarian strife, sectarian reprisal attacks that have taken place, and what's important is that we continue to move forward on training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. They were the ones who took the lead in the aftermath of the attack on the Golden Mosque and helped to bring about calm and order in much of Iraq.

But what we are going to do is continue to move forward on that strategy for victory, because success in Iraq is critical to our overall efforts.

Incidentially, given that we are talking about the President's lousy public approval rating, what about the notion that heads are rolling off the central team of "do-good-ers?"

Q Scott, just one more. There's been a lot of rumor, as you know, so let me ask you the question straight. Does the President think he needs new blood on his staff, given his political standing?

MR. McCLELLAN: I went through this yesterday; I don't think anything has changed in terms of what I said yesterday.

Q I'm sorry, I wasn't here yesterday. Do you mind just filling me in?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back at the transcripts.

Of course, he didn't answer the question now. Just like yesterday. And here's where Helen steps up to the plate and hits him with the cast iron skillet, several times over - catching Scotty with his pants down around his ankles:

Q Does the President know that he's in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I would just disagree with your assessment. First of all, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign --

Q It's not a long-standing principle with us. It's your principle.

MR. McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question?

Q It's a violation of international law.

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, let me back up, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign policy. It is also part --

Q It's never been.

MR. McCLELLAN: It is also part of an inherent right to self-defense. But what we seek to do is to address issues diplomatically by working with our friends and allies, and working with regional partners. That's what we're doing when it comes to the threat posed by Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. That's what we're doing when it comes to resolving the nuclear issue with North Korea. So we seek diplomatic solutions to confront threats.

And it's important what September 11th taught us --

Q The heavy emphasis of your paper today is war and preemptive war.

MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish responding to your question, because I think it's important to answer your question. It's a good question and it's a fair question. But first of all, are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes and then respond? September 11th --

Q Under international law you have to be attacked first.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, you're not letting me respond to your question. You have the opportunity to ask your question, and I would like to be able to provide a response so that the American people can hear what our view is. This is not new in terms of our foreign policy. This has been a longstanding principle, the question that you bring up. But again, I'll put the question back to you. Are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes before we respond --

Q You had no threat from Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: September 11th taught us --

Q That was not a threat from Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- some important lessons. One important lesson it taught us was that we must confront threats before they fully materialize. That's why we are working to address the threats when it comes to nuclear issues involving Iran and North Korea. That's why we're pursuing diplomatic solutions to those efforts, by working with our friends and allies, by working with regional partners who understand the stakes involved and understand the consequences of failing to confront those threats early, before it's too late.

Q What are the consequences?

MR. McCLELLAN: The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, they are very serious in terms of stability --

Q Are you warning Iran that it has consequences as you did Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what has happened with Iran right now is that the matter has been reported to the United Nations Security Council because the regime in Iran has failed to come into compliance with its safeguard obligations, and they continue to engage in enrichment related activity. And we have supported the efforts of the Europeans to resolve this matter diplomatically, but the regime in Iran continues to pursue the wrong course.

They need to change their behavior. They continue to defy the international community. That's why the matter has been reported to the Security Council. We have now entered a new phase of diplomacy. And there are a lot of discussions going on about how to prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapon capability, or developing nuclear weapons. And that's why those discussions are ongoing.

This is an important issue. It outlines in our national security strategy that this is one of the most serious challenges that we face.

Q Are we threatening Iran with preemptive war?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're trying to resolve this in a diplomatic manner by working with our friends and allies

By the way, who is in charge of the Iraq Conflagration? You might be curious to know that, at least as far as Scotty will tell us, W knows as much about the wartime opperations as he knew about the UAE ports deal before it hit the press. Either that or we shouldn't buy Scotty's answer that there was not connection between these dots:

Q May I ask you about the timing of the operation in Iraq today? The 101st released a press release calling it the biggest air assault since the invasion on the very same day that the White House released the National Security Strategy, and Hadley gives this major speech. Is there any coordination whatsoever?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you this was a decision made by our commanders, so, no.

Q There was no coordination. And is it an intense effort of this administration to show with the press release from the 101st, to call attention to what the U.S. is doing there? Do you think they need to broadcast more effectively what the U.S. is doing in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those are decisions made by the military. You ought to direct those questions to them.

Q So all that is done without consultation with the administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

And now, Suzanne steps up to the plate and swings a big cast iron skillet at the Scotty boy who stil has his shorts around his ankles trying to run circles around the American people:

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Suzanne.

Q Scott, May 1, 2003, President Bush stood in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and announced that major combat operations in Iraq had been completed. In light of the scale and the scope of today's air assault, is that still the case, or are we in a new phase in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, there have been a number of operations that have been undertaken over the last several months, over the last year, to go and root out the terrorists, and to target the regime loyalists. And so this is another operation that is aimed at the area north of Baghdad in the Samara area to go after some insurgents that are in that area as the military pointed out in their statement. But no one said the combat operations weren't ongoing. Those operations continue.

Q Do we expect to hear from the President on this today?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Can we expect to hear from the President on this today?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't expect that.

Q You characterized the largest air assault since the start of the war as a major combat operation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's keep in perspective differences there. I think one was talking about an initial operation that was a major bombing operation, so I think you need to look at it in the context of what this is. And I think the military talked about the aircraft that were involved in transporting American and Iraqi forces to this area to go after the enemy.

Q That's a no, then?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q That's a no?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't think you can characterize it just the way you did. That simplifies it, and there are differences here, I think.

Now Victoria slaps Scotty with her cast iron skillet - not once, but twice. We see that "preemptive striking" is in the eye of the beholder, now isn't it? Which is a good thing it is against the law...but now a part of our "National Strategy:"

Q Scott, in the strategy it says that no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Is this an acknowledgment that not only our country, but other countries have the right to a doctrine of preemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this is focused on what our strategy is and what we are pursuing in terms of our foreign policy, and what we're hoping to accomplish. There are real threats that we face in this day and age. We have seen since September 11th -- fortunately, we have not been attacked again here on our own soil. And that's not just because of luck; it's because of the hard work of men and women in our law enforcement and intelligence community who are working 24/7 to protect the American people and to disrupt attacks before they happen. It's also because of the great efforts of our men and women in uniform who are serving and sacrificing overseas to defend our freedoms.

And by staying on the offensive and going after the terrorists we are keeping them on the run, we are keeping them under pressure, and we are advancing the fight in the war on terrorism. We are no longer on the defensive. I think that I talked about part of an inherent right to self-defense that countries have. And we've seen some countries across the world have been attacked since September 11th from terrorist attacks. And so I think it goes to this very issue that if you're about to be attacked and you know it, then you have an obligation to act and protect your people. The number one priority of this President is the safety and security of the American people, and he is going to continue to act to protect the American people and save lives.

Q So there is an acknowledgment that other countries have the right of adopting a preemptive --

MR. McCLELLAN: Of self-defense? Sure, they have the right of self-defense.

Q Then the question becomes, if you know you're about to be attacked, and yet the strategy acknowledges that we might attack even if there's uncertainty about the intelligence.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we live in a different world, in a post-September 11th world, Victoria, and I think you have to step back and look at how you prevail in the war on terrorism. You prevail in the war on terrorism by fighting this on many fronts and all fronts. That's what we are doing. We're taking the fight to the enemy; we're also enhancing our protections at home to disrupt plots and bring people to justice before they can carry out attacks on the American people.

But we're also fighting the battle of ideas. This is a long-term struggle that we are engaged in against an ideology of hate and oppression. And that's why we're working to advance freedom and democracy. That's why we're partnering with other countries around the world to confront threats before it's too late. That's why we're partnering with other countries around the world to support the advance of freedom and democracy all across the world.

So the larger question then becomes, how good is your intelligence, really?

Q In his speech on Monday, the President claimed that the Iranian government shares a responsibility for anti-coalition attacks in Iraq because, the President said, Tehran is providing the capability for building IEDs used in those attacks. On Tuesday, however, General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he had no evidence of Iranian government involvement in such activities. And Defense Secretary Rumsfeld also declined to stand by the claim. I have two questions. First, isn't it true that the vast majority of attacks on coalition forces are by Sunni --

MR. McCLELLAN: Can I stop you, first of all? I don't think that's what Secretary Rumsfeld did, the way you described it. You said he failed to stand by that. I don't think that's the case. In fact, he talked about it at fairly more length than what you just described.

Q He said that it's impossible to tell where material -- who is really responsible.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he pointed out that it's material coming from -- or components coming from Iran.

Q But he said it's impossible to tell who's responsible.

MR. McCLELLAN: He talked about individuals that are part of Iranian forces that are operating inside -- talked about the example --

Q He said he could not blame the Iranian government on these components coming in.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's make sure what you're saying.

Q Okay. So, first, isn't it true that the vast majority of attacks on coalition forces are by Sunni insurgents who have no connection to Shiite Iran? And two, will the President retract his claim that apparently was not based on accurate intelligence?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's false. That's just -- I don't accept the premise of your question. You're absolutely describing it in a false way. Let's look back at what the President said. The President said that some of the most powerful IEDs -- improvised explosive devices -- we're seeing in Iraq include components from Iran. I don't think there's any conflict with what Secretary Rumsfeld or General Pace said at their press briefing the next day. So you're providing a false premise in your question.

And the President also specifically cited what our Director of National Intelligence said in testimony before Congress back in early February. And so you should go and look at that testimony and look at what he said. But he also talked about how coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. We know that from our intelligence.

Q The President quoted Negroponte as saying that Tehran had provided the capability for building those IEDs.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't see any conflict with what Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace said.

One final question: So, how many times does one have to hit a person with a cast iron skillet before they fall off their high horse...or better yet, we get some kind of impeachment proceedings started?