He’s not bad, just misunderstood..

by Paul on May 25, 2005

Poor Scott McClellan. He tries and tries, and still the press keep misunderstanding him, and mischaracterizing what he’s said. It is odd that someone paid to be the most visible spokesperson on the planet would have a problem making himself understood; perhaps it’s the fault of the “liberal media”.

Scott McClellan, at a White House press briefing on Monday, May 23d:

Q One other question. Karzai was quite definite in saying that he didn’t believe that the violence in Afghanistan was directly tied to the Newsweek article about Koran desecration. Yet, from this podium, you have made that link. So –

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I don’t think you’re actually characterizing what was said accurately.

Scott McClellan, at a White House press briefing on Tuesday, May 17th:

Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it’s what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of “link” is. Some would think a) “the article had serious consequences”, followed immediately by b) “people did lose their lives”, is making a link, perhaps even a causal one. But apparently, they’d be wrong.

If you read on, Scott tries to say he was always saying that the article was used to incite violence by people who didn’t need the article to incite violence, a formulation that, while probably true, makes his criticism of Newsweek even stupider. Presumably the riots would have happened without the article, right? That is the whole point of what Karzai was saying. And really, what’s the circulation of Newsweek in Afghanistan?

Poor Scottie is also being misunderstood about the Downing Street Memo. Eric Brewer, the “blogger in the briefing room,” keeps trying to ask him about it.

Scott, last week you said that claims in the leaked Downing Street memo that intelligence was being fixed to support the Iraq War as early as July 2002 are “flat-out wrong.” According to the memo, which was dated July 23, 2002, and whose authenticity has not been disputed by the British Government, both Foreign Minister Jack Straw and British Intelligence Chief Sir Richard Dearlove said that the President had already made up his mind to invade Iraq. Dearlove added that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Do you think these two very senior officials of our closest ally were ‘flat-out wrong?’ And if so, how could they have been so misinformed after their conversations with George Tenet and Condoleezza Rice?

The response:

Let me correct you on the – let me correct you on the characterization of the quote you attributed to me. I’m referring to some of the allegations that were made referring to a report. In terms of the intelligence, the – if anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that’s all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence.

And in terms of the intelligence, it was wrong, and we are taking steps to correct that and make sure that in the future we have the best possible intelligence, because it’s critical in this post-September 11th age, that the executive branch has the best intelligence possible.

So, see, he wasn’t saying that the Downing Street Memo was “flat out wrong“, he was some of the things someone was saying about some report somewhere were “flat out wrong.” I’m surprised he hasn’t asked for a retraction from CNN for their story that started

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Claims in a recently uncovered British memo that intelligence was “being fixed” to support the Iraq war as early as mid-2002 are “flat out wrong,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday.

McClellan insisted the process leading up to the decision to go to war was “very public” — and that the decision to invade in March 2003 was taken only after Iraq refused to comply with its “international obligations.”

See, that’s where it gets confusing: if the Downing Street Memo says the decision was already made in July of 2002, but Scottie insists the decision wasn’t made until 2003, you’d think he was calling the memo itself “flat out wrong.” But that would be an incorrect characterization.

Hmm. Again the deep subtlety of Mr. McClellan’s epistemology eludes me. I’ll need to go review my Wittgenstein.

But, whether or not there is anything wrong with the memo, he’s sure that “the intelligence, it was wrong.” Until a few days from now when someone asks him about it, when that will be an incorrect characterization of what he said.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: