2
   

McClellan takes back comments on NW story, denys saying it.

 
 
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:45 am
Quote:
McClellan Backs Away from Claims that 'Newsweek' Story Cost Afghan Lives

Published: May 24, 2005 1:10 PM ET

NEW YORK At a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, pressed by reporters and with Afghan President Karzai in disagreement, retreated on claims that Newsweek's retracted story on Koran abuse cost lives in Afghanistan.

He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, "people have lost their lives." On May 17, he said, "People did lose their lives," and, "People lost their lives" due to the Newsweek report.

Here is the transcript from the latest White House press briefing:

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 --

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

Q: By whom?

McCLELLAN: As I said last week, and as President Karzai said today, and as General Myers had said previously, the protest may well have been pre-staged. The discredited report was damaging. It was used to incite violence. But those who espouse an ideology of hatred and oppression and murder don't need an excuse to incite violence. But the reports from the region showed how this story was used to incite violence.

Q: But Karzai seemed to think that that wasn't what led to the violence, that it was --

McCLELLAN: That's right, he actually -- he talked about -- President Karzai spoke about how the demonstrations were aimed at undercutting the progress being made toward democracy in Afghanistan, and the progress on elections. They have elections coming up soon. And I spoke about that, as well, last week.

Q: So could it be said that the Newsweek article played a role, but was not --

McCLELLAN: John, I think we've made our views known when it comes to the discredited report. There are some that want to continue to defend what is a discredited report that has been disavowed by Newsweek, and that's their business. We're perfectly willing to trust the American people to make their own judgment about it.

Q: Who's doing that, exactly?

McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q: Who wants to defend it?

McCLELLAN: Well, you can see in the media coverage, there are some that want to continue to do that.


SOURCE


Man, this guy is a douche. (thx, D'artagnan, I was typing fast)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 849 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:52 am
Um, I think the word is "douche" but I agree...Though I think that goes with the territory (and I work in PR).
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:54 am
The worst part is that he is just typical of what can be found.

Quote:

McCLELLAN: As I said last week, and as President Karzai said today, and as General Myers had said previously, the protest may well have been pre-staged. The discredited report was damaging. It was used to incite violence. But those who espouse an ideology of hatred and oppression and murder don't need an excuse to incite violence. But the reports from the region showed how this story was used to incite violence.


So McClellan actually thinks that Newsweek used the story to incite violence?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:57 am
No, he thinks that others used the Newsweek story to incite violence.

And that's how they justify chilling the press; saying that the violence is caused by the people who report it, and not by the people who did the actions in the first place. Truly crazy stuff.

After all, all one has to do is look at the FBI's own statements from 2002:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/25/11637/2792

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:43 am
oh, feel silly to have missed the wording.

Even though the dailykos is dismissed around here; interesting information.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:44 pm
Quote:
He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, "people have lost their lives." On May 17, he said, "People did lose their lives," and, "People lost their lives" due to the Newsweek report.


We see the quote of him saying people died but not what was said before or after and the only time we see Newsweek listed is by the author outside of the quote marks. How about a full quote so that we can see the full context of what was said.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:03 pm
Baldimo wrote:
We see the quote of him saying people died but not what was said before or after and the only time we see Newsweek listed is by the author outside of the quote marks. How about a full quote so that we can see the full context of what was said.

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.

And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.

Source
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:42 pm
Nowhere in his comments does he directly blame Newsweek for the violence. He does state that they harmed the image of the US and they should move to help correct that image.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:47 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Nowhere in his comments does he directly blame Newsweek for the violence. He does state that they harmed the image of the US and they should move to help correct that image.


Which takes us right back to the justified criticism that Mr. McClellan is attempting to suggest that Newsweek is responsible for the consequences of actions for which the administration is responsible. Newsweek could not blacken the reputation of the United States in the world were there not evidence that people are tortured and abused in American custody--no abuse, no story. Whatever happened, by the way, to the concept that "the buck stops here?"
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:54 pm
What ever happened to the media being responsible for what they publish? Is this going to be another Rathergate issue with you? Something was published wrong and the only people to blame are the ones on power? The media can publish anything they want and not have any type consequence?

Newsweek did screw up and you are the one trying to push the buck around.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:06 pm
So you are contending that Newsweek was factually incorrect in reporting that the abuse of the Quran, which was known to be patently offensive to the "detainees," did occur? What an odd position for you to take. You're the one who got up on a soap box to declare that Newsweek is responsible for ruining America's reputation in the world--do you now deny that these people have ever been abused by Americans?

You are the one who will not recognize that the buck stops in the Oval Office. No abuse, no story.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:56 pm
So because it has happened before every story that is told without any supporting data must be true? Where does the research and footwork come into place for the media?

You accept everything said that is negative about the US don't you? Do you hold all media outlets to the same standards or just those that slam the US without proof? Be specific on this one not the general reports of abuse. Put the brush away and think first.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:06 am
Baldimo wrote:
So because it has happened before every story that is told without any supporting data must be true? Where does the research and footwork come into place for the media?


Reports of prisoner abuse and specifically of abuse of the Quran were reported long before Newsweek timidly tried to make it more widely known in the United States--that part of your argument, like the rest of it is founded upon your ignorance of anything in the news that you didn't hear on Fox. Newsweek had supporting data, and they tried to vet it with a source inside government, who first told them yes, and then got cold feet afterward, when it became apparent that the witch hunt was going to start up. Kind of hard to see that, though, with your eyes closed.

Quote:
You accept everything said that is negative about the US don't you?


No, i don't. I have consistently defended the United States from unwarranted criticism in these fora. Only a complete sh!t would suggest that i am unpatriotic and constantly criticize the United States. I have consistently criticized the Shrub and his Forty Thieves. Although it pains me mightily to crush your illusion, GWB=USA is a completely false premise.

Quote:
Do you hold all media outlets to the same standards or just those that slam the US without proof?


I have already specifically addressed this question, so keep snotty imperatives like this . . .

Quote:
Be specific on this one not the general reports of abuse. Put the brush away and think first.


. . . to yourself.

You contend that Newsweek had no proof, but that is completely at variance with the event as it has been examined in detail in the press right around the globe since the middle of this month. Newsweek did not retract their story because they acknowledged having no proof, they retracted it because the source to whom they went for confirmation changed his story. And really, that an employee of this administration would talk out of both sides of his mouth should surprise no one.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:11 am
Baldimo wrote:
You accept everything said that is negative about the US don't you? Do you hold all media outlets to the same standards or just those that slam the US without proof? Be specific on this one not the general reports of abuse. Put the brush away and think first.



Careful there Baldimo. Your desperation is showing. I have no qualms about admitting Newsweek screwed up. We all know that. This post was about that POS McClellan and his actions. We already have a Newsweek bashing thread. Don't track that crap in here, trying to change the subject.

And Setana already put you in your place with the quote, but I have access to Westlaw (legal research tool), and I'll just toss two more out there for you (I can't link to Westlaw, but I had the choice of hundreds of newspaper articles to pull these quotes from).

Quote:
TERRY MORAN, ABC NEWS: You've 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?

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives.


And here's another:
Quote:
SCOTT MCCLELLAN: "This was a report based on a single anonymous source that could not substantiate the allegation that was made. The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."


We all know he was talking about newsweek. Just admit it and let it go. NW screwed up by posting that story. He screwed up by jumping so fast to blame NW for the deaths.


Anyway, its pretty clear McClellan got
http://img95.echo.cx/img95/4595/ownedbasketball2on.jpg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:23 am
Wicked, wicked, wicked . . .


You are a very bad man . . .

. . . and damned funny into the bargain . . .
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:50 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McClellan takes back comments on NW story, denys saying it.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/26/2021 at 03:04:38