Press-ganging
WH spokes-tool Scott McClellan gets own ass handed to him
Q So, Scott - how does the president feel about his low poll numbers? {snicker}
Q That's how much you know: our dear leader doesn't pay attention to polls! {LAUGHTER}
Q Scott, Scott! Has the mission been accomplished yet?
McCLELLAN: Terrist-lovers! {sob...}
Q That's how much you know: our dear leader doesn't pay attention to polls! {LAUGHTER}
Q Scott, Scott! Has the mission been accomplished yet?
McCLELLAN: Terrist-lovers! {sob...}
Sorry. As it turns out, Preznit Playstation had nothing to do with the huge air strike in Iraq yesterday: it was all the military's idea. {snort}
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 US and Iraqi force to mount these kinds of operations, to try to change public opinion in this country?
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?
McCLELLAN: -- and --
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.
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.
McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question?
Q It's a violation of international law.
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.
McCLELLAN: And it's important what September 11th taught us --
Q The heavy emphasis of your paper today is war and preemptive war.
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.
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.
McCLELLAN: September 11th taught us --
Q That was not a threat from Iraq.
Q Are you warning Iran that it has consequences as you did Iraq?
McCLELLAN: 9/11! 9/11! Mushroom clouds!
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?
McCLELLAN: -- and --
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.
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.
McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question?
Q It's a violation of international law.
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.
McCLELLAN: And it's important what September 11th taught us --
Q The heavy emphasis of your paper today is war and preemptive war.
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.
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.
McCLELLAN: September 11th taught us --
Q That was not a threat from Iraq.
Q Are you warning Iran that it has consequences as you did Iraq?
McCLELLAN: 9/11! 9/11! Mushroom clouds!
No comments:
Post a Comment