Press Aggression

What was the deal with the White House Press corps today? When did they grow a spine? The story of Matt Cooper's e-mails naming Karl Rove as his source outing Valerie Plame from the CIA broke last week, yet no one even mentioned it to Scott McClellan the whole time they were in Scotland together. Were they afraid that the White House would get pissed about it and make them buy their own plane ticket home? Were they afraid Bush might put in a bad word with Bono and they wouldn't get their copy of Joshua Tree autographed? Was one Newsweek story not enough? Did they need to wait for a second Newsweek article, a page one story in The Washington Post, and a New York Times story buried deep inside? Apparently so. That doesn't bode well for this story having legs. No matter what the lefty bloggers do, if the liberal media doesn't continue the story, the Bush people are going to succeed with the stonewall that not even the Nixon Administration could pull off. Democrats can continue to call for investigations, but as the minority party in both houses, unless they can keep the liberal media interested, the story dies out in a couple of days. The most optimistic prediction I've heard so far comes from Garance Franke-Ruta at TAPPED:

If there is one thing that reporters hate, it's being played for patsies. McClellan has publicly humiliated some of the most prominent reporters in the country by persistently feeding them information that has now been revealed to be false, and I'm pretty darn sure that they are not going to grant him any favors and extend him the benefit of the doubt in the future. Talk about the last in a long line of straws!

Maybe this time it's personal, but the White House press corps have been willing participants in their humiliation all along. Nothing has come out in the last couple of days that wasn't sitting waiting to be dug up by some intrepid reporter who was willing to get just a little bit aggressive, but clearly no one wanted to. But if the press is willing to continue dogging this story now, I'm not going to complain about impure motivations.

No matter what turn all this takes tomorrow or the day after, we've still got today's press performance in which the liberal media conveys its displeasure to Scott McClellan. There are a number of highlights, but I'll just start with the first question and answer:

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Scotty held on to that nonresponse response with each new challenge, but it wasn't long until the press tired of that approach.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

. . .

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Clearly this all knocked McClellan off his game. Here's his reply to a query about a story from London on Sunday and in The Washington Post this morning on U.S. and UK plans for significant troop reductions in Iraq by early 2006:

Q A secret British memo says plans are underway for a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq early next year. Does the President agree with those plans? And even though he doesn't want to give an exact date --

MR. McCLELLAN: Who? Who has a plan? I'm sorry.

Will the press keep up the pressure on McClellan tomorrow? He can probably expect unpleasant encounters for a couple more days, but we'll have to see whether the new spine transplant takes or if the body of the press will reject it.