LULU by John Linton Roberson (c) 2012.
I Didn't Write That!
24 May 2005
 
That's My Line, You Chinless Little Weasel!

Scott McClennan apparently has a flawed understanding of current media recording technology, because in his White House press briefing today he tried to say he didn't say something he, well, said, at length, on as many media outlets as he and the right-wing radical smear machine could. And now, he has given us a cue to forget. It's too bad it's all on tape, and you have to wonder just what grade of coke these folks are snorting to give them such an illusion of balls.

And what an unprofessional little weasel he is. Compare him to the likes of Ari Fleischer. If you're a reporter, Ari was horrible, but it isn't the press secretary's job --if you've ever seen an episode of the West Wing you see this illustrated again and again--to do anything but spin. And from that perspective, Ari was an evil genius. He was a wall of stone. And he did not go on a prolonged vendetta against, for instance, Bill Maher when it came Ari's turn to intimidate the press into silence. He knew just one sentence and one suggestion were enough and he let corporate media timidity do the rest. Now that's a bastard. Recently Ari was on the Daily Show and managed to get Stewart from pleasantly hostile to seeming as though he'd like to lick Ari's balls within about two minutes, and all it took was a harmless admission that he had been evasive with the press, which is like saying that Saddam Hussein was a bit on the authoritarian side.

Whereas little Scott is rather inelegant, clumsy and sad by comparison. He came at Newsweek roaring like a grizzly with so much overconfidence that the press cowered in surprise. Here he was actually blaming the magazine for deaths in the riots in Afghanistan, because they reported that interrogators at Gitmo had tormented prisoners by desecrating the Koran.

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, it's -- this report has had serious consequences. It has caused damage to the image of the United States abroad. It has -- people have lost their lives. It has certainly caused damage to the credibility of the media, as well, and Newsweek, itself.

The mere assertion that this was so was enough for the Masochistic Mainstream Media to run with. Soon after, Newsweek retracted only a small part of the story--that this was to be in a now-published report on treatment of prisoners at Guatanamo--but it didn't matter; the perception was planted that Newsweek had crumbled and was defeated and the Radical Right Message Machine has been chastising them ever since. Of course, lots of other stories similar to that one were published before and proliferated after the slapdown. But, like the issue of Bush's lack of service to this country, now any future stories of torture would be discredited. Even better, one more bit of outdated revenge no one else cares about: as the magazine is owned by the Washington Post, Nixon gets his revenge from beyond the grave. An elephant never forgets.

McClennan even felt emboldened to tell Newsweek and the press what to report to make the emperor happy:

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.

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them.

Fox, in a strangely paternalistic and condescending tone(even for them), on Hannity & Colmes soon afterward, referred to a Washington Post article on the same subject as "bad behavior." They were oddly emboldened. Then you look at the filibuster battle, and at least in that case, they were gearing up for something, and perhaps their boldness in telling the press, explicitly, what to write might be cross-referenced with this.

The filibuster fight, fundamentally, wasn't about judges, abortion, the Supreme Court or any of that, though it would have enabled previously unimaginable conservative agendas to get their way in all these areas and more. It was about the final GOP consolidation of power. Ironically, though in the Senate the filibuster is a tool of the minority, the fight against it was in aid of a minority in the country at large, the Radical Religious Right, and its wish to impose its absolutist views on us all if it so wishes--or anything it so wishes.

Without the filibuster, the GOP would have been able to rule by fiat, for all intents and purposes. They would have been able to rubber-stamp anything James Dobson or the like wanted, and instantly pass any legislation they wished. And we've already seen that, given the chance, they're not at all conservative about what they want to make into laws. They're also not about issues that matter a shit to any of us.

They were very sure that sometime today they would have destroyed the legislative branch and been well on their way to destroying the judiciary. Frist was about as smugly confident as you could imagine, even feeling free to say that Democrats were trying to "assassinate" the judicial nominees and having the balls to say this exactly at the same time as Judge Joan Lefkow, whose family was murdered by a guy with a grudge, said this in a nearby chamber:
I ask you to publicly and persistently repudiate gratuitous attacks on the judiciary such as the recent statement of Pat Robertson on national television and, unfortunately, of some members of the Congress, albeit in more measured terms. We need your help in tempering the tone of the debates that concern the independence of the judiciary. I have come to know scores of judges during my 22 years as a magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, and district judge. Whether liberal or conservative, I have never encountered a judge in the federal judiciary who can remotely be described as posing a threat "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous. It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a cause and effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or the fringe, to exact revenge on a judge who ruled against them.
But their hubris continued unabated. No doubt they already had a Christmas list of items to push into law on Wednesday. They were so close to absolute power they could taste it, and they thought the Democrats were taking the bait of these judges. Cheney, almost salivating, said he'd be glad to break any ties, and Bush kept up thre belligerent pressure.

And then the moderates said "Enough of this childish shit," and gave them blue balls.

You can tell it was really them that lost in this compromise, because they've been shrieking about it in the MSM and the Blogosphere like the truly cockblocked always do for the past 24 hours, some swearing vengeance on McCain, others on Frist. Though they got three of their judges, what they really wanted was to trick everyone into a major structural change in the Senate, and that was stolen from them.

Any compromise is a tragic and grievous loss to the RRR, and you'd think they want to cause civil war over this madness. But polls say nobody cares about their squabble, and though the likes of Priscilla Owen will get through, the Senate remains the Senate, rather than the Reichstag.

Worse, the president of Afghanistan comes to the White House and says straight out that Newsweek had nothing to do with the riots and deaths, explaining the fact that somehow the MSM never picked up, that it was related to recent elections there. He stood right next to a no doubt very uncomfortable

And right away, McClennan doesn't so much repudiate what he said as feign amnesia:

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.

Q By whom?

MR. 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 --

MR. 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 --

MR. 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Who wants to defend it?

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

Sorry for remembering what you were blaring in our face for an entire week, Scott.

Now--why the sudden slinking away? Could it be that Scott thought that by today he'd be able to tell the press what to write? Even more interestingly, after being caught in such blatant bullshit and then showing such weakness, how long will he remain useful as a press secretary? How long do those guys last when they themselves become the story? And what kind of enemy has he created unnecessarily in Newsweek?

I expect within four weeks, tops, that a story will appear in Newsweek telling us exactly who homosexual prostitute/typist Jeff Gannon was visiting in the White House(as the logs indicate) all those times that there were no press conferences scheduled. It would be particularly fitting if Michael Isikoff, not only the target of the White House smear but also previously beloved by cons as the man who broke the Monica Lewinsky story, were the one to report it.

Have any of you considered what just almost happened--and may have only been delayed till this summer, when the Supreme Court battle will begin and "extraordinary circumstances" may ensue--and what exactly any of us would have done had a dictatorship begun today?

'Cause it could have.

"What are you going to do about it?"--Thomas Nast.

Labels: , , ,

 
Comments:

Post a Comment





<< Home
"Eternity in the company of Beelzebub, and all of his hellish instruments of death, will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me & this pencil."
--E. Blackadder, 1789

JLRoberson Self-Portrait 2005.
Questionable words & pictures from John Linton Roberson

FOR MATURE READERS in most cases

NEW RELEASE!

LULU Book 1 by John Linton Roberson introduction by Martin Pasko
LULU Book 1 (2013) 
with an introduction by Martin Pasko

Amazon | Createspace | Comixology


Features:
Frank Wedekind's LULU
SUZY SPREADWELL
VLADRUSHKA (adults only)
STORY OF OH!(2008) Written by Charles Alverson (adults only)
MARTHA(2009)

COMICS
WORDS
PORTFOLIO
CONTACT
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
OPEN SALON
COMIXOLOGY
AMAZON SHOP
ABOUT
CREATESPACE STORE
DEVIANTART GALLERY
PRINTS & MORE
ORIGINAL ART FOR SALE
COMMISSIONS

Interviews/Discussions:

ROBB ORR
April 2013: LULU Book 1 Interview at Comics Forge 

DECONSTRUCTING COMICS


New! April 2013: Lulu”- Staging a classic on paper - interview by Tim Young.
August 2012: Flex Mentallo - discussion with Troy Belford.
January 2012: Comics Events - discussion with Tim Young
.
May 2011: Theatre and Comics - interview by Tim Young.




JOEY MANLEY
August 2006 at Talkaboutcomics.com

AUSTIN ENGLISH 
Sept. 2001 at Spark-Online



BUY MY BOOKS OR CATS WILL EAT YOU






Stuff About My Work









Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]


Archives
October 2002 / November 2002 / February 2003 / March 2003 / April 2003 / May 2003 / June 2003 / July 2003 / August 2003 / September 2003 / October 2003 / November 2003 / January 2004 / February 2004 / March 2004 / April 2004 / May 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 / January 2012 / February 2012 / March 2012 / April 2012 / May 2012 / June 2012 / July 2012 / August 2012 / September 2012 / October 2012 / November 2012 / December 2012 / January 2013 / February 2013 / March 2013 / April 2013 / May 2013 / June 2013 / July 2013 / August 2013 / September 2013 / October 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / May 2014 / June 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / October 2014 / December 2014 / February 2015 / March 2015 / June 2015 / July 2015 / August 2015 / September 2015 / October 2015 / November 2015 / December 2015 / January 2016 / February 2016 / March 2016 / April 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / August 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 / April 2017 / May 2017 / June 2017 / July 2017 / August 2017 / September 2017 / October 2017 / January 2018 / March 2018 / April 2018 / May 2018 / June 2018 / July 2018 / August 2018 / September 2018 / October 2018 / November 2018 / December 2018 / January 2019 / February 2019 / March 2019 / June 2019 / October 2019 / March 2020 / April 2020 / August 2020 / October 2020 / November 2020 /

Powered by Blogger