McClellan Offers Classic Non-Denial Denial to NY Daily News Story

[sabra]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/19/breaking-non-denial/

McClellan Offers Classic Non-Denial Denial to NY Daily News Story
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked this morning about the New York Daily News story suggesting Bush admonished Rove two years ago for leaking Plame’s identity.

A reporter who attended the White House gaggle this morning reported that McClellan offered a shifty response:

In response to a question about a story in the “New York Daily News” which reported that the president was angry with Karl Rove in 2003 over his role in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name as a CIA operative, McClellan would only say that he would not comment on an ongoing investigation. McClellan went on to say that he challenges the overall accuracy of the story. When pressed on giving an answer to why he challenges the accuracy of the story, McClellan answered again that he would not comment on an ongoing investigation.


If the conversation between Rove and Bush never happened, why can’t McClellan just say so?

[Greeby]

1. Ahem

"All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate" Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards), All the President's Men

:eyes:

[ewagner]

2. He can't just say so

if the conversation actually occurred, or, if he doesn't know if the conversation actually occurred because he can't take the chance that somebody who DOES KNOW about the conversation will eventually talk to the press (or maybe already has talked to the press).

He's treading on thin ice if he knows that the conversation did, in fact, take place....he can't deny it but his loyalty to the Administration means he can't confirm it either.

[yellowcanine]

3. "challenges the overall accuracy " Translation: George wasn't angry

because Rove outed Plame, he was angry because Rove didn't do it without getting caught.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. We can neither confirm or deny

why can't he just say that and be done with it?

(For anybody who has served or has relatives you know EXACTLY what this means)

[napi21]

5. Scotty can't answer ANY questions, or he'll have to answer them all!

You've heard about how "exercising your 5th ammend. rights" when subpoenaed means you can't answer ANY questions except your name and maybe some incidental things like position, address etc? Well, I suspect the WH attys told Scotty he cannot answer ANY questions, even the straight forward ones, or he'd open up a fight as to why he answered this one and not that one, etc.

I don't care much for Scotty, but I believe the hardest job in any administration is the Press Secretary!

[sabra]

7. ding ding ding!

I think you are right on.

[sabra]

6. ...