Today on Holden’s Obsession with the Gaggle

From Holden:

Little Scottie-No-Answer was in fine form today.

Q Scott, did the President talk to Karl Rove two years ago about the leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: Steve, I appreciate the question. That’s a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and I’m just not going to have further comment while that investigation is underway.

Q Because The New York Daily News says the President rebuked Rove two years ago.

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of news reports out there and I’ve seen a lot of conflicting news reports, and we’re just not going to comment any further on an ongoing investigation.

Q It behooves you to.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there’s a special prosecutor doing his work, Helen, and we want him to come to a successful conclusion. And that’s what we’re doing, is cooperating —

Q This is a question that directly affects the President, and —

MR. McCLELLAN: — cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

Q — you should say it’s true, or not true.

MR. McCLELLAN: As you have known for sometime now, we’ve been saying that while this is an ongoing investigation what we’re going to do from the White House is cooperate fully with that investigation and let the special prosecutor do his work. We’re not going to speculate or prejudge the outcome.

Q We’re not asking you to speculate. We’re asking you, is this report true or not.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I’ve already answered that.

Go ahead, Kelly.

OK, so Scottie is not going to reveal that the President lied to the Special Counsel. Fair enough, but can he answer a simple question about incoming mail?

Q Can you tell us if any White House staff members, or people who work for the Vice President, or anyone who works for this administration has received a target or a subject letter from the prosecutor?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, a couple of things. That’s questions relating to an ongoing investigation. Those are questions you need to direct to the investigator. We’re just not going to comment further.

Go ahead, Connie.

Mail call is out of bounds, too, I see. Ooookay, but can Scottie tell us if outing a CIA agent is a bad thing?

Q One more try again on the CIA’s situation, not the investigation, per se, but does the administration consider it a serious matter to have revealed the name of a covert agent, even if inadvertent?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s a question relating to the investigation, so I’m going to pass on that.

What about Harriet Miers’ role?

Q Scott, yesterday you told us that Harriet Miers had been very involved in the leak investigation as White House Counsel. Back in 2003, she held a couple of other positions: Staff Secretary, I think Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Has she been involved in any way in the investigation as a witness?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and I’ve said all I’m going to say on it.

OK, we get it. You’re not going to talk. What about when the investigation ends?

Q Another quick question about the end of the investigation. Suppose the prosecutor does — I know it’s speculating — suppose he does not issue a report — he doesn’t have to — would you consider that the end of the investigation? Or if there are indictments, do we have to wait until the end of a trial?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speculate. Let’s wait and see.

Nedra Pickler wants to know how long Chimpy’s Vanity War might last. Do you expect a response?

Q Scott, on Iraq, Secretary Rice is on the Hill today, and she refused to rule out that U.S. troops could be in Iraq even in 10 years. Could the mission there be considered a success if U.S. troops still had to be in Iraq in 10 years?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you’re asking me to speculate about things that are way down the road at this point. What our focus is on is implementing the clear strategy that our commanders on the ground have outlined.


Q Is it possible that the commanders on the ground could come to the President and say, we need to have troops there for another five or 10 years?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate you asking me to speculate. I’ll leave it to our commanders on the ground to talk about the progress that’s being made and talk about the circumstances on the ground. But it will be based on the circumstances on the ground. We are making great progress. As we stand up the Iraqi forces, we’re going to be standing down American forces. And that’s what our strategy is. And they’re making important progress, as our commanders recently said when they came to Washington, D.C. to brief the public and brief members of Congress.

Q So the White House isn’t willing to say that it would be unacceptable for U.S. troops to be there in 10 years?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you’re asking me to speculate about things that are considerably far down the road.

And now, your Daily Les. Less continues to plant his wingtips in Scottie’s amble rectum.

Q Scott, both the AP and the top of page one of this morning’s New York Times report that in 1989, Harriet Miers pledged her support for a constitutional amendment outlawing all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. And my first part of the question —

MR. McCLELLAN: Are you asking me if that’s accurate? It is.

Q No, no, no.


Q Does the President share in this belief that all impregnated victims of gang rape and incest, no matter what their age, should be denied the mercy of an abortion?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, the President has made his views very clear when it comes to protecting the sanctity of life. The President is pro-life, and he is proudly —

Q Even gang rape and incest —

MR. McCLELLAN: He is proudly so. The President is pro-life, with three exceptions, and that’s been his position all along.