Dana Don’t Know! Q The U.S. military conducted 19 focus groups throughout Iraq last November, and its report on those focus groups stated that Iraqis from every ethnic and sectarian group are united in the belief that the U.S. invasion is the root cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq, and that the departure of the U.S. military is the key to national reconciliation. And I wondered, has the President seen the military’s report on those focus groups? MS. PERINO: I don’t know if he has. I haven’t either, and I’d refer you to DOD because I don’t know the … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Shorter Dana Peroxide: I’m Not A Statistician

Q We’re coming on to the fifth anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, and two years ago the President summed up the number of Iraqis possibly dead as a result of that to 30,000. Do you have any new estimate now for summing up of this war?

MS. PERINO: I don’t with me, Helen, no.

[snip]

Q A British research organization said about a million Iraqis have died as a result.

MS. PERINO: I don’t know if that’s accurate.

Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”

Dana Peroxide Is Back, Just In Time For Another Helenization

Q Is the President’s position that he would veto it without retroactive immunity?

MS. PERINO: That has been his position for a long time, and the reason is because you can’t have — without the cooperation of the companies, we won’t have a program

[snip]

Q Who gave them the right to break the law?

MS. PERINO: Nobody broke the law, Helen. That might be your opinion, but nobody broke the law.

Q When these companies — when no warrant is given, and they didn’t break the law?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own set of facts.

Q Oh, come on, let’s —

MS. PERINO: And the facts are that companies were asked to help, and they were helped —

Q Why can’t they get —

MS. PERINO: — and they allowed — they helped with a legal program that has helped save lives.

Q Who told them they could break the law?

MS. PERINO: That is just — that’s not true, Helen.

Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”

Oh, Lord.Snott Stanzel Blames The Trial Lawyers

Q Okay, and one quick follow up on that. As I understand it, the sticking point is really about retroactive immunity for the telecoms, not prospective immunity. So help me understand the administration’s argument that without this retroactive immunity, the telecoms would be reluctant in the future to cooperate with a surveillance request. If prospective immunity is already assured, I don’t understand how retroactive immunity has any effect.

MR. STANZEL: Well, retroactive immunity is something that the DNI has spoken regularly about. He spoke last weekend about it on one of the Sunday programs. And it’s important that we provide that retroactive immunity for companies that were alleged to have helped after the 9/11 attacks.

What we have is a situation now where the Protect America Act was let to expire, calls into question prospective retroactive — or prospective immunity. And the more uncertainty there are on these issues, the less willing these companies are going to be, presumably, to put their shareholders at risk of these multi-billion dollar lawsuits.

Q But let’s assume it was passed with prospective immunity — which is had, you know, six months ago — but retroactive immunity wasn’t there. Wouldn’t that solve the concerns?

MR. STANZEL: We have always been supportive of providing retroactive immunity to the companies that felt a patriotic duty to help their country in the aftermath of the most significant terrorist attack in the history of this nation. We think that’s important.

The opposing arguments for that I assume are because they want trial lawyers to be able to sue those companies. We don’t think that’s right. We think that we should provide that immunity and we think that that’s necessary.

Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”