No More Hugs For McCain?

Q Two quick issues. Senate John McCain was touring a Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans today. He said, “Never again will a disaster be handled in this terrible and disgraceful way.” He was asked specifically to talk about President Bush and how he failed in his Katrina conduct, and he said, “I think everybody knows how it was a failure.” There were unqualified people in charge. There was a total misreading of the dimensions of the disaster. There was a failure of communications on the part of the way — the common spectrum to used by many first responders. He said, “It’s been well chronicled. I don’t think anybody in America, hardly, is unaware of the many failings that took place.” What your reaction to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I didn’t see the comments, but from what I know, having been here during the time, President Bush absolutely took responsibility for any failing on the part of the federal government. But at the same time there were problems at the federal, state and — I’m sorry, at the state and local levels, as well, which they have admitted to.

The Albanians Stole Chimpy’s Watch, The Mexicans Stole Chimpy’s Blackberry

Q One quick one to finish up. Is there any update on the stolen Blackberries in New Orleans? What is the story with this?

MS. PERINO: There was an incident in New Orleans at the leaders’ summit in — where an individual from the Mexican delegation, or a staff member was involved in these Blackberries — the disappearance of a couple of Blackberries. I don’t know how many it was. The matter is under investigation by law enforcement officials and they haven’t decided yet what exactly happened, but they’re working on it.

Q Was there sensitive material on the Blackberries?

MS. PERINO: I don’t know. I’m going to let the investigation take place before I comment on it.

Q Whose were they?

Q Yes, whose Blackberries? Were they White House staff Blackberries?

DANA*: I don’t — I’m not —

Q U.S.?

DANA: U.S., yes.

Q White House officials?

DANA: I don’t know if they were — I’m not quite sure whose they were, so I don’t want to say that, but they were certainly U.S. delegation.

*Note the offical White House transcript identifies the Press Secretary to the President by her first name.

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

Helen Has The Floor MS. PERINO: Helen. Q The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap? MS. PERINO: Helen, you’re taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hill fully in … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Poor BenightedDana… Q Israel, and Hamas’s reported willingness to engage in a peace deal. Do you have any reaction on that? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that — you’re referring to what President Carter said about what he was told? I think that what you have to do is look at — it’s possible that that was whispered in his ear in a private meeting. We did not support the private meeting, a meeting with a terrorist organization. …Proven Wrong Again DAMASCUS (Reuters) – Islamist Hamas group Hamas said on Monday it would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Chimpy IsNo Fan Of The First Amendment

Q Thanks. Can you just offer a little insight as to why the President would sort of part with his own tradition of not going out to Andrews to greet leaders, and do so for a religious leader, but not having done it for political leaders?

MS. PERINO: Well, obviously, as I said, it’s an historic and important visit.

[snip]

Q How does the White House balance the different elements for an arrival ceremony? Is it a secular head of state arrival? Is it, in part, religious overtones, with the singing of “The Lord’s Prayer”?

MS. PERINO: Well, this is a little bit different, in that the head of state is also the head of the Catholic Church that is visiting the White House. And so I think we’ve struck the right balance, and that it’s perfectly appropriate for the White House to welcome the Pope and have one of the songs performed tomorrow by Kathleen Battle — who we are very happy to have at the White House — she’ll be singing “The Lord’s Prayer.” And many people across America and across the world say that prayer in order to provide themselves comfort and confidence in getting their day started. And so we think it’s perfectly appropriate.

Q Can I just follow?

MS. PERINO: No, I think I’ll go over here to Mark.

Pope Ratzo Is No Fan Of Chimpy’s Vanity War

Q Last year in his Easter message, the Pope said, “Nothing positive comes from Iraq.” How does the President speak to the Holy Father about that subject?

MS. PERINO: Well, they have a relationship that is based on trust and they are able to have frank conversations. I will say that while Iraq has come up in the past when the President has talked to the Pope, as I understand it, they’re not prolonged conversations about it. Obviously there was a difference of opinion back in 2003 and beyond, in subsequent years. But now I think that there is an understanding that with the strategy that’s working in Iraq right now, the most important thing we can do is help to solidify the situation, root it into freedom and democracy so that people of religious minorities — I’m sorry, people of a religious faith who are minorities in their countries can practice freely and be free from persecution. And that is something that they share. I expect them to touch on that a little bit.

Q On the war, do you expect him to say, we just politely disagree, let’s move on?

MS. PERINO: I don’t expect any public conversation about it. But they will have a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office and it’s possible that it could come up; I won’t rule it out. But I don’t think it will be — I don’t think it will dominate the conversation in any way.

[snip]

Q Dana, back to Iraq. I was struck by what you said, that the most important thing we can do now is to sort of — is to basically finish and to bring about peace. And I wonder, does the — will the President try to make that case to the Pope? In other words, even though he may have disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, will he now try to find common ground in this way to say, look, the best thing we can do there now is —

MS. PERINO: Sheryl, I really don’t think that the President is planning to spend a lot of time talking about the issues of Iraq with the Pope.

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

SillyGagglers, Chimpy Never Takes Responsibility ForAnything Q Just one more on the issue you brought up initially, on worldwide food shortages. Does the President feel any responsibility himself for that, because he’s been such a hard backer of ethanol? I know he’s talked about different sources of ethanol, but he’s also really backed corn-based ethanol, and that’s blamed by a lot of people for driving up prices and costs. MS. PERINO: I think there’s a lot of different issues that go in — there are a lot of factors that go into higher food prices or food shortages in countries … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Does Not Know That Republikkkan Senators Questioned Patreus’ “Success”

Q Dana, picking back up on the speech again tomorrow, will the President be addressing sort of the bigger-picture questions that were talked a little bit about in the hearings yesterday? Senator Warner raised a question: Are we safer? Is America safer because of this? And Senator Hagel raised some questions about where is the diplomatic surge. Will the President address the nation and those kinds of questions tomorrow?

MS. PERINO: Sure, those are issues, when the President talks about Iraq, that he addresses every time he has a chance to talk about it.

[snip]

Q But those two Republican Senators really seem to be at a loss for understanding progress in Iraq.

MS. PERINO: With all the testimony — I didn’t see the questioning in between those two Senators, but I do think that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have done a very good job of providing their very candid and frank assessment about the progress that has been made because of the surge, and the challenges that lie ahead.

Dana Peroxide Is Helenized — Again

Q You said earlier today that it was not possible for the President to pull out of Iraq before he leaves office. And it was so easy for him to go in five years ago; why can’t he pull out now?

MS. PERINO: I don’t think any of that was easy — not the decision and not — and certainly none of the logistics, and especially everything that weighs heavy on him and obviously the families of the loved ones — their loved ones who have died in this fight. But what I was saying, Helen, is that it is, one, the President thinks that it’s way premature to pull out troops now. One, it’s dangerous for our own national security, but also for the innocent Iraqis who are there —

Q Why is it dangerous for our national security? Are the Iraqis a threat to us?

MS. PERINO: Helen, in case you missed it, Osama bin Laden has said that he would like to establish al Qaeda’s roots in the Arab world.

[snip]

Q I understand you do not intend to submit the agreement to Congress — the agreement with the Iraqis.

MS. PERINO: We have said that we will continue to work with Congress, brief them on it fully — that’s what Ambassador Crocker said he would do. It’s not —

Q But not to let —

MS. PERINO: — an executive agreement like this isn’t something that is subject to a yes or no vote by the United States Senate. Other countries, under their constitutions, may have that type of rule, but we don’t. But that doesn’t mean we’re not going to work very closely with Congress.

Q — to make an end run around the authorization —

MS. PERINO: No it’s not, Helen.

Q — that expired, didn’t it?

MS. PERINO: No it’s not, Helen. No.

Q Well, why can’t you submit it to Congress?

MS. PERINO: I just explained why.

Go ahead.

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

Dana Peroxide Claims Chimpy Will Consult With Congress Before Entering Into A Status Of Forces Agreement With Iraq

Q Dana, there have been a number of questions about the status of forces agreement. And I know you talked about it before, but can you say, if the Iraqi government is going to bring this agreement to the Iraqi parliament, why the administration wouldn’t want to bring and consent with our Congress about this agreement, with a legal framework of setting up the way forward in Iraq?

MS. PERINO: As Ambassador Crocker just said, that the — there are briefings already set up for our members of Congress to hear specifically about the strategic forces agreement. Negotiations are currently underway with the Iraqis. This is to establish a basic framework so that our coalition forces can continue to operate there with a legal framework after the U.N. mandate expires in December.

We’re going to continue to work with Congress. We’ve said that — we’ve been very clear as to what this agreement is and what it is not. And so they’re going to continue to have that. What we have said is that if it reaches the level where it would need Senate ratification as a treaty, then that is the path we would go down. We don’t anticipate that right now.

Q So the Democrats, who are very concerned about this, you believe are mistaken?

MS. PERINO: I do believe they are mistaken, and I think that many of them are playing politics with this issue. And it’s at the expense of our forces. I would assume that they would like our forces to have a legal framework to work under, since all of them have conceded that there are going to be — our troops are going to be in Iraq after this President leaves office. So that is what our aim is.

Dana To Dead American Soldiers: Suck It

Q What effect will the deaths of 11 Americans in Iraq just since this past Sunday have on the immediate future of the U.S. strategy, the President’s thinking about —

MS. PERINO: I don’t know if it would have a change in terms of the overall strategy.

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

Tony Farto Is Throwing Out The Rose-Colored Glasses

Q Also, how does this latest violence in Iraq and the latest uncertainty about what’s going on color the Petraeus-Crocker testimony this time around? It obviously has changed the equation. I mean, weeks ago it looked like the surge was — you know, had this pretty rosy cast, and now with all this renewed violence, I think it has changed the dynamics. So how has this changed the equation?

MR. FRATTO: Well, I think we’ve thrown out all of the rose-colored glasses in how we look at Iraq, and try to look at it through clear lenses as to what is actually going on in the country. And what is happening there, I think what we are all seeing is that the Iraqi political leadership is trying to take hold of the security for their country. They took a very bold, aggressive action in Basra. It wasn’t a overall success, but it — but we learned a lot about what the capabilities of the Iraqi army are, and we learned a lot — and maybe this is even the most important thing — of what the capabilities and intentions of the Iraqi leadership are to go after criminal elements and illegal militias in their country, and to evenly enforce the rule of law across the country.

Ah, The Two Most Beautiful Words In The English Language: “Yes, Helen”

MR. FRATTO: Yes, Helen.

Q You acted like the President wouldn’t know what Petraeus and Crocker are going to testify. Do you mean he’s going to be surprised tomorrow —

MR. FRATTO: No, I hope I didn’t leave —

Q — when they say the surge is working and all?

MR. FRATTO: No, I hope I didn’t leave that impression.

[snip]

Q But he’s the President, isn’t he calling the policy? I mean, we don’t have President Petraeus, do we? We have President —

MR. FRATTO: No, we don’t. We have commander Petraeus, who is running the operations on the ground in Iraq and he’s closest to the military operations. He knows the capabilities of his forces, the coalition forces, and what the Iraqi security forces can do, and has a good sense of what’s needed to complete his mission. And it’s a mission that he designed. So we want to look forward to his testimony and hear how he thinks it’s going and what the requirements are to complete that mission for the remainder of the year.

Q What is the mission?

MR. FRATTO: Well, it’s pretty clear, says to bring — is to bring —

Q Are you asking — to continue the occupation of Iraq?

MR. FRATTO: — security in Iraq, sufficient security, so that the political leadership can continue to make gains.

[snip]

Now, we know that it’s a — the reduction of violence is fragile and it’s reversible, but we like the trend and we like what the Iraqi political leadership has shown about their ability to take action.

Q And paying off 90,000 Iraqis not to fight?

MR. FRATTO: Kathleen.

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

Gordon JohnD’Oh Does Not Give Or Receive Pause Q Does it give you any pause that in two days they haven’t been able to establish control — the government, that is — in the second largest city in Iraq? MR. JOHNDROE: You know, Iraq faces a lot of challenges. So I would say that 48 hours is hardly a lengthy amount of time to regain control in a city that has been dealing with these criminal gangs and special militias for some time. Stuck On Empty Q Gordon, you mentioned political progress in Iraq. What’s the status of the law … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Calls On China To Refrain From Non-Violence

Q China sent more troops into Tibet to crack down on the demonstrators. The United States have any reaction to that?

MS. PERINO: I hadn’t heard about that development. What I can tell you is that last night Secretary Rice spoke to the Chinese Foreign Minister to very directly reiterate our views and concerns about the situation and told the Chinese that we would urge restraint in dealing with protestors, to refrain from non-violence [sic] and then Secretary Rice informed the President this morning of that conversation.

President FreedomAgenda Supports Dictators

Q Dana, back on China for a moment. I know you’ve said in the past that President Bush attending the Olympics, that he’s really doing so just as a sports fan and not to make any kind of political statement. But can you really separate the two? Can you really sort of divorce the two? He is obviously the leader of the United States. And for him to be attending, many people say it’s impossible not to be there as a political statement.

MS. PERINO: One, the President — one of the things the President has said also in regards to this is that any country who’s going to be hosting the Olympics will have a bright light shined upon it. And it is a chance for that country to put its best face forward, and it’s also a chance for other countries to learn more about the country.

And we are very concerned about what’s happening in Tibet, and we have expressed those concerns. And that’s something that President Bush and Secretary Rice can do that other citizens, concerned citizens around the world aren’t able to do, just because they’re not elected as a head of state. But the President, as head of state, has spoken very frankly to President Hu, and Secretary Rice has done the same with her counterparts, and we will continue to.

[snip]

Q Follow on that? There is ample precedent for kind of a politicization of the Olympics. In 1980 the U.S. boycotted altogether because the host country, Russia, had invaded Afghanistan. Does the President think — intend to go to Beijing and have absolutely no political voice at all while he’s in China?

MS. PERINO: Actually, I think if you look back to some of the things he’s said before, that it — on a trip like that, he would make it a priority to have a meeting and a conversation with President Hu, which is something, again, that I said that he as a head of state is able to do, that other people aren’t able to do.

Big Time’s “So”

Q Dana, can I just follow on our colleague Martha Raddatz’s interview with the Vice President? Let’s set aside the meaning of the word “so” for a second, and get to something the Vice President then said about fluctuations in the public opinion polls: “You can’t be blown off course by fluctuations in public opinion polls.” That would suggest that at any point in recent memory that the American public has been behind the war. It’s not that there’s been fluctuations in polls; it’s been different degrees of opposition to the war. So is the Vice President saying it really doesn’t matter what the American public thinks about the war?

MS. PERINO: No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, and obviously I haven’t spoken to the Vice President since he’s traveling today and was in Kabul visiting with President Karzai a the request of the President. But what he went on to say is that President should not make decisions based on polls.

[snip]

Q So at what point — I mean, I guess I just — there is the impression that the Vice President doesn’t care about what the American people think in policy like that. Is that a wrong impression? And does the President share that impression?

MS. PERINO: I think that is the wrong impression. I think that the Vice President and the President both, together, all of us across the administration, would like for people to support the President’s decisions. We realize that that’s unrealistic, especially in a time of war — and in particular this war.

Dana Left An Opening For Helen

Q The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you’re saying they have no say in this war?

MS. PERINO: I didn’t say that, Helen. But, Helen, this President was elected —

Q Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.

MS. PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.

Q Every four years.

MS. PERINO: And we listen to —

Q It sounds familiar.

MS. PERINO: — different points of view. The President, in fact, had many meetings with members of Congress leading up to his decision about the surge.

Q Supposed to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people?

MS. PERINO: I would submit to you that people across America, if asked what type of a President do you want: one that stands on principle or that one that chases polls? And I think that they would want —

Q What’s the principle of going to war against the people who did nothing to us?

MS. PERINO: Helen, the President went to war to remove Saddam Hussein. He talked all about this yesterday in his speech. I’ll refer you to that.

Where’s Osama?

Q As far as Osama bin Laden and our national security is concerned, he has issued another tape and warning Europe and it may affect the United States. And also, yesterday Senator Obama called on the President to bring Osama bin Laden, who is in Pakistan. Does he think he’s still alive, Osama bin Laden?

MS. PERINO: I would put it this way. The intelligence community analyzed the tape. They do believe that that was his voice. So that would mean that for all things — for all that we know, that he is still alive. And the President has a very aggressive hunt on for Osama bin Laden.

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

Dang, Dana Peroxide Got The Crap Beat Out Of Her Over Chimpy’s SpeechYesterday

Let’s Begin With Bill Plant

Q The President had a lot to say about the surge, but he didn’t say much about the reason that the surge was put into effect, which was to create some breathing room for political reconciliation, which really hasn’t happened. He didn’t mention that at all.

MS. PERINO: I realize some people think that that hasn’t been anything that happened, but I think if you look at the facts, Bill, I think —

Q Well, why didn’t he mention it?

MS. PERINO: In terms of the political reconciliation that they’ve had?

Q Yes. What is there to brag about?

MS. PERINO: Well, they’ve passed a lot more laws than this Congress has this year, and they’ve worked very hard. I mean, they’re going from a complete dictatorship where they have no trust of one another — they’ve never had democracy, and just in January, late January, they finished passing four — three or four pieces of — major pieces of legislation. And they’re continuing to work on more.

He Didn’t Discuss His NCAA Brackets, For Instance

Q If I can follow on the previous question, in the past the President has, in his speeches, put pressure on Maliki’s government and the Iraqi parliament to do more on national reconciliation. Now, does this mean the President is satisfied with what they’ve done up to date?

Q He didn’t mention it.

MS. PERINO: Well, there’s a lot of things he didn’t mention. There’s lots of things he did mention. He can’t talk about every single thing every time.

[snip]

Q But this was laid out as one of the cornerstone reasons for having the surge in the first place. Now, all he — he did mention today bottom-up reconciliation —

MS. PERINO: — what the facts are. You reported — Reuters has reported on them, on those successes in Iraq yourselves. So I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

Q I’m just wondering why the President doesn’t have anything to say about it. I’d think in a major speech —

MS. PERINO: Well, we could have made it much longer, and we could have had lots of other things in there to satisfy you.

Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With [Yesterday’s] Gaggle”

Tony Farto Says: Beleive Us, Not Your Lying Eyes! Q Tony, the President has said several times that he thinks the fundamentals of the economy are strong, as are — as have some of the other economic leaders. Are you concerned at all, is the White House concerned that that message is simply not resonating with the American public? MR. FRATTO: It’s hard for us to know what the American public is hearing. I think they — I would hope that they’re hearing the balanced description of the economy that they have been hearing from people like Hank Paulson, Eddie … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Millions For Big Banks, Diddley For Everyone Else Q For people who are losing their homes, or losing their jobs, and then they see the government helping engineer this $30 billion line of credit for Bear Stearns, and help for other financial investment firms on Wall Street, how do you reconcile the two? MS. PERINO: Well, the way I would answer that question is in two parts. One, this isn’t about bailing anyone out. These actions are intended, as I said earlier today, to minimize financial market disruptions. And investors in Bear Stearns are taking large and significant losses in … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Tony Farto Says You Should Stop Labelling The Economy Q So with the latest bad numbers on consumer spending and labor markets — the news seems to be getting worse by the day — how is the President going to allay Americans’ concerns that the economy is either heading for a recession, or in a recession? MR. FRATTO: Look, you can try to put labels on what the economy is. I mean, it’s very low-growth and it’s much lower, or slower, than we would certainly like to see. What we’re focused on is the policies that will return us to … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

I TakeThat As A “Yes” Q Were there differences between Admiral Fallon and this administration about how to handle, for example, Iran, troop levels in Iraq? Were there differences inside? MS. PERINO: Well, as Secretary Gates said, when it comes to Iran he does not believe that there was a difference, but there had built up over a period of time a perception that there was a difference. And when it comes to foreign policy it’s critical that an administration speak with one voice. And if there’s a perception that they are not speaking with one voice, then that becomes … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Yo, Dana — What’s With All The “Terra Terra Terra”? Q Dana, I have questions on two topics. Today’s speech — what’s the strategic value in discussing the tactics of the enemy? What’s to be gained by that, and why now? MS. PERINO: I think it’s important that everyone recognize who we are dealing with. [snip] Q Well, just to quickly follow up on that, it’s five years, almost, into the war. Is there a sense from the White House that the American people has kind of lost track of this? People don’t know who the enemy is by this … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana, Just How Incompetent Is Condi? Q Dana, the Secretary of State was just in the Middle East, she’s just back — I mean, was there something — what was there that she didn’t accomplish that the President thinks the Vice President — and is this any way, would you say, a comment on the state of the peace process? Is this a rescue mission? MS. PERINO: Kathleen, I think that that is really — I think it’s a little bit outrageous to suggest that. Poland Needs Missiles To Protect Our Missiles That Are Not Aimed At The Russians From … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Says, Suck It, Homeowners Q Could I ask you about the housing market? Home foreclosures soared to an all-time high in the final quarter of last year, and separately the Federal Reserve said Americans’ percentage of equity in their homes has fallen below 50 percent for the first time since 1945. What’s the White House reaction to this continuing bad news, and do you see it getting worse or getting better? MS. PERINO: Well, we’re right in the middle of it right now, and so we’re taking action to see how we can help homeowners who are in … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

Hatch Act Violation Q Dana, can you discuss the parameters for separating political events from White House business? I mean, is it appropriate for politicking to be going on from the White House podium, from the White House Rose Garden? MS. PERINO: Well, as I reminded you, that the President is the head of the Republican Party, and the President was pleased today to invite Senator John McCain to his home, and invited him in through the front door. And they’re having lunch now, and then they’ll meet in the Rose Garden. And I can tell you that, in checking … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

A Flat-Out Denial FromDana Peroxide. Q — in Vanity Fair, in an article that claims Hamas takeover of Gaza was the result of U.S. efforts to get Fatah to defeat Hamas. Is there any truth to that? Was there U.S. aid, either in weapons or money, to Fatah? MS. PERINO: Secretary of State’s spokesperson, Sean McCormack, was today in — traveling in the region, in Ramallah, and told reporters that there is no accuracy to that story. Q None? MS. PERINO: No. Q None at all? MS. PERINO: That’s what he said. Q Is there? MS. PERINO: Not that I’m … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

According toGordon Johnd’Oh Israel Is Incapable Of Using Disporportionate Force Q Does the President — in infer from your comments that the President does not feel that Israel has used disproportionate force, as the Secretary General of the U.N. has said? MR. JOHNDROE: Look, we obviously don’t want any innocent civilians to lose their life, but I think that started with these rockets that have been fired from Gaza into Israel, recently killing and injuring Israeli citizens in some of their bigger cities. So they’ve had these — a barrage of rockets fired out of Hamas for some time now, … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

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”

ManyHard Kweschins About FISA Today With Only Snott Stanzel To Answer Them – No Dana Peroxide In Sight!

Snott Gets Helenized Right Off The Bat

Q What right does the President have to tell any company or any person in this country to break the law?

MR. STANZEL: I — what’s your point?

Q No warrants and so forth; that they can go and spy on us without any warrants?

MR. STANZEL: The Protect America Act was passed by Congress last August, as you know, and signed into law. So it is a lawful program that is expiring tomorrow night.

Q Well, if it’s lawful, why would you not get a warrant? It still prevails, doesn’t it?

MR. STANZEL: Because it’s — in 1978, as we talked about, during that period, in 1978, the law, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was passed, and that law was designed to help us gain intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands. What we’re not wanting to do here is to extend constitutional protections to terrorists in foreign countries.

[snip]

Q All Americans should be wire-tapped?

MR. STANZEL: Helen, your facts are not correct here. If a foreign terrorist is calling to the United States, we want to know what they’re saying.

Q How do you know they’re a foreign terrorist?

MR. STANZEL: Because they’re in foreign lands and we have to be able to track foreign terrorists in foreign lands and what they’re doing.

Q Any foreigner —

MR. STANZEL: You may want to extend constitutional protections to terrorists, but that is not something that we want to do.

Q You can’t automatically call every foreigner a terrorist.

MR. STANZEL: Jeremy?

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

DanaPeroxide Won’t Comment On How Chimpy’s Torture Fetish Has Imperiled The Case Against KSM

Q Dana, is the White House at all concerned that some of the evidence of the confessions by many of these men may not be admissible because they were obtained through waterboarding, which the administration admitted to last week?

MS. PERINO: Kathleen, I’m not going to able to comment about the trial from this podium. And so I’m not able to comment on that, but I’m sure that if you call the Department of Defense they’ll be able to talk about it further.

[snip]

Q One more, following up on that, though. When the President made his decision initially to authorize the interrogations of Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and the other two, did he weigh the possibility of criminal prosecutions and the admissibility of evidence?

MS. PERINO: I don’t know, Mark. Obviously you’re talking about time frames that are years and years ago. I just — I don’t know.

Just A Coincidence

Q What about the timing of all this? Again, it was just Thursday that the Vice President, Hayden admitted the United States had used waterboarding against some of these suspects. And then, lo and behold, Monday the DOD announces they’re going forward on these cases.

MS. PERINO: I can see conspiracy written all over your face, but there was none. And this decision — as the military said, that they were ready to bring the charges and they did that today, when they were ready.

Q So this is mere coincidence then?

MS. PERINO: As I said this morning, yes.

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

Today We GetSnott Stanzel, The Ultimate Third-Stringer, Who Explains That McCain Is Not Chimpy’s Man Q But just to be clear, The Washington Post claimed this morning that this was an implicit endorsement of McCain; you’re saying, no? MR. STANZEL: I think the headline writers are a little over-eager. I noticed the headline there and that was my impression of it. I think you should look at the words of the President very carefully. Q So it wasn’t an endorsement today? MR. STANZEL: No. I just said that. Q Because beyond the headline — the story itself called it, I … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

What’sThis? Tony Farto Again Today? Geeze, They Really Don’t Trust Dana Peroxide With Hard Kweshins, Do They?

Q Tony, waterboarding is, as you know, explicitly forbidden in the new Army Field Manual. One of the rationales that military officers tell me is the reason for that is that what we do to people in other countries, they will eventually do to Americans. Doesn’t allowing waterboarding and not forbidding it in all circumstances essentially say that it’s appropriate for U.S. troops to be waterboarded by other countries under similar circumstances?

MR. FRATTO: No, it doesn’t. But in terms of the operational use of any enhanced interrogation technique, I’ll let the agency comment on that — the Central Intelligence Agency runs the program and I’ll allow them to comment on it.

[snip]

Q Is the President concerned at all that by not forbidding it, that raises the likelihood that it would be used against Americans?

MR. FRATTO: I think the advice that the President gets from people like General Hayden and the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, and the Attorney General, they consider all of those considerations before they decide which interrogation techniques should be part of the CIA program.

[snip]

Q Is that a slippery slope, though, for other countries who are then looking at the United States as — people have been posing these examples. I know you don’t want to speculate —

MR. FRATTO: No, I don’t think so. I think other countries should be impressed that there is a rigorous process with legal review that takes into account the law and that we have national laws that govern what we do.

[snip]

Q The flip side of that is you’re still not ruling it out. It remains a possibility.

MR. FRATTO: I’m not in a position, and no one is in a position, to rule anything in or out, because I can’t speculate in terms of the future as to what Director Hayden or any future director of the Central Intelligence Agency may bring as a proposed technique that he or she believes will garner the intelligence that they’re seeking. You know, we can’t speculate on what all of those factors are, and I’m not going to do it for one particular technique, and I don’t think anyone else can either.

Q No, but you leave the impression that the United States is willing to do it if it feels necessary.

MR. FRATTO: No. I think we acknowledged that it had been done in the past and in an exceedingly limited way, with safeguards and under certain circumstances.

[snip]

Q What you’re saying — sorry, Tony. What you’re saying is that the law has changed, but it has not changed enough for a blanket “we rule this out forever”?

MR. FRATTO: Well, I think that’s clear. I mean, we can go back to the debate on the — I believe in the Military Commissions Act — I’m sorry, it might have been the Detainee Treatment Act — where they went through a discussion of whether to, through statute, ban certain techniques. And the Senate failed to do that. They chose not to do that.

Q But Senator McCain and some of the other authors of that law believe that they did do that.

MR. FRATTO: I understand. I understand that.

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

YesterdayDana Peroxide Handled The Gaggle, So Why Are We Stuck With Former Rick Santorum MouthpieceTony Farto Today? Could It Be They Don’t Trust Intelligence-Challenged Dana To Handle The Delicate Torture Questions?

Q General Hayden confirmed yesterday that the CIA subjected three terrorist suspects to waterboarding, and you talked a little bit about that this morning. Would you tell us if there were other instances where interrogators used that technique?

MR. FRATTO: I think General Hayden in his testimony yesterday limited it to the three terrorist suspects that he mentioned.

Q So that is all that — those are the only three?

MR. FRATTO: To my knowledge, and according to the testimony in front of Congress of General Hayden, that’s as I understand it.

Q And how many times with each of those suspects?

MR. FRATTO: I’d have to refer you to the CIA for questions on operations and how they conduct them.

Q But you’re not saying it was just once for each of the detainees?

MR. FRATTO: I am not saying anything in terms of how the interrogation was handled specifically with specific detainees. For those kinds of questions, the best place to go is to the Central Intelligence Agency, since they operate the program.

Q And earlier you suggested that it would not be ruled out for possible use in the future?

MR. FRATTO: Again, I think I’d refer you to the testimony yesterday where the intelligence chiefs didn’t rule anything out.

[snip]

Q But does the administration maintain that waterboarding is not torture, or that any method of interrogation that it uses is not torture?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, torture is illegal. We don’t torture — we maintain and as we have said many times that the programs have been reviewed, and the Department of Justice has determined them to be legal.

Q But the General, himself, said in a recent interview that he thinks it’s probably torture, and he has said that we have used it.

MR. FRATTO: I don’t think that’s accurate.

Q Yes, well, he said it seemed like it would be to him.

MR. FRATTO: I’m sorry, to Director McConnell?

Q McConnell, sorry, not —

MR. FRATTO: In The New Yorker — and I think Director McConnell in his testimony yesterday in a conversation with Senator Feinstein I think explained those comments, and explained how they were out of context.

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