Just A QuickieToday, In Which We Ask… Even Osama bin Laden? Q Yesterday the President talked — spoke about how he spoke directly to the Iranian people. Will he speak directly to the Pakistani people and the Pakistani protestors, letting them know that he supports them? MS. PERINO: The President supports everybody in Pakistan because of the importance that we place on the region. Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle
Dana Peroxide Really Shouldn’t Get Into A Tit-For-Tat With Helen Thomas
Q Why is the President dodging a personal phone call to Musharraf?
MS. PERINO: The President has had his Secretary of State —
Q I’m asking you directly why doesn’t he call him?
MS. PERINO: The President feels very strongly that President Musharraf knows exactly how he feels about the situation.
Q That isn’t the point.
MS. PERINO: It is the point.
One Would Think That Chimpy Would Be Used To Massive Foreign Policy Failures, Yet He Still Fears Them
Q But why should Musharraf believe that you guys are really serious about what you’re saying from this podium when the President doesn’t actually pick up the phone and call him to let him know personally? That carries a lot more weight than having Condoleezza Rice or somebody else talk to him.
MS. PERINO: Well, we disagree. The President has made his points very clear with Musharraf; he’s had many meetings with President Musharraf. And Secretary Rice has delivered those messages.
[snip]
Q It still does not carry the same weight as the President having direct contact with Musharraf — (inaudible).
MS. PERINO: Well, I’ll let you — I’ll let that be your opinion. I’ll let that be your opinion.
Q But what is the tactic? I mean, what is the strategic reason for President Bush not to actually pick up the phone and talk to him?
MS. PERINO: I feel confident that the President is being well served and advised by his senior national security team. The decision has been made to have Secretary Rice be the one directed to have this communication.
Q Why shouldn’t we see this as double standard? I mean, it’s not the same standard as applied to Burma.
MS. PERINO: I can understand why that question would be asked, but I think everyone has to remember that we are in the early days of a crisis, looking at a country who had decided to try to move down the path to democracy in establishing freedom of the press, civil societies, improving the education system, the public health system, allowing for freedom of expression and assembly. Democracies take time to develop. It is not easy. And this is certainly a setback, and we’re —
Q Well, they certainly don’t have freedom of the press or assembly at the moment.
MS. PERINO: And we have called for a return to it.
Q Dana, does the White House believe that Musharraf is now a dictator?
MS. PERINO: Look, I think that that is — it’s premature to say that. This is a President —
Q Well, why is premature when the First Lady —
MS. PERINO: — who has worked closely with an ally in the war on terror, President Musharraf. We’re doing two things with them: on the one hand, working cooperatively to take the fight to the enemy, to fight against terrorists; and on the other hand, trying to help President Musharraf and the other members of the Pakistani government to move along the path to democracy, because ultimately what’s going to help solve this problem is a free society, a democratic society. And yes, President Musharraf, we believe, has made a mistake. We are gravely concerned about the situation. We are calling for an immediate return back to —
Q But wait a minute, why are you calling it a mistake? You seem to be giving Musharraf the benefit of the doubt.
MS. PERINO: — we are calling for an immediate return to civilian rule, and we are in communication with them because we have a lot of cooperative interests. We have a broad relationship, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that we have very serious counterterrorism operations that are currently underway in Pakistan as well.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With [Yesterday’s] Gaggle”
Dana Peroxide Tries To Yank Chimpy’s Foot From His Mouth
Q The President said last week at Heritage that we are standing with those who yearn for liberty. Isn’t — aren’t we in the position now in Pakistan where we are supporting a government that is cracking down on liberty?
MS. PERINO: The government of the United States is deeply disturbed by the proclamation of emergency in Pakistan on November 3rd — about 48 hours ago. We cannot support emergency rule or the extreme measures that are being taken by President Musharraf. Such actions are not in Pakistan’s best interest. And President Musharraf had taken Pakistan well — pretty far along the path to democracy, and this is definitely a setback.
We are currently reviewing our aid.
[snip]
Q Well, while you’re reviewing the aid, there’s widespread expectation that most of that aid, which is for the military, is going to continue. Isn’t that —
MS. PERINO: Well, I think that — I’m not going to prejudge the outcome of a review that is going to be ongoing, and Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates have said that they would be leading those reviews.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Dana Says Mike Mucousy Can Talk About Torture Once He’s Confirmed…
Q What does the White House think of the proposal by Senators McCain, Warner and Graham to have Judge Mukasey, if confirmed, say that no U.S. agency will use waterboarding?
MS. PERINO: What Judge Mukasey said in his letter to the Senate is that he will, if confirmed, thoroughly review all the legal opinions and all of the classified programs that he will then be read into. And I think that’s a very reasonable position. And he said that if confirmed he would do that, and I think that’s what the senators are saying in that letter, “as Attorney General.” And I think that bodes well for his nomination, that they intend for him to be confirmed.
Q Well, what their letter says is, we urge you publicly make clear that waterboarding can never be employed. I think that’s a little more —
MS. PERINO: While they were saying is — which Judge Mukasey has done, is to say, I will not be able to provide a legal opinion about any particular technique. He is not read into the programs. He’s right now a private citizen. He is willing to serve his country. The President will say today, he is — the Attorney General is a critical member of the nation’s war on terror team, and that he needs to be confirmed immediately. And once he is confirmed, then the Congress has the capability to ask him to come to Congress and to testify on all sorts of matters, including this one.
…Maybe Not
Q Dana, a follow up on that. The McCain-Graham letter, on the assumption that Judge Mukasey is confirmed and is read into the program, your policy is still not to talk about specific methods, so he is, if he is confirmed, not going to be in a position to speak about waterboarding as being legal or not.
MS. PERINO: Let me remind you of something. Congress passed a law that this President signed regarding Detainee Treatment Act and also Congress said that the CIA’s program for interrogation is legal. They have been briefed on the legal underpinnings and they have been briefed on the techniques. So Congress — the appropriate members of Congress have all the information that they need about these programs. They are safe, they are effective, they are tough, and they are legal. And Judge Mukasey said that he will review all of the opinions and he will review the information he gets in his classified briefings, and that he will be able to have additional thought after that.
A lot of these discussions are held in closed session, and that’s appropriate because they’re classified for a reason.
Q Understood, but America’s allies in the world, the American people, they will never know whether or not Judge Mukasey is told, so long as the administration —
MS. PERINO: I think that’s a hypothetical that I’m just not prepared to go into right now. I don’t know what Judge Mukasey will or will not say, if confirmed.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Pony Blow Says Surge Opponents Are “Gambling on Failure” — Meaning That They Want The US To Fail In Iraq
Q Well, let me ask you, the President seems resigned to the fact that the House is going to pass this today. What is his position on the conditions on funding that the Democrats — House Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha — are beginning to outline?
MR. SNOW: Well, first, I would not characterize the President’s mood in anything as “resignation.” That’s not the way he approaches things. But he understands that members of the House are moving forward. And right now everybody is playing with numbers about how big the margin is going to be — we’ve heard everything from 12 to 60; we’ll find out.
[snip]
Q You mentioned the margin of the vote, 12-6. In the end, does it matter what the margin is, Tony?
MR. SNOW: The question is what the margin is; does it matter. I don’t know. Again, members — it’s going to be interesting, because members of Congress have taken their own gamble here. They’re gambling on failure — some members, at least. The President has a plan for success. It’s all aimed at success. And there’s going to be a vote before long where they’re going to have to vote about whether they are going to supply the funds and the flexibility necessary for success. And, remember, in the case of the Senate, the success as defined by the guy that they’ve just appointed as a top general and the CENTCOM commander, who was also approved, and the man who is now the Chairman — the Army Chief of Staff, who also approves of the plan, there are a whole series of folks who they, in fact, approve for their new offices who believe that this is vital.
And so, ultimately, members — this is “a non-binding resolution.” But what we’re afraid of is that this is, in fact, going to serve as a precursor for cutting off our troops.
Q What do you mean, “gambling on failure”?
MR. SNOW: I mean because all of a sudden, it’s — suppose suddenly that you start to see signs of success. Then are these members going to come out and say, you know what, we were wrong — they’re going to have another resolution?
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Dana Peroxide’s Habitually Proclaimed Ignorance Pisses Helen Off
Q Dana, why did the Bush administration give immunity to the Blackwater guards, and is the administration going to hold these guys accountable for what transpired?
MS. PERINO: This is what I can tell you: Secretary Rice has made it very clear that she takes the situation very seriously. It is under review. She said that anyone who has engaged in criminal behavior will be prosecuted. I don’t have additional detail that I can provide for you, and I’ll have to refer you to the State Department and Justice Department for more.
Q Has the President been briefed on this, or what does he think? What is he saying?
MS. PERINO: I do not know if the President has been briefed on it specifically. I can ask.
Q Were they given immunity or weren’t they?
MS. PERINO: Helen, as I said, it’s a matter that’s under review.
Q (Inaudible) tough questions. Why can’t you answer them?
MS. PERINO: Because it is a matter that’s under review, and I’m going to refer you to the State or the Justice Department for more.
Q What do you mean “under review”? Why don’t you say yes or no?
MS. PERINO: The State Department is the one that is looking into this and they are the ones answering questions on it.
Q So the administration hasn’t decided whether or not the reports of that are true? You’re still looking into whether or not they actually were?
MS. PERINO: I am going to refer you to the State Department on that, who is looking into it.
Q As a general question, how could you both be offered immunity and promised prosecution?
MS. PERINO: Again, this is being — this is under review. It’s not something that I can talk about from here. Obviously, anyone who is engaged in criminal activity would be of a great concern and it’s very serious and it should be prosecuted. Let me let the State Department and the Justice Department answer further questions on it.
Q Also, what is being reviewed? Just so we’re clear.
MS. PERINO: The entire situation is being reviewed, from the incident to the aftermath of it. And I just don’t have anything more for you that I can say from the podium today.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
FEMA MakesDana Peroxide SIC
Q Dana, on Tuesday, FEMA’s deputy administrator held what was called a news briefing to talk about the California wildfires. And from what we understand, the questions were posed not by reporters, but by staffers, and that distinction was not made known. Is that appropriate?
MS. PERINO: It is not. It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House or that we — we certainly don’t condone it. We didn’t know about it beforehand. FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error in judgment when they were attempting to try to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regards to the wildfires in California. It’s not something I would have condoned, and they, I’m sure, will not do it again.
Q Who is responsible?
MS. PERINO: FEMA is responsible, and they have taken that — they have accepted that responsibility, and they issued an apology today.
Q But isn’t — a follow-up on that. Isn’t there a normal morning call with all the press secretaries of all the agencies here, and whether somebody is having a press briefing or not is discussed?
MS. PERINIO: We have a variety of ways that we talk to the — communicate to the communicators in the agency. FEMA is not on that daily call, no, and I don’t know if the DHS — the head of DHS communications knew about it either. But FEMA has apologized for the error in judgment.
Q Dana, why didn’t this raise alarm bells, in terms of credibility, with anyone there?
MS. PERINO: You’ll have to ask them. They have admitted that they had an error in judgment. I would agree with that. They’ve issued an apology. You’ll have to ask them about why they decided to do that.
Q But isn’t the President concerned, at a time when he is traveling to the area to talk about a very significant natural disaster — there have been issues about FEMA in the past, trying to make a distinction about progress made, and for them to effectively pretend to hold a news conference, doesn’t the President have concerns about that?
MS. PERINO: I just said that the White House did not know about it before hand, andthe White House condones* [sic] it. And they have apologized for it. They had an error in judgment, they’ve admitted that. And I think that what they were — I don’t think that there was any mal-intent. I think that they were trying to provide information to the public through the press, because there were so many questions pouring in. It was just a bad way to handle it, and they know that.
Q Will anybody be reprimanded?
MS. PERINO: You’ll have to ask FEMA.
Follow The Asterisk, Dana
*The White House does not condone the way the FEMA press conference was handled.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
In Today’sGaggle Dana Blames The Katrina Victims — Because They Were Warned
Q Dana, the fact that the President will be on the ground tomorrow in southern California, how much is that a reflection of lessons learned by the White House that — from Katrina that even though the President may be engaged behind the scenes, there’s a need — the public wants to see him more involved?
MS. PERINO: Remember — we’ve gone — these fires are not the same disaster that we had in Katrina. There’s so many differences. Katrina wiped out 90,000 square miles of the United States, and there was no electricity, there was no sewer system. And they knew for days that the storm was coming. This is just a very different situation.
Dana Says It’s Irresponsible To Make Any Predictions About The Cost Of Chimpy’s Vanity War
Q Dana, I wanted to ask you about the CBO estimate for the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why is that $2.4 trillion figure wrong?
MS. PERINO: Well, part of it is that when you start having all — just a ton of speculation. It’s a hypothetical that was created based on questions that Democrats in Congress who don’t want us to be in the war asked the Congressional Budget Office to provide. Our force structure in Iraq and Afghanistan has fluctuated. Already this year, the President said that 5,700 troops would come home by December. We don’t know what the costs are going to be over the years, and so because that fluctuates, it’s just wildly premature to put out a number like that.
Q Okay, so what might be a more reasonable estimate? I’m sure folks at OMB have their own counter.
MS. PERINO: Look, spending to fight the global war on terror is an investment in our security and it is something that the President is committed to prioritizing in the budget. We hope that Congress would agree. We don’t know how much the war is going to cost in the future.
[snip]
Q If you can say it’s inaccurate and others can say it’s wildly inaccurate, surely there must be some kind of quantifiable sense as to what this —
MS. PERINO: I think what they looked at 10 years ago — the answer is we just don’t operate that way in terms of providing a federal budget.
“We Just Don’t Operate That Way In Terms Of Providing A Federal Budget”? Oh Yes You Do!
Q Can you just explain why the administration takes issue with the CBO’s projections of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s perfectly reasonable to put out — OMB puts out a five-, 10-year budget deficit projections?
MS. PERINO: Well, remember the budget deficit projections include our war costs, and so we look at those, that’s a — we do projections for the budget and the deficit every year. That’s a pretty good economic — they have it down to a science over at OMB. We’re not always a nation at war and that is different and there are changing circumstances on the ground, and when you don’t know what the generals are going to need, then you have to wait and see. That’s why we think it’s too speculative to put out a number like CBO did.
Q So how can OMB then put out that five-, 10-year budget projection if they don’t know, for instance, how long the war will go five or 10 years out?
MS. PERINO: As I said, we try to take as many — we take into account the projections that we can. In the budget deficit projections that we have we have included those war costs in the past — I can’t remember — the past, I think five years — I’m sorry, four years, but Sean Kavelighan at OMB can give you more information about it. He was here talking to me about it earlier. We just don’t think that it’s appropriate to wildly speculate and throw out a number like $2.4 trillion that is based on just hypotheticals. It’s just — it’s not a smart way to run a railroad.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With [Yesterday’s] Gaggle”
I’m SurprisedDana Didn’t Claim She Knows Nothing About Katrina
Q Dana, the aggressive response to the fires, how much of that is done sort of with lessons learned from Katrina?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think that there were lessons learned from Katrina, especially in regards to early communication and coordination between the federal, state, and local governments. Obviously, the situation is different. When you have a hurricane, there are days when you can prepare and prepare for evacuation. These fires can spark up overnight and literally your house is going up in smoke. And so that’s why the President declared the emergency so that we can help people get to a place where they can be safe.
[snip]
Q Well, when you send Secretary Chertoff out or Director Paulison or you take a minute to show us 280,000 bottles of water, is that designed to make sure folks know that the administration won’t repeat its own mistakes?
MS. PERINO: I would say that it’s not designed to do anything for me to show you that; it’s to alert people to what the federal government is doing in order to help the people of southern California. The whole world is watching how much of the state — the southern part of the state is on fire.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Sorry I’m late. I fucked up one of my eyes and couldn’t use th ecomputer for a few days.
Anyway, Can Someone Please Tell Me HowDana Peroxide Is Qualified To Be Press Secretary? She Can’t Spin For Shit
Q Secretary Rice didn’t seem to come back with much progress from her trip. Does this set back the idea of a peace conference in November, move it to December?
MS. PERINO: Well, I took her — I’ve been reading the reports of her trip. She did have a — they were going to have breakfast with the President this morning, she and Secretary Gates, to talk about the trip. Steve Hadley is going to go to the Middle East region next week as well. We believe the time is right for there to a substantive and serious discussion about getting to a Palestinian state. I have not heard anything to suggest that we would not be holding a meeting. They’re all working towards it. We don’t have a date yet.
Dana Just Can’t Bring Herself To Say “Pervez”
Q Are you learning anything more about the explosions in Pakistan, and any concerns that the President has about what impact that might have with Benazir Bhutto being back —
MS. PERINO: Well, we continue to get the reports back. Obviously, it was a horrible tragedy, with over, I think, 136 people being murdered, innocent people that were there just to rally around someone that they support. We, obviously, will offer our support through the embassy. The President is concerned that overall — when you look at a moderate Islamic state like Pakistan, that any time they try to make moves towards stabilizing their democracy, that radical Islamic extremists do something in order to try to stop that progress, and that is a concern to the President not only in Pakistan, but in the entire region.
[snip]
Q Dana, has the — have U.S. officials gotten any fix on what organization might have been behind this attack? And is there any suspicion that al Qaeda was the author?
MS. PERINO: I’m going to just decline to comment; there’s conflicting information coming in. Until there’s something concrete, I’ll decline.
Q Judging by the kind of attack it was, and the target, the location, I mean, is there any sense of —
MS. PERINO: I’m going to decline to comment as to who it was.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With [Friday’s] Gaggle”
Tony Farto Thinks World War III Is Nothing To Worry About Q On Iran, why should the American public trust that the administration isn’t making a case laying the groundwork for military action, when you have the President and the Vice President talking about World War III and the possibility of the country facing serious consequences if they don’t stop their nuclear pursuit? MR. FRATTO: Look, the President and the Vice President, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, have all been incredibly clear and consistent in our message on Iran, and that is that we first seek a diplomatic solution and we … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle
Dana Peroxide Tries To Cover For The Warmongering Chimp
Q The President’s World War III comment yesterday has spawned a lot of reaction. Today Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman said it was warlike rhetoric that would — in his words — “jeopardize peace.” Was the President making an offhand remark there, or are these people reading too much into what he was saying?
MS. PERINO: What the President was doing was focusing the world on the consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon.
[snip]
What the President said yesterday wasn’t about what we would do. It was about them, it was about the Iranians and what they have said and what they have not done in terms of meeting their international obligations. So the President was focusing the world’s attentions on the negative consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon, and that is why we are working through the U.N. Security Council to make sure that they meet their Chapter 7 obligations under the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Q So by raising World War III he wasn’t overstating the dangers?
MS. PERINO: The President was making a point that this is a country that has said that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and the President has long said — and I think no one would want the President of the United States — any President of the United States — to take any option off the table.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Dana Says Chimpy Is Afraid Of Being Photographed With The Dalai Lama
Q Why not release the picture?
MS. PERINO: There’s going to be a picture of the President and the Dalai Lama that you’ll have tomorrow.
Q What about today?
MS. PERINO: They’ll be standing together in the Capitol.
Q But if it’s not that big a deal, and the President’s proud to —
MS. PERINO: We understand that there are very strong feelings that the Chinese have, and that they’ve reacted negatively to the fact the President will be going to this event tomorrow. But the President was clear that he would attend the event, as he had before. And we made a decision not to release a photograph today, but you are — it’s not that you’re not going to get a picture of the President and the Dalai Lama, because you’ll see them together tomorrow at the Capitol.
Q Was it a conscious decision not the release a photo, even though you —
MS. PERINO: We always make a decision whether or not to release a photo.
Q But it almost appears like a splitting the difference, that understanding that China is —
MS. PERINO: Well, I don’t know if the Chinese would feel that way. I think that they don’t want the event to happen at all. So I — but I think — it is going to go forward. The President will be there tomorrow. He’ll make brief remarks and he’ll have his picture taken there, too.
Q Is it a gesture to the Chinese to not release a photo, to limit the exposure —
MS. PERINO: I don’t know if they would take it that way. It was a decision we made on our own. They did not ask us not to release a photo.
Q And what is the basis of that decision, then? It’s certainly a story today.
MS. PERINO: The United States — we in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye, to a country that we have a lot of relationships with on a variety of — I mean, a good relationship with on a variety of issues. And if this is — this might be one thing that we can do. But I don’t have — I don’t believe that that’s going to assuage the concerns of the Chinese.
[snip]
Q If I could just follow, you can judge by the number of questions here in this briefing that it is —
MS. PERINO: — lot of hot air tonight.
Q — the topic of the day. So why not release this picture today? It just seems like it’s happening today —
MS. PERINO: I understand and I’ll take it back up, if I can, but I believe that there will not be a photo today. You’ll get one tomorrow.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
According ToGaggle Back-Bencher Tony Farto, Your Tax Dollars Are Paying To Fly Chimpy Around To Raise Money For Republikkkans Today MR. FRATTO: Congressman John Boozman will meet the President at the airport and will be with us during our time in Rogers. And then from there we’ll go to Memphis for Lamar Alexander’s fundraiser. Tony Farto Says Chimpy Won’t Negociate Through The Media… Q Back on S-CHIP. Speaker Pelosi said that she is waiting for an overture from the President before any talks would begin. Is the President — MR. FRATTO: Well, the President made an overture. He made an … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle
Dana Peroxidce Peroxide (Damn!) held a gaggle this monring morning (Double-Damn!) primarily dealing with Japanese PM Shinzo Abe’s pending visit with Chimpy at Camp David. The most interesting tidbit I gleaned from that discussion was that neo-imperialist Abe’s grandfather once played golf with Chimpy’s Nazi-loving grandfather.
The discussion of Abe’s trip was followed by a conventional gaggle.
Name-Calling
Q I’d like to ask you about the level of political discourse about Iraq. The Vice President and President are accusing the Democrats of being defeatist, they’re talking about surrender dates. Senator Reid comes back and calls the Vice President an attack dog. What happened to the thought that there was going to be an elevated debate; they were going to be more high minded, not as mean spirited?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think that what happens in Washington at times of high drama and passion on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, that there are times when you’re trying to make your substantive point, that the rhetoric can sometimes lead you to say things that you might not otherwise say in a one-on-one conversation.
I do think that when talking about a surrender date, it is very descriptive of what we believe is in the legislation. It says, you must leave on this day, and we think that that tells the enemy that they’ve won and that we’ve surrendered. And I think that’s a good way to explain it to the American people.
Q Well, and you say that you’re not questioning their patriotism, but by calling them defeatist and talking about surrender, you don’t think that that gets close to that line of not —
MS. PERINO: I think that what we have done is argued on the merits and on the substance of our arguments. And I don’t know if that’s always been the case on the other side. I grant you that I think that tension is high, because the stakes are high. And we feel very strongly that leaving before the job is done is turning over the victory to the enemy. And this is an enemy that, as the President has said many times, people need to understand is not only vying for control of Iraq, is a sworn enemy of the United States being helped by other sworn enemies of the United States, and that we ought to take this very seriously.
Q But don’t you think that words matter? I mean, doesn’t that suggest —
MS. PERINO: I certainly think —
Q — “helping the enemy” — doesn’t “helping the enemy” suggest some kind of lack of patriotism?
MS. PERINO: I think if you look at what the President has said, is that we are kidding ourselves if we think that the Qaeda is not trying to create a safe haven as they had in Afghanistan. And by us leaving too soon, before the Iraqis are able to take care of their country themselves, that that is what the President is trying to argue. And I would say that someone who calls the President a liar and a loser does not have very strong ground to stand on in talking about name-calling.
It’s Gonna Be The Bestest Veto Ceremony Evah!
Q When the President vetoes the war supplemental, as we think he’ll get it, what does he do then? Will he reach out to Congress and say, okay, here’s where we can move from here?
[snip]
Q And when do you think — how quickly would he veto it after the Senate votes?
MS. PERINO: Let us try to — we don’t even know when we’re going to get the actual vote. We have some general idea, but not specifically. I think it’s safe to say soon after.
Q Well, “soon after” meaning — I mean, if the President is at Camp David for the day, would he do it without any ceremony?
MS. PERINO: Let me just say soon after. I don’t believe that we’re going to be getting it on Friday.
Q Do you envision, though, a formal — I don’t want to call it a ceremony, but for lack of a better word — event, at this point?
MS. PERINO: We’re talking about it, and what we would do, but we don’t have any plans yet to announce. We’re thinking about it.
[snip]
Q But this would be only his second veto, and I recall that during the stem cell veto, there was an elaborate event in which he brought families. I’m wondering if you’re planning to bring military —
MS. PERINO: A little bit too early for us to preview, since we don’t even have the bill yet and we don’t know what day that it’s coming. It’s important.
Q Yes, but you can get it together.
MS. PERINO: We’re pretty good. (Laughter.)
Q Just call it a “no surrender” party. (Laughter.)
MS. PERINO: We’ll take that under consideration.
Q A great Bruce Springsteen, “No Retreat, No Surrender.”
MS. PERINO: I don’t think he’d come. (Laughter.)
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Earlier today I obsessed over the morning gaggle, an event for which the White House does not routinely post a transcript.
Now the afternoon gaggletranscript is up.
Let’s Start With The “No Comments” Portion of Today’s Gaggle
Q The House Judiciary Committee took another step today in its investigation of the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys. They voted to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, the former aide to Attorney General Gonzales. Does the White House think that’s a good strategy?
MS. PERINO: That’s up to the committee; it’s not something we’re going to comment on.
Unka Karl’s In Trouble
Q A couple of points. Has the White House been notified in any way from the agency known as the Office of Special Counsel about its inquiries into the work of Karl Rove or the political operation here?
MS. PERINO: No. No, we have not. As I said yesterday, we have had cooperation with them in the past, and we’ve responded appropriately. But we have not heard from them on this issue.
Helen Upsets Dana To The Point Where Peroxide Starts To Speak Like Chimpy
Q Is the President still going to veto anything from the Hill that sets a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, despite the belief of the public that we should pull out?
MS. PERINO: I think that — let me try to unpack that. The President has said that if the Democrats decide to insist on sending him a bill that includes a deadline for withdrawal, that he will veto the bill. And I understand that there are many people who are in this country that are frustrated with the war. I do think that you have to be a little bit careful in blanketing everybody that they want to pull out quickly from Iraq and with an arbitrary deadline or a rash decision, and leave that vacuum that we believe is going to be left there, if we leave that quickly.
Q Well, if the majority of people really wanted to pull out, would the President pull out? And what kind of a statistic do you have that they don’t want to?
MS. PERINO: As the President has said many times before, he does not make decisions based on polls. He understands as Commander —
Q Did he make decisions based on what the American people want?
MS. PERINO: He makes decisions based as the elected President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief and his main priority is the protection of the American people, and that’s what he —
Q How do you protect the soldiers who are over there dying every day?
MS. PERINO: That is the President’s gravest concern, and he talks to the commanders on the ground to make sure that they are protected and that they are doing their jobs. He understands that he has asked them to do a very, very difficult mission. It’s very dangerous in Baghdad. We do have a new Baghdad security plan that’s underway, being led by General David Petraeus, who is up on the Hill today providing an update to the Congress on the status of that Baghdad security plan.
Q But a hundred people are dying in Iraq every day.
MS. PERINO: It’s a very tragic situation. I don’t know if that number is accurate, but obviously it’s not only our troops that are dying, but very many — too great of numbers of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq, as well.
[snip]
Q Who is the enemy you speak of? Are these Iraqis?
MS. PERINO: We have different folks that we’re considering the enemy. Obviously, al Qaeda is in Iraq, and they say that this is the battle. And then there are insurgents —
Q Are there Iraqis that you speak of, when you speak of the enemy?
MS. PERINO: I think they are definitely — obviously, there are Iraqis who are engaging in criminal activity and in sectarian violence.
Q Criminal? To defend their own country?
MS. PERINO: I think when anyone is killing innocent men, women and children that they —
Q Against an invader and occupier?
MS. PERINO: Helen, we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolution. Mark, did I finish your question?
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Ah, we get Pony Blow again today.
The Gaggleres Want To Know If Alberto Gonzales Is Going To The Hill To Help Lobby For Immigration Reform
Q Is Al Gonzales coming up today?
MR. SNOW: I don’t know. The way these lunches work is that obviously there will be some conversation about immigration. We’ve got an energy bill that’s coming up, a defense authorization bill that’s going to be debated before long. There’s a whole series of items that I’m sure members are going to want to talk about. I don’t — my guess is, will the Attorney General — probably not. I mean, we had — we had the symbolic vote yesterday. It didn’t have enough votes to get to the floor for a final vote, and I think that’s that. I think that’s over.
Oh, Right — Alberto’s Troubles Are Over [rolls eyes]
The President Is A Looser, Isn’t He?
Q What about the hard-nosed politics here? Isn’t the reality that, given Iraq and a litany of other issues that the President is unpopular with his own party on, that for Republicans who are already skeptical, at the very least, about this, it makes more sense for them to vote against the President then to vote with him?
MR. SNOW: I’m not sure. Are you telling — I don’t think so, because here you have a bill where the law enforcement provisions are significantly — border security is significantly tougher than the status quo. When it comes to tracking down who is here illegally, significantly tougher and more credible than the status quo. When it comes to punishing employers who knowingly hire illegals, by many orders of magnitude, tougher than the status quo.
So conservatives — I think again, for a lot of Republicans, the first thing is, what are you going to do on border security? And our view is, don’t trust us, verify. The way the bill is written says that you have to deploy on the border 370 miles of fence, more than 200 miles of vehicle barriers. The fact is, these numbers are changing in the course of debate, and I think they’ve been strengthened during the course of debate. So what you’re going to have is a certain demonstrated commitment on border security that is — that will be credible.
Furthermore, there’s a proposal by Senators Kyl and Graham that would take all the fees and collections made in the course of this legislation, set it aside basically into a fund that could be used only for border enforcement. There you have a mandatory spending program, where the money flows directly into enforcement, and you have a continuous commitment in terms of funding to keeping your vigilance on the border. So I think those are the kinds of things that members are going to want to hear.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
How does the Bush Assministration defend citing Executive Privilege in response to legitmate congressional subpoenas? By trotting out an anonymous “official”! No Precedent For Applying Executive Privilege To Testimony Q I take it the President’s assertion of executive privilege does not cover Miers and Taylor testifying? Or is he saying that it does — since they’ve left the executive branch? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. The position stated in this letter and in this exercise of executive privilege is only with regard and in regard to documents; that’s the only thing … Continue reading Gutless Cowards
On Air Force One, en route to Rhode Island. Pony Makes It Clear That The White House Claim Of Executive Privilege Does Not Apply To The Testimony Of Harriet Miers Or Sara Taylor Q The privilege applies to the document request, but what about testimony by Taylor and Miers? MR. SNOW: We are responding only to the subpoenas which refer to document requests. [snip] Q Tony, the arguments made by Fielding in the letter would apply also to this later request, right? MR. SNOW: The Fielding letter replies only to the document requests — again, for those they needed a … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle
Pony Sez Chimpy Is Down With The Looo-gar Q And is the outreach going to extend to Senators Lugar and Voinovich for coming to the White House and talking about some of the concerns they’ve been expressing? MR. SNOW: Well, we certainly are going to have conversations with them. We’re going to be talking to them. You know, it’s interesting, because I’ve been going back again over the Senator Lugar speech. Really, when you take a look at it, the one thing he rules out very quickly is the idea we just get out — don’t fund the troops, don’t … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle
Yeah, I’m a lazy son of a bitch, I should have gotten to this yesterday. Oh well.
Pony Blow Sez Lugar’s Big Flip-Flop Is no Big Deal
Q Tony, you said you weren’t surprised by the substance of Senator Lugar’s comments on the Senate floor last night. Were you surprised by the timing at all, that he chose last night to do it?
MR. SNOW: I’d ask him. We certainly were not aware that there — we were not made directly aware that there would be a statement at that time. But again, it’s consistent with things he said.
Q I’m thinking, from what I heard in the gaggle and from the shrug right now that you don’t find this very significant.
MR. SNOW: Look, Dick Lugar is a serious guy, so obviously you take it seriously. But on the other hand, again, he voted against the original — he voted against the surge. He’s somebody who has had reservations. We take seriously his point of view because he is a serious guy. On the other hand, we also take seriously the efforts and the advice that the President has gotten from his commanders on the ground, and also the continuing cooperation not only with the commanders on the ground, but also Ambassador Crocker and working with our colleagues in the Iraqi government.
That Set Helen Off
Q The arguments you are using are the same ones we heard when we were on the ropes in Vietnam and about to leave. You can’t dismiss Lugar. He’s been in foreign —
MR. SNOW: I didn’t dismiss him.
Q He’s been in foreign relations, head of the committee, all through these many years. And when he says something, he’s saying something very important. The question is, what is the price that this country is willing to pay, in terms of killing people in a country that did nothing to us, and our own people? How far? How long?
MR. SNOW: You’re assuming, Helen, that, in fact, nobody did anything to the American people, and furthermore, that nobody is doing anything to the Iraqi people.
Q Did the Iraqis attack us?
MR. SNOW: Well, what’s going on right now is that you have terrorists who are killing Muslims. The United States is in the process of trying to do —
Q We went in there as an aggressor, who killed people there to take over.
MR. SNOW: No, we did not go there to take over, we went there to liberate.
Q In his speech, Senator Lugar said that the surge’s prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who don’t share our agenda; it relies on military power to achieve goals that it can’t achieve, and it distances allies we’ll need for regional diplomatic efforts. And he goes on. This is serious stuff.
MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.
Q He further distances himself from the President. I understand the need to downplay it, and to say that it’s consistent with what he’s said in the past, but really this goes further. This is him separating himself far further from the President.
MR. SNOW: No, that’s your characterization, that’s not mine. Let’s take a look: regional allies — I think you take a look at, do allies want the United States to leave, and you take a look in the region, and the answer is no, unless you’re Iran and Syria. In point of fact, it is very important for us to be able to complete the job of building stability within Iraq, and at the same time, sending the ultimate in terms of discouragement to the terrorist forces by demonstrating that no matter what they do, no matter how they try, their efforts are not going to succeed.
Q He goes so far as to say that Iraqis don’t want to be Iraqis.
MR. SNOW: Well, again, you’ll find that — certainly if you take a look, even — I hate to rely on polling for this — but you look at it and there are — in fact, Iraqis do want to be Iraqis, and more importantly, they want to be free and democratic Iraqis.
Q So Lugar is wrong on that one?
MR. SNOW: I’m just telling you — I’m giving you my analysis.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With [Yesterday’s] Gaggle”
Geeze, chemotherapy must be giving Pony Blow a hard time. They really shouoldn’t send the mentally impaired Dana Peroxide out to do the gaggle after a news weekend like the one we just experienced.
The Word Of The Day Is “Opine”
Q Dana, as long as we’re talking about branches of government, can you go back to Vice President Cheney again, the argument that he’s not part of the executive branch. Does the President believe he’s part of the executive branch?
MS. PERINO: I think that that is an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it. I think when we were talking about the EO from last week, we’ve gone over that several times. You probably don’t want me to go over it again. But the Vice President — any Vice President has legislative and executive functions.
[snip]
When we are talking about this EO, it is separate and apart from — the President and the Vice President oversee the executive agencies. Supreme Court precedent shows that the Vice President and the President are not seen as an agency when it comes to executive orders.
Q I know that’s your argument about an agency, but it’s very separate from the argument the Vice President is making. And what is the President — what is the White House’s view of the argument the Vice President is making on whether or not he’s part of the executive branch?
Q For one, I think — I mean, the information is clearly —
MS. PERINO: I’m not opining on it, because the President did not intend for the Vice President to be subject as an agency in that section of the EO.
Q That’s an entirely different argument. So you don’t Vice President’s —
MS. PERINO: No, it’s the same —
Q You don’t support the Vice President —
MS. PERINO: I’m not opining on it either way.
Ask The Supreme Court, Ask The Vice President’s Office — Just Don’t Ask Dana
Q But, Dana, how could the Vice President, earlier in the administration, argue he didn’t have to turn over records about the energy task force, for example, because he was a member of the executive branch? He clearly stated that.
MS. PERINO: You could ask the Supreme Court who ruled in his favor.
Q But he did not say, I’m a member of the legislative branch, as well, so I don’t have to — I mean, he clearly stated that there was strong executive power and he didn’t have to turn over these records. Now, when it suits his interest, he seems to be saying a different legal argument.
MS. PERINO: Look, I’m not a legal scholar and there’s plenty of them that you can find in Washington, D.C. But just that very point that you’re making there shows that he has functions in both the executive branch and the legislative branch.
Q But he didn’t mention those functions — dual functions in the early legal arguments at the beginning of the administration. He only used the executive branch arguments.
MS. PERINO: Look, you can try to call his office and try to get more information. I’m not opining on his argument that his office is making.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
I’m going to do a long bit from today’s gaggle on Cheney’s assertion that the Office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch, but first I have to give Les Kinsolving his props.
Les Asks A Good One
Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. In his statement, “all human life is sacred,” the President deplored what he termed, “the deliberate destruction of human embryos.” And my question: If a pregnant woman is medically diagnosed as facing death, unless she has a therapeutic abortion, does the President believe it is wrong to destroy the fetus to save the life of the mother?
MS. PERINO: I think that we’ve made public comments on this before regarding the health of the mother. And you’re raising complex ethical questions, which I’d refer you to the NIH to ask.
Q Well, all right. Is the President opposed to the destruction of any embryo resulting from gang rape or incest?
MS. PERINO: I think we’ve made comments on that, too, Les. We’ll get you those from before.
Q He’s made them before?
MS. PERINO: Yes, I’ll get those for you. Go ahead.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Aquickie on board Air Force One as Chimpy flies to Alabama to raise money for Senator Jaif Sayshuns (funny how we taxpayers get to foot the bill for Chimpy’s Republikkkan fundraising travel expenses, ain’t it?). Apparently No One Told Dana Peroxide That The Vice President Is Not Part Of The Executive Branch Q This is from the House Oversight Committee, this is Waxman’s people. The committee says it has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the Presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle
This has become a daily event.
Pony Gets A Face Full Of Helen, And In Response Claims That Everyone Who Attacks US Forces In Iraq Is 1) A Terrorist And 2) Not From Iraq
Q A study shows that Iraq is the second-most unstable country in the world. Do we have anything to do with that?
MR. SNOW: Do we have anything to do with that? Yes, I saw the study —
Q — the killing?
MR. SNOW: We don’t — I’m not sure I got the —
Q I’m talking about Petraeus, also, intensifying — is he trying to build a kill record before September?
MR. SNOW: No. No. In point of fact, Helen, if you take a look at the record of the last two months, the people who have been trying to put together the kill record are al Qaeda. Go to the mosques —
Q Is everybody who resists our occupation a terrorist?
MR. SNOW: Do you think somebody who goes in and blows up 50 people in a mosque is resisting occupation?
Q What have we done for five years?
MR. SNOW: What we have been trying to do is to work with folks to deal with a highly volatile situation in Iraq in the wake of a murderous regime —
Q We’ve killed thousands of people, tens of thousands —
MR. SNOW: Many have died, and hundreds of thousands died under the previous regime. This is a place that has too long been wracked by violence. And the fact that in fighting —
Q We’re not supposed to be comparing, are we?
MR. SNOW: Unfortunately, if we fought evil guys who simply would say, you caught us, we’re evil, we give up, we’ll be good — that would be great, that would be wonderful.
Q Everybody isn’t evil who fights for his land.
MR. SNOW: A lot of the people we’re talking about, Helen, aren’t fighting for their land, because it’s not their land. They don’t even come from Iraq.
Q Are we fighting Iraqis, inherently, in their own country?
MR. SNOW: Are we fighting Iraqis inherently? I think if you take a look at what General Petraeus is saying, is that increasingly Iraqis are joining with us to defend their country from the onslaught of outside fighters, whether they be from al Qaeda or Iran.
Q Good, but we have to admit we’re killing a lot of Iraqis who are against our presence.
MR. SNOW: I’m not sure. I mean, that requires the kind of canvas of those who have died that I’m not capable of doing.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With [Yesterday’s] Gaggle”
I took a little break from the Internets yesterday, but today I’m back and so is Pony Blow. Pony Blow: Professional Ass Q How do you respond to critics who say that the United States should have done a lot more for Abbas a lot sooner? And do you think the administration feels any responsibility at all for the split, Palestinian split? MR. SNOW: I think what you really need to be thinking about is the President of the United States did not bind people’s hands behind their back and throw them from rooftops. The President of the United States … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With [Yesterday’s] Gaggle
Gee, a fairly decent gaggle today.
Pony Blow Opens
MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. One thing to add to this morning’s gaggle — the President this morning had a 52-minute secure video teleconference with the members of the presidential council in Iraq — the Prime Minister, the President and the two Vice Presidents.
And So?
Q During the video teleconference did the President very directly express his impatience about the lack of political movement?
MR. SNOW: No, what he did is he once again reaffirmed the importance of political movement, but it’s something that they’ve shared — one of the things that is happening is that this presidential council is becoming, as they expressed, more effective and coherent as an organization, so that you have not only much closer personal, but professional dealings between the foreign members — at one point calling themselves the gang of four.
So I think it’s — the President was impressed and reassured by the sense of seriousness that he heard in the meeting.
So The President Is Reassured, What About Those Of Us Who Reside In The Reality-Based Universe?
Q Can you tell us anything specific about what that reassurance — why he felt reassured, and also address whether or not they’re taking a vacation and whether you know how long that vacation will be?
MR. SNOW: On the second, I don’t believe so; and on the first, no, I can’t give you any specifics.
Q You don’t believe they’re taking a vacation now?
MR. SNOW: I’m not sure; I don’t think so. Again, I’ll refer it back to —
Q But, Tony, can you give us some sense of why he felt reassured, given that we’ve heard reassurances before?
MR. SNOW: Well, again, it is clear that you’ve got an environment now where the key leaders are working together on these issues. And, yes, we have heard a lot of these things before, but without — and I’m not in a position to go into the details and what they were saying, but there are reasons we think they’re very serious in moving forward on the key items.
Q But, Tony, we’ve heard that before, many times.
MR. SNOW: I understand. I understand.
Q I mean, why is there any more reason now to believe that they’re serious about moving forward than there was the last time you said that? Or the time before?
MR. SNOW: I understand. But, again, I think — let me put it this way, that you see that there are tangible efforts going on and I’m just not going to go into any greater detail, I’m going to let the — that is a sovereign government and I will permit them to make the announcements about how they’re doing and where they’re going.
Q You think there will be announcements on something about where they’re going?
MR. SNOW: No, I think, again, I’m just going to leave it at that.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
Chimpy’s on the road, first to Wichita, Kansas, and then on to the frontlines of the War In Iraq (Crawford). Pony Blow, Dana Peroxide, and Tony Farto apparently did not want to visit either of those garden spots, we are stuck with fourth-stringer Snott Stanzel. Snott May Have AMySpaces Page, But He has No Idea How Many People Live In The Gaza Strip Q How concerned is the President about the prospect of a terrorist state in the middle of the Middle East? That’s obviously been a focus of his foreign policy, trying to prevent that. MR. STANZEL: No one … Continue reading Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle
Helen Thomas Nails The Chimp-In-Chief Once AgainToday
Q The President said in his speech that — to expect many more casualties. How many more Americans is he willing to sacrifice to keep this war going?
MR. SNOW: You know, what’s interesting, Helen, is if you ask the people who are — if you take a look at what’s going on in recruitment right now, the people who are most likely to sign up are the people who are involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if you talk to a number of them, they feel that they are part of something very special, which is something that is certainly a difficult mission, but it also reflects the finest traditions of the United States of America, which is what people are fighting for — to liberate others and to extend the boundaries of liberty, and to create the possibility for allies who are going to be not only allies in the war on terror, but examples of exactly the power of freedom.
The President wishes that nobody had to die. This is something that is deeply personal. He quite often meets with families of those who have been wounded and killed. On the other hand, the real question is, what happens if the United States walks away? And the answer is that many, many more people will be washed away in needless bloodshed as forces of terror draw confidence and encouragement from the fact that we will not have finished the job.
And Then Helen Asked The Question of the Day
Q I have one follow-up. Are there any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war?
MR. SNOW: Yes, the President. The President is in the war every day.
Q Come on. That isn’t my question.
MR. SNOW: If you ask any President who is a Commander-in-Chief —
Q On the front lines —
MR. SNOW: The President.
More Progress
Q Thank you. A Pentagon report says violence has increased in Iraq in spite of the surge. Does the President intend to send more U.S. troops to Iraq?
MR. SNOW: Actually, the 90-10 report says that the overall levels have been high, but if you take a look at some of the metrics which have been taking place in Baghdad, you have a seen a decrease in sectarian violence, and you’ve also seen a number of other metrics, for instance, 34 percent decrease in violence in Anbar. Nevertheless, we’ve seen al Qaeda moving to other places and also using more deadly means, such as explosively formed projectiles.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”
InToday’s Gaggle, A Gaggler Catches Chimpy In Yet Another Lie
Q But, Tony, on March 14th, the President was in Mexico, he was at a press conference and said, “I’ve heard those allegations about political decision-making in this matter. It’s just not true.” How can that be true when now there are emails showing that the White House Political Director was involved in the firings? Wouldn’t that suggests politics —
MR. SNOW: No, the White House Political Director — I think if you take a look at the White House Political Director, these most recent emails I believe took place after the personnel action had taken place. And furthermore, look, you can assume that when you have political appointees, the Political Office is certainly going to have some conversations. And I believe that the emails you’re talking about involve Tim Griffin.
Q Okay. But you’re saying you would assume that politics would be involved because there’s a political — but at the beginning of this story —
MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I said the Political Office would have some knowledge of it.
Q Okay, but at the beginning of this story, the President, you, Dan Bartlett, others said on camera that politics was not involved, this was performance-based.
MR. SNOW: That is something — we have never said that. I think you’ll have to take a look at comments that have been made by the Justice Department. What we’ve said is that people serve at the pleasure of the President. That’s the operative principle here.
Q The President said, I’ve heard those allegations about political decision-making and it’s just not true. I mean, he clearly said politics was not involved, right?
MR. SNOW: Right.
Q So now politics was because the Political Director —
MR. SNOW: No. Just because the Political Director is weighing in on something does not mean that this is politics involved. These are political appointees.
Pony Make No Guarantees
Q You make a good point that these emails were in February, with Sarah Taylor. Can you say from that podium categorically that the White House Political Affairs Office was not involved back in November, October, leading up to the December decision?
MR. SNOW: I think what we’ve done is we’ve already released all the emails that are available, and you can draw whatever judgments —
Q From the Justice Department, but what about White House emails?
MR. SNOW: Yes, but the — those were Justice Department emails, including those that had come from the White House.
Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”