Go Home

Gaggle

24 documents found in 0.002 seconds.

ATLANTA - A defiant Eric Rudolph pleaded guilty Wednesday to carrying out the deadly bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and three other attacks, saying he picked the Summer Games to embarrass the U.S. government in front of the world “for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand.” Because I believe that abortion is murder, I also believe that force is justified...read on

His statement is here.

This seems like the story cable news would be tripping all over each other to cover round the clock. It has everything any producer could want. A mad bomber right out of a Hollywood script that attacked the Olympics. He killed two people and injured 120! That's like almost three football teams.

White Supremacist ties and anti-semitic values. 250 pounds of dynamite just waiting for the fuse to be lit. There should be hundreds of protestors camped outside the Atlanta courtroom lashing out at judges and prosecutors for not seeking the death penalty. James Dobson should be on FOX News declaring that "the whole legal system is out of control and are derailing our judicial system. We have the death penalty for a good reason. How could any civil minded judge go along with this plea bargain anyway?" I can see signs held up amid the gaggle of the press that reads: "God said an eye for an eye!" Oh wait, sorry....he's an anti-abortionist. He believes in the culture of life. He hates gays too. Sorry, my mistake.

(Update): All Spin Zone has more: There are a lot of people out there who, if not overtly agreeing with Rudolph's actions, at least sympathize with the "moral forces" that drove him. Some of those people are running the country.

(Update) LaShawn Barber: I’m going on record to say that I’m appalled by what Eric Rudolph did.



Liar, Liar, pants on fire

How did anyone know what the intentions of the Denver three were?

From White House Gaggle

Scotty: Now, in terms of this issue, my understanding is a volunteer was concerned that these three individuals were coming to the event solely for the purpose of disrupting it. And if people are coming to the event to disrupt it, they are going to be asked to leave. There are always protest areas set up outside the events where people can express their views.

These three individuals acknowledged that they were coming to the event to disrupt it. They stated that publicly in some of the initial reports. And so my understanding is the volunteer was concerned about these individuals, and that's why he asked them to leave.

As far as I know, the three were ejected because of a bumper sticker. Even if your intentions were to disrupt the event, that still isn't proof that you actually would have. Unless of course one considers turning their back on the President as a disruption. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

The Carpetbagger Report has more info : The Denver Three’s attorney was not amused by the press secretary’s remarks...read on

More egregious, McClellan told White House reporters false information when addressing the staffer’s rationale for forcibly removing my clients…. McClellan’s statement is wrong, and the White House knows it. The Secret Service confirmed, after speaking with the mystery man in question, that the staffer removed my clients solely because of the bumper sticker on their car. This has been reported in the Washington Post and local Denver media, and has been confirmed to us directly.”

For what it’s worth, the same reporter followed up by asking if the White House has a role in directing these “volunteers.” McClellan said: “I don’t know if I’d view it that way.”

What an odd response. He never got around to saying how he does view it.



McClellan lies about Bush's "pull the plug" law

via Kos Stealing from Think Progress:

At the gaggle this morning, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan defended a law Bush signed as governor of Texas in 1999:
McClellan’s statement grossly distorts the nature of the law. The law does not ensure that actions are taken “in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient’s family.” In fact it codifies and legalizes the ability of doctors to stop treatment even if it goes against the explicit directive of the patient or the patient’s family.

Check out Section 166.046, Subsection (e):…

McClellan's response was a flat out lie. There's no gray area in the law.



SCOTT McCLELLAN TRIES TO EXPLAIN JEFF (GANNON)

Watch and listen to Gannon's Press Conference questions. See if that matches up with what Scott says at the press briefing. It took the bloggers literally a few hours of research to expose this guy. What's the White House's excuse? It sure sounds like Jeff is his best friend. Gannon's question involving Joe Wilson is errie since this diary on Kos appeared.
function vid_placeholder(placeholder_target, vid_link) { placeholder_target.innerHTML = ''; }

click here for WMP

Press Gaggle with Scott McClellan

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Raleigh, North Carolina

Q Jeff Gannon. How did he get a White House pass, or what kind of credentials did he have?

MR. McCLELLAN: Just like anyone else who comes to the White House.

Q Hard pass?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he had never applied for a hard pass. He had a daily pass. I think he's been coming for --

Q Was he coming for --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. I think he's been coming for more than two years now.

Q Under what name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sorry?

Q Under what name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have to get cleared. You have to -- just like anybody else that comes to the White House, you have to have your full name, your Social Security number and your birth date. So you have to be cleared just like anybody else.

Q So he was being cleared under James Guckert, or whatever his name is?

MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding, yes.

Q Okay, and how did he get picked to get a question asked at the last news conference?

MR. McCLELLAN: He didn't. The President didn't have a list. The President didn't -- he was in the briefing room. There are assigned seats in the briefing room. We didn't do any assigning of seats, and the President worked his way through the rows, and called on people as he came to them. He doesn't know who he is.

Q Were you aware that he had another name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Was I aware? I had heard that. I had heard that, yes, recently.

Q But did you know during all this time that he really wasn't Jeff Gannon?

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard at some point, yes -- previously.

Q As Press Secretary, what do you think about this whole --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said -- what do I think about it? Well, let me explain a few things. First, as the press secretary, I don't think it's the role of the Press Secretary to get into picking or choosing who gets press credentials. Also, I don't think it's the role of the Press Secretary to get into being a media critic, and I think there are very good reasons for that. I've never inserted myself into the process. He, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are. The issue comes up -- it becomes, in this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. And there -- it gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room.

And, as far as I'm concerned, I would welcome the White House Correspondents Association, if they have any concerns or issues that they want to bring to my attention, they know my door is open and I'll be glad to discuss these issues with them. I have an open dialogue with the Correspondents Association. No one's ever brought such an issue to my attention, in my -- during my time as being Press Secretary. And you all cover the briefing room on a regular basis. You know that there are a number of people in that room that express their points of view, and there are people in that room that represent traditional media, they represent talk radio, they represent -- they're columnists, and they represent online news organizations.

Q Was the White House aware at all -- was the White House aware -- was the White House aware at all about the online websites that he was linked to?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. This has only come to my attention through the news reports, just a few reporters calling in.

Q But just to make it clear, the only criteria, from the White House perspective is, someone can pass the Secret Service background check

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, that's not -- first of all, I don't involve myself in that process, it's handled at a staff level. Like I said, if the White House Correspondents Association ever wants to talk about issues, I welcome that. But it becomes an issue -- it becomes an issue of where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at advocacy journalism because there are a number of people that crossed that line, as I said? But there's hard -- there's hard passes and there's daily passes, as you are well aware. For a hard pass, you have to have a House and Senate credential, you have to regularly cover the White House, you have to apply for it, you have to go through a detailed FBI background check.

My understanding was, when he started coming to the White House about two years ago, the staff asked to see that it -- that he represented a news organization that published regularly. And they showed that, so he was cleared and has been cleared ever since based on that time.

And this is just now something that's come to my attention more recently because it's been an issue raised in some media reports.

There's so much here to dissect. Go at it.

More later