Tenet tells congess a White house official inisisted the sixteen words get into the state of the union. Congressman can’t say who the mystery offical is but who wnats to guess at the next fallguy? Rice probably but it could even be Cheney, I do love a good mystery.
The White House will never cop to this, though. Right now it sounds like they’re just trying to smear Durbin:
(Um… that “minority” turned out to be correct, didn’t they dickbag?)
Durbin was not the only member of congress present at Tenet’s confession. If Tenet actually fingered one of the Bushistas (and my guess is that it was Cheney or possibly Rove) then the WH is going to have to come up with something better than just sliming Turbin. I only wish the tv media would give this “Yellowcake” scandal the same kind of obsessive attention that they gave to Clinton’s knob-job. Fox, in particular, gets more desperately apologist and sycophantic every day.
“The president has within his ranks on staff some person who was willing to spin and hype and exaggerate and cut corners on the most important speech the president delivers in any given year,” Mr. Durbin said…
Not exactly. What McClellan is saying is that Durbin is mischaracterizing what was said at the confidential hearing.
It is not, IOW, opposition to military action in Iraq that compromises Durbin’s integrity, it is opposing it when Bush is President and supporting it when Clinton was President. That, and making allegedly false statements about a hearing, knowing that the White House could not dispute it without compromising security. It was a cheap shot, in McClellan’s opinion.
interesting given that McClellan wasn’t there and none of the republicans present have offered a contrary view. Instead of saying how Durbin misprepresented the truth he attacked Durbin for his position on the war and for being the member of a minority party. C’mon there is no way some of you would have accepted a cheap dodge like this from the Clinton Whitehouse.
Just because he supported the airstrikes in 1998 and opposed a full-scale invasion in 2003 doesn’t mean that the decision to supportone and oppose the other is the partisan decision that you’re portraying it as. It may well be that he would’ve either, opposed a full-scale invasion in 1998, or supported airstrikes in 2003.
In what way has Durbin “mischaracterized” the hearing? It’s easy to say that, isn’t it? Let’s hear McClellan actually deny the substance of what Durbin is saying rather than resorting to partisan smears. It’s not like the WH has any credibility left in its carefully parsed denials any more.
Incidentally, Durbin was correct that Bush’s motives could not be trusted with regards to Iraq.
You’ve misread the link.
The press release is from 1998. He doesn’t say that he doesn’t trust the president.
He says that he calls on those who do to “join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.”