It appears that the White House still hasn’t learned that it’s probably not a good idea to lie about things when there is extensively recorded evidence to disprove what you’re saying.
The White House has been accused of trying to rewrite history after requesting Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Service to alter the transcript to a October 31 press briefing. Both news agencies reported White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to a question about the CIA leak case by saying “that’s accurate.” But the White House insists he said, “I don’t think that’s accurate.” So far both Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Services have refused to change their transcripts but the White House website now claims McClellan said “I don’t think that’s accurate.” - Excerpt from today’s Democracy Now program
In case you want to hear for yourselves, I’ve made a short MP3 excerpt of the portion of the hearings that is in question. Anyone who can listen to this audio and claim (with a straight face) that he said “I don’t think that’s accurate” probably deserves even less than the plummeting 36% approval rating they currently have.
I realize that it was probably a slip of the tongue, since the press secretary would probably never consciously admit that the statement was accurate (even if he thought it was), but why not just say that? Why not just say “he meant to say…”, instead of trying to claim that he actually did say something he obviously didn’t. What’s the point of lying about something that everyone can easily see is false because there is obviously going to be recorded evidence, since there’s a room full of reporters present?
In the end, I’m not really sure what’s more sad, the fact that they’re lying about this, or the probability that a lot of the supporters of the administration don’t care and will likely ignore it.
11 Comments
he’s trying to talk over the reporter. you do sound stuff and should be willing to admit that, he could have easily said “i’m not sure” before fully leaning into the mic.
so what’s truth? the slip of the tongue/audio mechanics failure or the actual intended statement?
“liar! liaaar!” politics are so stupid.
it’s not really lying if you were pretty sure you said one thing and claim to have said it, even if you actually said something else. when it’s a lie, you have to have intended to decieve, i just don’t think that’s the case here. (or most of the time people claim bush’s people lie.)
I’d have to see the video to see if he wasn’t leaning up to the mic, but even if he weren’t you would have heard something, just not as loud.
As I said above, I’m sure that he didn’t intend to say that, but like I said above, why didn’t they just say “he didn’t mean to say that” rather than trying to alter transcripts and insisting that he actually said what he should have said? It isn’t really a matter of “I think I said this”, since it’s clearly recorded.
I would agree that this particular case is rather petty, which is why I’m surprised they didn’t just admit that it was a slip up and move on.
I do think that there are certainly other cases in which the administration has lied with much more serious consequences, however (although I’d rather not to get into that yet again right now, people can search the archives for those lengthy discussions), and I do think that they should be held accountable for it. If the previous president was impeached for lying about a personal matter, how much more should they be held accountable regarding matters that actually affect our country and the rest of the world?
The previous president was impeached for far more than a “personal” matter.
I watched the video without sound and if I didn’t know what he was saying (and I don’t), I would think that he was giving a negative response. His head shakes a little like when you are responding “no” to something.
you’re assuming they “reviewed the tape” or even had immediate access to one when they tried to make the retraction.
i imagine that they were inspecting the transcripts as they always do, someone saw it and asked the guy, and he said, “no i was saying just the opposite!” so they put in the request to have the transcripts “corrected” immediately.
They definitely had access to the tape, so if they didn’t review it they are incompetent.
Re: the impeachment, what more was he impeached for? If I remember correctly, article one was that he “provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” regarding his personal relations with other women, and article two was regarding how he “prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice” by getting other people to testify on his behalf. Was there more too it than that, that I’m not aware of?
I’m not trying to stick up for the former president, since I believe what he did was wrong (even though he was found not guilty on the two accounts mentioned above), I’m just saying that the lies this current administration has told have already had much more grave consequences than any that the former president may have told. This specific example is certainly trivial (and perhaps just a mistake rather than a lie, but if so they sure did a crappy job of handling it), but I think it is indicative of the administration’s posture of refusing to admit that they made a mistake.
What really prompted me to post on this was the recent remarks that the president made about anti-war activists “rewriting history” in regards to how we went into Iraq; that’s the pot calling the kettle black if I’ve ever seen it.
Re: Previous President Impeachment. The concept that the things that he did and said and the people that he had contact with while in office is “personal” is what I was talking about. When you are the president, everything you do has public and far reaching implications. And “obstruction of justice” no matter what the issue, becomes a public problem.
About Clinton I was going to say lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice isn’t a personal matter. Having an affair isn’t a crime, but lying about it to the Feds is.
I’m pretty sure Bush has been criticizing Senate democrats not anti-war activists for rewriting history.
You guys sound like you are in a opposing discusson but saying the same thing…I don’t get it.
Yeah, what he/you/they said!