CBS' Roberts: McClellan is a "truth-teller" and a "stand-up guy" with a "pretty good job"
On the November 6 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, CBS News chief White House correspondent John Roberts vouched for White House press secretary Scott McClellan -- after watching a video clip of ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran telling McClellan at an October 31 press briefing that it was not the job of the White House press corps to "vouch" for McClellan to the American people. During the briefing, Moran questioned McClellan about false statements McClellan made to the press about the involvement of White House officials in the alleged leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Despite McClellan's false statements, during the Reliable Sources segment, Roberts called the press secretary a "truth-teller" and a "stand-up guy" and noted that he and McClellan have "a pretty good working relationship."
Roberts's comments came in response to a question from host Howard Kurtz, who asked if Roberts believed that "Scott McClellan owes the press and the public an apology for his -- what turned out to be misleading denial in the CIA leak case." Referring to McClellan's October 7, 2003, claim that White House senior adviser Karl Rove and former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the alleged leak of Plame's identity, Kurtz stated: "We now know that's not true, since Libby has been indicted for lying about his conversations with Tim Russert and other journalists, and Rove has been implicated but not charged in the CIA leak as well. But McClellan now insists he can't comment on an ongoing investigation."
Roberts responded that "[o]bviously in October of 2003, he [McClellan] got some pretty bad information." Roberts said McClellan was not at fault for conveying that "bad information." Instead, Roberts said, "the ones at fault are the ones who gave him what now appears to be bad information."
Roberts then added that "McClellan could do what some people might think to be the honorable thing and say, 'I'm not going to take this any more, I'm going to quit.' " But, Roberts explained, McClellan "has got a pretty good job, by and large. He has got a mortgage, he has got a wife, probably a family coming down the road at some point, and I don't think he wants to give up a lucrative job like that."
From the November 6 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: Two years ago, Scott McClellan flatly denied that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the press. We now know that's not true, since Libby has been indicted for lying about his conversations with Tim Russert and other journalists, and Rove has been implicated but not charged in the CIA leak as well. But McClellan now insists he can't comment on an ongoing investigation, and that got tempers flaring at a briefing this week.
[begin video clip]
McCLELLAN: I know very --
DAVID GREGORY (NBC chief White House correspondent): You speak for the president. Your credibility and his credibility is not on criminal trial. But it may very well be on trial with the American public, don't you agree?
McCLELLAN: No, I'm very confident in the relationship that we have in this room, and the trust that has been established between us. This relationship --
GREGORY: See those cameras? It's not about us. It's about what the American people --
McCLELLAN: This relationship is built on trust, and you know very well that I have worked hard to earn the trust of the people in this room, and I think I've earned it --
[...]
MORAN: You say we know you -- and we do -- but we can't vouch for you; that's not our job. And I wonder, do you really think after --
McCLELLAN: Well, wait a second. Let me just interject there. I think there are many people in this room I see expressing their own commentary on TV all the time --
MORAN: I can't go on TV and say, "America believes Scott McClellan." That's not my role.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: Joining us now from Brazil, where he's covering President Bush on his trip to South America, CBS News chief White House correspondent John Roberts; here in Washington, Jill Zuckman, Capitol Hill correspondent for the Chicago Tribune; and Frank Sesno, CNN's special correspondent and professor of public policy and communications at George Mason University.
John Roberts, do you believe that Scott McClellan owes the press and the public an apology for his -- what turned out to be misleading denial in the CIA leak case?
ROBERTS: Well, you know, Howie, I may be one of the people in the minority, but I think that he's getting a really rough deal on this. You know, he doesn't go out and free-lance this stuff. He is given his talking points every morning. He is given his walking papers. And he goes out there, and he tries to faithfully articulate whatever it is that the White House tells him.
Obviously in October of 2003, he got some pretty bad information. Is it his fault that he conveyed that information? I don't think so. I think the people who are at fault are -- the ones at fault are the ones who gave him what now appears to be bad information.
Now, of course, McClellan could do what some people might think to be the honorable thing and say, "I'm not going to take this any more, I'm going to quit." But he has got a pretty good job by and large. He has got a mortgage, he has got a wife, probably a family coming down the road at some point, and I don't think he wants to give up a lucrative job like that.
So I think that Scott -- you know, I have known him for a number of years now. I have got a pretty good working relationship with him. I think that he is a truth-teller. I think he is a stand-up guy. And I just think that he was just told to carry somebody else's water, and it just turned out that that water was foul.
So where's this mainstream liberal media bias I hear so much about? :-)
So where's this mainstream liberal media bias I hear so much about? :-)
There's another site for that, but I'm sure if I listed it, Media Matters would scorch me or something ;)
...
As far as this post ... Saying he's a "stand-up guy" with a "pretty good job" is hardly a ringing endorsement of the man.
I've witnessed several press secretaries over the years, and I've never seen one who the press works over as much as McClellan. Just last week, Roberts asked McClellan if Judge Alito was "sloppy seconds" for being chosen after Miers. Ugh!
Re: Libby etc., I agree with Roberts in the sense that "the ones at fault are the ones who gave him what now appears to be bad information." McClellan does not have an easy job.
I guess he doesn't have an "easy" job when he gets lied to and then passes on the information to the public. Or perhaps because he personally vouched for Libby and Rove saying they had nothing to do with it. Of course, he doesn't say that now does he? Or that if anyone passed on classified info they would be fired. That's ok though, if you don't like what you have said in the past just do revisionist history or ignore it.
I don’t usually do this…in fact I usually make fun of posters when they do this but…
I don’t get the point of this story. I don’t think there is much to analyze here. I don’t see any right leaning bias in this exchange.
Maybe I am missing it…could someone tell me how this is conservative bias in need of analyzing.
Media Matters is about the Media; how it operates and how it deals with political issues. The White House press secretary is the point of contact between the Media (world-wide) and the current Administration. The kinds of questions asked, the kinds of follow-ups pursued, and the willingness of the Media to press issues on behalf of their own readers/listeners/viewers and the general public is an indication of how well the Media is doing its job.
When the Media is willing to forgive falsehoods and evasions and not willing to ask the hard questions, it says something about the Media. I find the fact that members of the MSM are willing to forgive Mr. McClellan instructive. What other issues have the MSM “forgiven” Mr. McClellan over? What if they had asked hard questions about the reasons for invading Iraq? People might still be alive….
When the Media is willing to forgive falsehoods and evasions and not willing to ask the hard questions, it says something about the Media. I find the fact that members of the MSM are willing to forgive Mr. McClellan instructive. What other issues have the MSM “forgiven” Mr. McClellan over? What if they had asked hard questions about the reasons for invading Iraq? People might still be alive…. by sluggo
***
The media (Roberts) wasn’t willing to forgive falsehoods in this case…
McClellan clearly stated this was the information he received from Rove and Libby. McClellan didn’t lie because he was telling the reporters what Rove and Libby told him…he was very clear about that. McClellan is not responsible for being lied to his face by his colleagues. This was not a case of deflection and obfuscation. McClellan told the reporters straight up what he was told and who it was that told him.
If the question was about the current pirouettes he is doing that would be a different story but it wasn’t it dealt with the original information about Rove and Libby saying they weren’t involved.
lostlogic - Monday November 7, 2005 09:50:18 PM EST
Wile thats true, McLellan had no reason to believe them. The political scuttlebutt had Rove and Libby pegged within a week. He was passing on what he HAD to at least suspect was misinformation
Wile thats true, McLellan had no reason to believe them. The political scuttlebutt had Rove and Libby pegged within a week. He was passing on what he HAD to at least suspect was misinformation by solon
***
Hi Salon
I don’t know. I actually would lean the other way if we are going to speculate as to what was in McClellan’s head. I imagine he would have thought there was no way idiots one and two would bald face lie to him and send him out there to repeat it to the reporters…remember it is perfectly acceptable for press secretaries to obfuscate and give the old we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation comment…so why box yourself in by answering straight up the way he did.
lostlogic - Monday November 7, 2005 11:18:29 PM EST
While your second point is a good one and I cannot answer it. I think your first doesnt hold up. His impression would not be made in a vacuum but in context of Rove especiallys political carreer where he has been well known for just such hit man political manuevers. So I think unless he knows nothing about Rove he would have every reason to doubt Roves word on this issue
The point, to those who don't get it, is that the media can't properly do their jobs as the 4th estate, if they are buddy/buddy with the people in power. That goes for this guy, Judy Miller and the CNN chick who is buddies with Cheney.
The media has a responsibility to it's readers/viewers to report the truth and to ensure democracy by holding government accountable and keeping the citizens informed. How can the media be trusted if, after these Q&As, reporters go out for beers and a round of Golf with the very people they should be questioning.
I'm exadgerating for emphasis of course, but my point is solid. If the media is friendly to the Republicans in power then how can we trust them to get to the truth. Every scandal is going to be doubted because "they're honest people" and every lie is going to be glossed over because, "they're a good, stand-up guy".
Keep in mind everyone that Mr.Roberts is a White House Corespondant which means Mc Clellan has to call on him first before he gets to ask questions in those Press Room Briefings.It's called BROWN NOSING!Under the circumstances, I'ts alright.Roberts knows what he's doing.
Wasn't McClellan the person who gave Gannon/Guckert unfettered access to White House press briefings? I also remember that Gannon/Guckert had frequent clearances into the White House itself. I seem to remember a group of Congressional rep's who sent a letter to the White House demanding an explanantion but nothing happened. Why wasn't there an investigation into all the questions surrounding McClellan's role in this situation?
So, does that saying "It's not a lie if you believe it to be true" still hold up? Bottom line, McClellan has been passing on bogus information for a while now. Reporters don't like being lied to. Reporters have to cow-tow to administrations to make sure they get the "juicy" bits to report on. Do you really expect this Roberts guy to dime out McClellan???
I'm going to guess this was put here because of McClellans position as press secretary passing on the lies of the administration. He doesn't get a pass here.
So McClellan is "just following orders?" That excuse didn't work in 1946 and it won't work in 2005.
We actually owe Roberts a huge debt of gratitude.
Unwittingly, he EXPLAINS the mindset of every NeoCon currently in public service positions, and EXPLAINS the mindset of every rightwing media pundit and "reporter":
Roberts explained, McClellan "has got a pretty good job, by and large. He has got a mortgage, he has got a wife, probably a family coming down the road at some point, and I don't think he wants to give up a lucrative job like that."
Think about this: It's OK to lie and dissemble and mislead the American Public, it's OK to have no honor and no integrity, it's OK to completely ignore any notion of ETHICS or personal character, IF THE JOB IS LUCRATIVE.
McClellan and Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Cheney and ALL THE REST of our current batch of Rightwingers are in the exact same boat, and we are getting exactly what we should expect.
BECAUSE THE MONEY IS GOOD, these people abandon their souls and do what they are told, KNOWING that they are advancing an entire program of LIES and PROPAGANDA.
This explains ... EVERYTHING about the Rightwing. Thanks, Roberts!
Tex, you pretty much nailed it. How can the repubs and neocons attract women columnists on their side, for example? Moola-moola. Because their policies are essentially anti-women, they've got to pay off the Coulters, Malkins, Betsy Harts, Kathleen Parkers to shill as fronts. For the love of money....
"Think about this: It's OK to lie and dissemble and mislead the American Public, it's OK to have no honor and no integrity, it's OK to completely ignore any notion of ETHICS or personal character, IF THE JOB IS LUCRATIVE."
That does kinda sum up the Right Wing philosphy, doesn't it?
Government is inherently evil + government should be drowned in a bathtub + there's no such thing as public service + greed is good = Screw ethics and grab all the money and power you can get.
"Probably a family coming down the road?" What does John Roberts know that we don't? Apparently his channeling of Scotty's inner thoughts extend to those regarding his pee-pee.
Somebody must have some pretty damaging information on the personal habits of John Roberts to justify this level of slavish obsequious toadying.
The point that Moran was making was that Scotty stood up and assured the American people, not just the White House press corps, that no one in the White House had anything to do with outing Plame. We now know that to be a lie. The White House, through it's spokesman, Scotty, has never acknowledged that it lied to the American people. The White House has never explained why it lied to the American people. In response to Moran's question about credibility with the american public, Scotty tried to change the subject to the relationship he personally has with the press corps.
Scotty's relationship with the press corps is irrelevant. Whether he's a "stand-up guy" or not is irrelevant. The point is, when Scotty is answering questions, he's speaking on behalf of the White House, not himself personally. When he lies he does so on behalf of the white House. He can't escape that fact by saying, "Hey guys, I don't want to talk about those lies because between you and me you know I'm a pretty good guy".
When Roberts says that the press corps should cut Scotty some slack because he's a good Joe, it means that the press should allow the White House to lie because Scotty is an allright guy. That's the problem with the buddy buddy White House press corps. Apparently Roberts thinks it's allright for the White House to lie to his face because the guy telling the lie is a pretty good dude.
From the WaPo 7/10/03: "Indeed, McClellan gets high marks from most of the press corps. 'He's a really terrific guy,' says John Roberts, CBS's White House correspondent. 'He's a real fair dealer and has a great sense of humor.'
Roberts adds that McClellan 'probably has some distance to go to achieve the slickness of Fleischer at the podium. . . . He may not give you all the information, but he'll never lead you astray.'"
McClellan is the spokesman for the President. He clearly led the American people astray with his remarks. Roberts is clueless. [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
stand-up guys and truth tellers don't tell whoopers while looking reporters straight in the eye and then cover the whoopers with more whoopers. Stand up guys don't carry water, particularly dirty water for anyone, and McClellan does every day.
Charles Keating (Savings & Loan scandal) was seen as a "stand up" guy with a good job too: He stole, lied about it and went to jail. Personal morality (what you will or woln't do) shouldn't be able to be bought by an employer (Hitler's cronies tried to plead ignorance: for the most part it didn't work). McClellan is as relevant (and factual)as Iraq's former information minister (or whatever title he had) saying Americans are being slaughtered by the thousands while they were across the street buying falafel....