Posted on 11/08/2005 10:13:07 PM PST by indianrightwinger
White House to 'hit back' at Democrats Aides plan aggressive response to claims intelligence misused
From Dana Bash CNN Washington Bureau Tuesday, November 8, 2005; Posted: 11:55 p.m. EST (04:55 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top White House officials say they're developing a "campaign-style" strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war.
White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit back" in coming days.
The officials say they plan to repeatedly make the point -- as they did during the 2004 campaign -- that pre-war intelligence was faulty, it was not manipulated and everyone was working off the same intelligence.
They hope to arm GOP officials with more quotes by Democrats making the same pre-war claims as Republicans did about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Democrats have pointed at declassified information they say shows the White House was "deceptive" in pre-war statements.
Telegraphing the beginning of a communications effort is a tactic the Bush team has used in the past, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The examination into the intelligence used to justify invading Iraq has intensified on the heels of the October 28 indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who resigned the day he was indicted. (Full story)
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The questions asked would not change, but the responses to those questions would indeed change.
It is not brain surgery to supply the press with sources showing weapons (albeit not stockpiles) have been found, that many nations produced similar intelligence, and that this was NEVER the sole justification for war. It never has been, and the Dems can muddy the waters but they cannot rewrite history or documented facts. Time to stick it to them and get it out there in a non-apologetic way.
That is what motivates activists? Sorry, but I've been very active in recent elections, and the daily antics of the Whitehouse press briefing had nothing to do with my motivation. Even when Ari was in.
"The difference between a good press secretary and a bad press secretary is that a good one puts the reporters on defense. The defensive tone carries into their reports and into their coverage."
I would like to see an example of that. Seriously. I want to see a Helen Thomas piece in which she was writing defensively because of Ari Fliescher's clever banter. I enjoy watching Rumsfeld's press briefings, but you will note that the press certainly hasn't become defensive about its reporting of the war. If anything, they've become progressively more biased. The Whitehouse press corps are a bunch of jackals. Since you obviously watch the press briefings you must be fully aware that what is said in the briefings and what makes it into their reports are two completely different things.
Welcome to FR. I am kind of new like you. Be ready for flaming hot messages. :-) It will be worth it!
That is just flat out factually wrong. I love Karen Hughes, but that "Rats" debacle was the lead story in the media for several days.
I'm glad to see this.
With the MSM stacked against them the only viable defense IS a campaign-style offensive. Simply answering liberal lies with a defense (the truth) won't work. It will just fan the flames.
Going into full offensive mode seems to be the only way to get something across to the American people, bypassing both the Democrats and MSM, going straight to the people.
LOL!! I hope the WH grew a bigger pair though. :-)
OK. So we agree that a new spokesperson wouldn't change what the media says. Now what gaffes and misstatements are you talking about? I'd be curious to know how they impacted media reporting.
Noone has made an issue of the WMD that were reported from 1997-January 2001. The news re-broadcasts hillary, Kennedy, Kerry in 2002 but lets hear what they said before President Bush became President.
They are waiting to get 'um!!! So beware. Don't play their game -
The Dems needed enough rope to hang themselves with first. They are out on a limb now because of the non-response of the Bush Administration. The baseless accusations by the Democrats have set themselves up for a major fall when the facts come out
Do you really think those decisions are made by Scott McClellen? Those sources have been provided and continue to be available to every single member of our media. You do realize that if we have access to them, so do they. Do you think the reason they don't publish them is because Scott McClellen doesn't hand them out at a press briefing?
Exactly what are you implying here? That it gets people to the polls to vote? Evidently my meaning bypassed you. I'll state it once more. Watching a good fight with the presscore charges the batteries of conservative activists, especially when we WIN. It is an emotional booster, just as watching France get it's comeuppence is a boost around here. Sorry you don't recognize how essential that is for so many, but evidence surrounds you of its importance. A base in good spirits is nothing but good for the GOP. No, it is not WHY people vote GOP but it keeps a smile on someone's face throughout the day when they make a call or knock on a door. We've had precious little boosters lately to raise flagging spirits.
As to the other, do your own homework.
He sounds like Mark Levin, with less name calling than Mark. :-)
There is a big difference between how Ari Fleischer handled questions and how Scott McClellan does. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I'm sure a crook skimming the cream of his nation's meager assets would do so only from open and legitimate uranium deals. *cough*
Just as a rough estimate, how many people do you think actually watch the daily Whitehouse press briefing? I have a BS in political science, am a news junky, and a big Bush fan, but I certainly don't watch them. Since you obviously missed my point, I'll repeat it for you. If you are motivated by watching idiots like Helen Thomas get a smackdown, you are too worried about people like Helen Thomas to begin with. I'll bet you big money the so called "base" doesn't watch the Whitehouse press briefings either. And most of that base has long ago stopped watching the nightly news or reading the liberal hit pieces that inevitably result from anything coming from the Bush Whitehouse. You've offered absolutely nothing to indicate replacing McClellen would magically boost the morale of the GOP base. I would like to believe the roots of the "base" run a little deeper than clever soundbites from Whitehouse spokespeople. Apparently, on that point we will have to disagree.
Ari smiled a lot more. But the substance of his answers were essentially the same. I have a little bit of experience working on press releases and news conference preparations. Every word is parsed before anything is offered to the press. If you think Scott is just heading out on the stage and winging it, you are dreaming. It doesn't matter who stands at the podium. They are representing the Whitehouse, and are not free to extemporaneously offer their own answers to the easily anticipated questions from the press corps.
Well, you sound like quite the expert.
Especially since you didn't really answer my question. Who was/is better, Ari or Scott, and why?
I agree. Using the MSM is like playing black and having to deal with a 3rd opponent playing white's pawns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.