Weekly Shredder 1:
July 6 White House Press Briefing
by James Norton

Documents — from the Constitution, to the State of the Union, to the Pentagon Papers — are the bones and tumors of our democracy. But for too long, our most important source texts have been pored over only by diligent reporters and neurotic citizens.

In honor of the pandemonic 2004 election, Flak Magazine will begin a weekly excavation of the country's political archives in search of lies, hidden news and hilarious bloopers... so you don't have to.

We start at the very top. One of America's most important conversations is between the White House press office and the press corps. It's how the executive branch talks to the people.

Or perhaps "talks to" is far too kind. We tore through the original text of a recent White House press conference, in all its unexpurgated glory, and found the following disturbing nuggets:

1) The White House says the invasion of Iraq revealed a menacing, death-dealing war machine defused just in time

2) Cheney may not debate Edwards

3) God's Own Administration has no problem with its vice president slinging nasty profanity

4) Judges who stand against gender equality and gay rights can still be "highly qualified" for important posts

5) When you call John Edwards dishonest, it's not a character attack — it's a discussion of the issues!

Let's get to the document.

A reporter starts out by asking how Iraq was a threat, immediately before the Iraq war. It's an old question by now, so the White House should have a halfway convincing answer.

McCLELLAN: Well, we have learned since going into Iraq and removing that regime from power that the regime certainly had the intent and capability when it comes to weapons of mass destruction —

News to those of us who read the news. The main thing we learned from removing Hussein's regime is that it wasn't even packing conventional heat. In fact, the cupboard was so bare that some journalists speculated that even Saddam didn't know how paltry his WMD capabilities really were.

But let's break McClellan's statement down.

"Capability." What does this mean? That there were chemicals in Iraq, and they could be mixed to create chemical weapons? Like when the janitor screws up while cleaning the pool and accidentally creates a cloud of chlorine gas?

And there certainly weren't working nuclear or biological weapons programs discovered.

Fortunately, a good follow-up question is asked.

Q: What do you mean by "intent"?

McCLELLAN: Well, the Iraq Survey Group, that was previously headed by David Kay and is now headed by Charles Duelfer, has looked into the issues and showed that Saddam Hussein was in serious and clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution, you'll recall, called for serious consequences if Saddam Hussein —

Whaaaa-aaat? Mr. McClellan, I do declare that you're completely off topic. You're not defining "intent" at all, nor are you describing how it was demonstrated by invading a supposedly menacing country only to discover that the weapons we were seeking had already been dismantled — or never existed.

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

Another follow-up question nails this pretty nicely.

Q: Do you know how vague you sound on that?

Of course he does. He was training all morning to sound that vague.

McCLELLAN: And you heard that directly from the President of the United States earlier today.

Translation: "Look, the president is sticking to this story. What do you want me to do, give you more information?"

A different reporter asks a simple question:

Q: ... Is Vice President Cheney committed to debate Senator Edwards?

McClellan gives a newsworthy answer: "No."

But here's how he says it:

McCLELLAN: I think those are all part of the discussions that are going on now with the Presidential Commission on Debates, and those discussions are underway. [NO SIGN OF COMMITTMENT HERE]

Obviously, you probably want to direct those questions to the campaign and they can probably update you further. [PASSING THE BUCK; THEY MAY REFER YOU ELSEWHERE IN TURN, AD INFINITUM]

If I recall, in 2000 there was a vice presidential debate between Vice President Cheney and Senator Lieberman. [HISTORICAL TRIVIA; SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT ANSWER FOR DEMOCRACY'S SAKE ("YES") WITHOUT GIVING ANY REAL INFORMATION]

And as you heard earlier today, the President said he looks forward to a spirited and honest debate on the issues. [MIGRAINE-INDUCINGLY VAGUE]

And the Vice President, as well, looks forward to a spirited discussion of the issues, and he called Senator Edwards earlier this morning and welcomed him to the race, congratulated him on being selected. [DITTO, WITH THE BONUS OF MAKING CHENEY SOUND CORDIAL AND COLLEGIAL, AND NOT AT ALL THE SORT OF GUY WHO WOULD TELL A US SENATOR TO "FUCK [HIM]SELF" FOR HAVING A TEMERITY TO QUESTION HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS]

Speaking of which...

Q: Can I follow in that vein? Has the President ever had a word with the Vice President about his use of profanity in the United States Senate?

Ooh! Ooh! Zinger! McClellan can't possibly dodge this.

McCLELLAN: Ed, I've previously discussed this issue. This issue came up while we were, I believe, in Ireland, and I addressed it at that point. And that's where it stands.

I stand shocked and corrected. It's the oldest, most raggedy rabbit in the press secretary's silk hat — "we already covered this."

Here, if you're curious, is how McClellan covered this before:

"These things happen from time to time," he said. "You're talking about one incident involving a private exchange. It's not an issue with the president. The president is looking ahead."

While it's understandable that McClellan wouldn't want to restate this, it's a shame that he doesn't, because it drives the poor reporter absolutely batty.

Q: So the answer is, no, the President has not —

Reasonable conclusion.

McCLELLAN: Well, the President has regular conversations with the Vice President.

And at this point, the conversation resembles a long, circular talk with a 3-year-old on the Occurance of the Stolen Oreos.

All this because the administration that promised to bring "civility" back to Washington does not want to officially chide its own vice president for telling a Senator to fuck himself on the Senate Floor.

Moving along...

Some reporters mention that a GOP nominee for a federal judgeship is catching fire from a number of senators, including Republicans.

McCLELLAN: Well, let me point out that Leon Holmes is a highly-qualified and highly-respected nominee who would be an outstanding addition to the district court in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

To quote IndependentJudiciary.com:

"Throughout his career, J. Leon Holmes has actively worked to undermine a woman's right to reproductive choice. His zealous advocacy for doing away with such a fundamental right, along with extreme statements he has made about the separation of church and state, gay rights, and gender equality, raises serious questions about his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench."

Outstanding, indeed!

The reporters and McClellan — who I'm increasingly leaning toward calling "Scottie," because he's sort of precociously slimey — then compare Cheney and Edwards. The reporters comment that while Edwards is young, handsome, charismatic and popular, Cheney is a decrepit old Jabba the Hutt.

McCLELLAN: We look forward to discussing the differences and discussing the records.... The President is pleased to have someone of his capability in that position, someone who he knows is fully capable of assuming the responsibilities of the Office of the President if needed.

Ooh... zing!

Q: Is that an insinuation that Edwards may be not capable?

Yeah, is it?

McCLELLAN: I'm just stating — I'm just pointing out a fact.

But what fact is that? That Cheney is capable of being president, or that Edwards is? And hasn't the bar for being president been so thoroughly lowered at this point that everyone smarter and more responsible than Paris Hilton is basically ready to run the country?

At any rate, back to Iraq.

Q: I wanted to follow up on Helen's question. Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraqi weapons inspection team, recently reported the discovery of a small quantity of chemical weapons containing mustard gas and sarin. Polish forces also found weapons containing sarin. These are undoubtedly weapons of mass destruction and certainly would be seen as such if they were to be detonated, say, inside the New York subway system. So why isn't the administration saying that WMDs have been found in Iraq?

Thank you, Fox News, for that follow-up question that is in no way an actual follow-up of the earlier, reasonable question.

First of all: The US military has said that the weapons were very unlikely to be credible WMD, and that the shells had, in any case, deteriorated past the point of use.

Second of all: President Bush did not lead America into war suggesting that Saddam might have 10 or 20 old, unusable chemical shells. These may — at best — constitute Weapons of Momentary Distraction, or Weapons of Mis-Direction.

At the very best.

Scottie, knowing that the Polish discovery is bunk, does not confirm the reporter's insightful hunch beyond saying "I think those questions may be best directed to the Iraq Survey Group and to Charles Duelfer."

The press conference then goes into some desultory banter over whether calling Senator John Edwards "disingenuous" is a character attack or just good old-fashioned debate about the issues, and skids to halt.

The reporters file out, and suddenly... civility is returned to the briefing room!

E-mail James Norton at jim@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)