Tuesday, July 12, 2005
I read with incredulity yesterday the White House Q&A that Josh Marshall linked to yesterday. It is hard to tell from the transcript how many reporters are asking the questions, but it sure sounds like really giving to McClellan from every side.
My own impression, and I apologize for how obvious this all might sound but this is my first time analyzing a Q&A, is that the press was not only trying to go from Rove-topic questions to off-topic questions and then back to Rove questions in order to catch McClellan off guard (they didn't succeed very well) but they were trying to make very obvious the repetition of his horribly hypocritical position on not commenting on an "ongoing investigation" (they succeeded wonderfully).
Today, I read The Note and caught this:
The best case for Rove: that he didn't break the law, that he didn't tell Matt
Cooper the woman's name, that he's not subject or target of the investigation.
And his friend the President stands by him until well after the last dog dies.
The worst case certainly involves things like the law, Senators like Lugar
or Hagel, and someone like, say, Bill Kristol.
I just don't understand why the authors would go through the trouble to spell out what is involved in "the best case for Rove" and then just some oblique references to "the worst case". I mean, I know that The Note is supposed to be all snarky and clever, but shit. "involves things like the law"? AYKM? Are they scared to say it? Are they afraid to speculate what Lugar and Hagel might do? What exactly would Bill Kristol do or say?