Q & J

This isn't the Daily Show. This is real. July 11, 2005.

TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE GRILLED ON ROVE...

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday


QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?


MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.


QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...
(LAUGHTER) ... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.


QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved. According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned. Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned. Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism. You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.
And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism. Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do. And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front. The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil. And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing. But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.
As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

.

Last week, I got high watching the 1966 movie Masculine Feminine with my work colleague, and dare I say, comrade, Sean Nelson . M/F catches Jean Luc Godard right before he tips over into his Marxist wall-of-sound dementia. In M/F, though, Godard is still in command of his 60s angst and pop-art Marxism—perfectly reflecting back the zeitgeist with smarty-pants smarts, a circus sense of humor, and a poignant touch. In one scene, “Interview with a Consumer Product,” when our adorably pretentious teenage poet laureate narrator Jean-Pierre Léaud interviews Nineteen magazine’s Miss Nineteen, Godard invents Sassy magazine (remember the “Why You Should be Against the War” issue in 1991?) by staging a head on collision between bubble gum Marxism and bubble gum commercialism.

First, here’s a succinct review of M/F from the time:
Casual and fragmentary as it may seem, Masculine Feminine is in fact probably Godard's most complex film to date. If Paul's odyssey in search of tenderness takes us through what is virtually a collage of la vie moderne at all levels - Bob Dylan as Vietnik and Negro as Black Muslim, the Pill and the Brassiere, Vietnam and the teenage question - it is also a foray into the age-old Sex War
—Tom Milne, Sight and Sound, Winter 1966-67.

Also: Here’s Sean’s blurb on M/F from the Stranger: ‘Masculin, Féminin’ (FILM) Films that deal with a specific moment in time either have a minuscule shelf life or live forever. Guess which one applies to Jean-Luc Godard's eternal masterpiece? This is a new print (with a new translation and subtitles) of Masculin, Féminin, his film about miniskirts, Marxism, Coca-Cola, and all the confusing splendors of 1965-66 Paris, in deathless black and white. ( Varsity, 4329 University Way NE, 781-5755. Fri-Thurs June 17-23, See Movie Times, page 91 for more info. ) SEAN NELSON


I’m still looking for the script to M/F, but in the meantime, here’s a nice summary of Miss Nineteen Q&A from idyllopus press.

DIALOGUE AVEC UN PROFUIT DE CONSOMMATION

Paul now talks with a friend of Madeleine's who she met on the magazine Miss Nineteen. Paul says he's interested in sociology, doing surveys. The girl was elected Miss Nineteen. She got a car, trips. Before that she studied to get her BA. Winning changed everything. He asks her if socialism has a chance and she says she knows nothing about it. It confuses her. She is asked what the American way is. Fast and free. You're important and have lots to do. Women have a say in America. He asks her about birth control. He tells her she must answer. He asks her if she falls in love often. He's persistent. And she smiles a lot. Like Madeleine smiles a lot.

I like interviews with weirdo composers. It’s mesmerizing to hear smart people think out loud about something as unintelligible as music composition. For example, I think an interview with zombie-birdsong-genius Olivier Messiaen from the ‘30s or ‘40s would be a gem. Does anyone know where to find an interview with him? I’d also like to read a contemporaneous Q&A with1960s romantic circuitry clairvoyants like La Monte Young, Alvin Lucier, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, or Pauline Oliveros.

In the meantime, there is a book of interviews by Geoff Smith & Nicola Walker Smith called New Voices: American Composers Talk about Their Music. The interviews in the Smiths' book— with people like John Cage, John Adams, Steve Reich, Philip Glass La Monte Young, and Alvin Lucier—were done in the early ‘90s.
The following excerpt is from the Smiths' Q&A with Glenn Branca, the early ‘80s NYC-guitar-noise composer, whose radio-halo orchestrations famously influenced Sonic Youth and, better yet, earned comparisons to witchcraft.

Q: How did you first become interested in using different types of tuning systems?

A: I was trying a lot of different ideas early on with a variety of instruments, tape techniques, metal, plastic, whatever I could find. I hit upon something that really worked for me—a field of sound. You didn’t really hear changes happening in an overt way, but the change was happening within the whole field. I was also beginning to hear what I thought of as acoustic phenomena inside the field. I was hearing things that I clearly hadn’t written, and I wanted to bring these phenomena more into the foreground…
I saw that when I was using very close harmonies, I was getting more phenomena—so I was trying tunings that would give me this type of sound, and compositional ideas that would bring me closer to it. I found that I could derive compositional ideas from the system, that the system itself had a kind of logical structure, that it seemed to have almost a kind of intelligence behind it. I became completely involved with the harmonic series, and it got to the point where I almost forgot about the music. I got involved with mathematics…I never realized that mathematics was really an area of philosophy.

Q: You’ve said that you see your pieces as pit-stops on the way to something…

A: It seems like I never get it right, which means that I just have to try again. There is a point at which you can’t bring your dreams down into the real world—it just isn’t going to happen, and you have to start being realistic, or at least extremely patient.

Q: Can you pinpoint what it is you’re searching for?

A: It’s a way of determining a piece of music that will have a specific compositional content, but at the same time will have the potential to give you something you haven’t written. I’m going for a field of sound, which I think of as a kind of non-linear music…because something has to happen musically, even if it doesn’t seem like it’s happening.

My long-lost roommate Tim McGuire (Tim lived on my couch for 3 months during our John Walker Lindh years) recently found Q&J on-line and had this to say about it on his blog:
"Josh has a bunch of funny, scary, heavy transcripts of historic conversations over at qandjosh . Fascinating reading.
07 Jun 2005 10:06 am : Comments (5)."

Thanks to Tim, I realized that all I’ve been posting lately are heavy history class Q&As. So, I was set on finding something less stuffy this time out. Good luck strikes! Today at work, I found a copy of this month’s Seventeen magazine in the bathroom. Here’s a Q&A with the members of a band called Simple Plan from Seventeen’s “stars/special gossip section” on page 145 of the July 2005 “Get Great Legs (In Only 10 Days)” issue.

behind the rumors
There’s tons of outrageous gossip on the Web about Simple Plan so we asked the wacky bandmates to tackle your craziest questions. Here’s what they had to say.

Is it true that some band members are bisexual?
Natalie, 13, sydney, australia
chuck: We’re not gay. We love boobies! I don’t know where that rumor comes from. There was a fan site that took our pictures and did stuff to make it look like we were about to make out. And maybe it’s because David kind of looks like a girl. He wears makeup and has long hair and a lot of style, so maybe that’s it. But personally, I think his style is rad. I mean, I’m not afraid to wear pink—real men wear pink! Like Jude Law—he does it and he’s hot.

If you had to marry one of your bandmates, who would it be?
ren, 14, Jakarta, inodnesia
sebastein: Um, that’s just gross. Sorry, but I can’t answer that question.

Have you ever dated a celeb? Which one would you want to date?
alicia, 16, east haven, ct
david: I love Gwen Stefani, and everyone knows it—including Gwen! We played a couple shows together, and she was so cool. But I’ve never hooked up with a celeb.
chuck: When we were touring with Avril Lavigne, she and David became friends, and people asked if they were involved, but they weren’t. He’s not dating Hilary Duff, either. She’s with Joel Madden, even though she won’t say she is. Isn’t it kind of weird she’s only 17? That’s kind of dangerous. I’d be careful there, Joel. But Hilary does look like a young Jenna Jameson.
jeff: My crushes are girls like Milla Jovovich, Kirsten Dunst, and Natalie Portman—girls who have brains and take care of themselves.

Chuck, was your first kiss really with Pierre’s mom?
helena, 16, Stockholm, Sweden
chuck: No—I’ve never kissed Mrs. Bouvier. My first kiss was with a girl at the sixth-grade talent show.

Have you ever given your number to a fan and hooked up with her?
katie, 13, port crane, ny
jeff: I trusted the wrong person once, and my phone number ended up on the Web.
pierre: I’ve given my number to fans before, though it’s rare. Fans are just like us, so if I go out and have a good time with a girl who loves the band, there’s no reason why we can’t keep in touch.
chuck: I met my girlfriend at a show. But it wasn’t like a one-night thing—she was hard to get!

No matter how much older and more stupider and conservativer I get, I can always mainline my teen brain by remembering my 11th-grade journalism class when I learned about Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines is the only case I remember from the week we spent studying First Amendment Supreme Court decisions.
Tinker v. Des Moines is the one where five public school students (including high schooler John Tinker and his sister, jr. high schooler—Mary Beth Tinker) got suspended for wearing black armbands to school in December 1965 to protest the Vietnam War.
The teens won the case, which was argued in 1968 and decided in ‘69. In the majority 7-2 opinion, Justice Abe Fortas famously wrote: “It can hardly be argued that…students…shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech..at the schoolhouse gate.” And that wasn’t all Fortas had for my Paul Weller electric guitar heart. He added: “In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved.”
Today, of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mullah Dobson used the Tinker decision to argue that Evangelical kids can’t be expected to shed their freedom of religion at the schoolhouse gate and are entitled to lesson plans on “intelligent design.”
But woe is me. Tinker v. Des Moines is still pure teen heroin that keeps me high and in line.

Here are two Q&A excerpts. In the first one, Justice Byron White questions Mary Beth Tinker’s lawyer Dan Johnston. Second, Justice Thurgood Marshall questions the Des Moines school board lawyer, Allan Herrick.

From Tinker v. Des Moines/393 U.S. 503 (1969).

NOVEMBER 12, 1968:

Justice White: Why did they wear the armband to class? To express that message?

Johnston: To express that message, yes.

White: To everybody in the class?

Johnston: To everyone in the class, yes, Your Honor.

White: Everybody while they were listening to some other subject matter was supposed to be looking at the armband and taking in that message?

Johnston: Well, to the extent that they would see it. But I don’t believe there was any—I don’t believe that the…

White: Well, they were intended to see it, weren’t they?

Johnston: They were intended to see it in a way that would not be distracting…

White: And to understand it.

Johnston: And to understand it.

White: And to absorb that message…

Johnston: And to absorb that message…

White: While they’re studying arithmetic or mathematics, they’re supposed to be taking in this message about Vietnam?

••••

Herrick: We had a situation here where it was explosive… All right. This is page 70, at the top of the Appendix. “A former student at one of our high schools was killed in Vietnam. Some of his friends are still in school. It was felt that if any kind of a demonstration existed, it might evolve into something which would be difficult to control.”

Justice Marshall: Do we have a city in this country that hasn’t had someone killed in Vietnam?

Herrick: No, I think not, Your Honor, but I don’t think it would be an explosive situation in most cases. But if someone is going to appear in court with an armband here, protesting the thing, that it could be explosive. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

Marshall: It COULD be.

Herrick: What?

Marshall: It COULD be. Is that your position? And there is no evidence that it WOULD be? Is that the rule you want us to adopt?

Herrick: No, not at all, Your Honor.

In August 1964, an alternate Democratic delegation from Mississippi, an integrated, but largely black delegation called the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), went to the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, NJ hoping to be seated at the convention. The MFDP charged, correctly, that the "regular" all-white delegation was illegitimate because the state party illegally kept blacks off the voting rolls. LBJ was worried that seating the MFDP instead of the "regulars" would alienate Southern states and drive them into the hands of his Republican challenger, Barry Goldwater.

On August 22, 1964, the first day of the convention, the MFDP and its leader Fannie Lou Hamer earned national attention and sympathy when network TV broadcast Hamer's testimony in front of the Credentials Committee. It was such compelling testimony that as Hamer was still speaking, LBJ contacted the TV networks and had them interrupt the broadcast so he could give a statement that would upstage her.

LBJ then dispatched VP-hopeful, Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, to work out a compromise between the MFDP and the "regular" delegates. (Humphrey was not yet VP. The VP-spot had been vacant since LBJ took office in November '63.) Humphrey assigned the task of working out a compromise to his protégé, Minnesota Attorney General Walter Mondale. Mondale hammered out a shameful deal: Just two MFDP delegates would be seated—not representing Mississippi—but as "at-large" delegates; all the "regulars" would be seated at the convention if they simply pledged loyalty to the LBJ ticket; and the mediators proposed a resolution calling for Southern Democrats to integrate future delegations.

The MFDP rejected the deal. Hamer told reporters that the compromise was "token rights, on the back row, the same as we got in Mississippi. We didn't come all the way for that mess again." The "regular" Mississippi delegation rejected the deal too. (Only three "regulars" stayed at the convention. They were seated.)

Showing up at the convention on Tuesday night, Hamer and the MFDP tried to occupy the seats left vacant by the missing "regulars." Her group was hauled away by guards.
However, Hamer and the MFDP returned the next night, August 26, 1964. Here's an interview from the convention floor on that night:

TV Reporter: And Will you identify yourself for us please?

Fannie Lou Hamer: My name is Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer. I’m the vice chairman of the Freedom Democrat Party.

Reporter: Where did you get the credentials to get into the building tonight Mrs. Hamer?

FLH: Some long friends of ours gave us an invitation to come in. We sit with them a while, and we wanted to sit in our own state.

Reporter: Do you have any kind of (unintelligible) uh, credentials that will get you into these seats?

FLH: No we don’t. Only as American citizens.

Reporter (turning to a bow-tied Democratic Party Official): Mr. Sgt. at arms, have you had any contingency plans for this?

Official: None at all. I just stand here peacefully trying to keep this aisle clear.

Unidentified Black woman interrupts: (unintelligible) say to us down in Mississippi. When they’re before the eyes of the world they’re peaceful and loving, and when they get back to Mississippi it’s nigger you can’t come in here, nigger you can’t come in there, nigger you get out. Here we are in the eyes of the world, seeing the same thing that happens down, way down, in the Deep South. Mississippi.
The country refuses to demand that Mississippi give Negroes their rights, their privileges. We didn’t ask to be elected to anything. We didn’t ask for any patronage. All we asked for is to let us sit.