WH Footnotes Reporter's ? about "Direct Order"

[RamboLiberal]

Q Why did the President defy a direct order to get a physical in 1972?

MR. McCLELLAN: Scott, these are the same old recycled attacks that we see every time the President is up for election. It's not surprising that you see a coordinated effort by Democrats to attack the President when Senator Kerry is falling behind in the polls. And we had a very successful convention, and that's what this is about. It was well known that the President was going to work in Alabama and seeking a transfer to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying status. And that's what he was doing.

Q Did he decline to take it because he was moving to Alabama?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was transferring to a unit in Alabama to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying status. That is nothing new.

Q This was a direct order he defied, right? I mean, he did have a direct order that he defied?*

MR. McCLELLAN: John, these issues have come up every year. This was all part of the records -- that he was seeking to transfer to a unit in Alabama because he was going there to work in a civilian capacity. And he was granted permission to do so. And he was proud of his service and he was honorably discharged in October '73, after meeting his obligations.

*The memos that were released, in fact, show the President was working with his commanders to comply with the order.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040909-2.html

Josh Marshall comments.

Hmmm. That's an innovation.

In this morning's press gaggle, one of the asked the following question: "This was a direct order he defied, right? I mean, he did have a direct order that he defied?"

The White House then applied a footnote to this question -- noted with an asterisk -- which referenced this explanatory footnote: "The memos that were released, in fact, show the President was working with his commanders to comply with the order."

This is a bit stunning.

Now it's not enough that we have a transcript in which the press asks questions and McClellan answers them or rebuts their implications. We get editorial notes explaining what the reporter really meant or disputing the question after the fact so that no one can follow up and call them on a demonstrable distortion.

Can't we just go back to the good old days when McClellan's office just edited the transcript after the fact? It was so much simpler.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Catfight]

1. Read the Pravda article on the Home page, it'll explain the press. n/t

[Supersedeas]

2. Scott's "same ole story" is getting old.