This "rejects" thing, it leaves a little wiggle room, just in case -- whereas "rejects out of hand" -- now THAT ends the conversation forever. Well, obviously, the corporate press goes to the Source of Truth, the White House, to determine what the truth really is. I mean, you wouldn't want to take it some neutral tribunal (the World Court or whatever) to have to do the "reject" thing. You wouldn't want it to be decided in an Italian court.
Imagine this headline -- "Michael Jackson Rejects Boy's Accusations". Pretty good, no? Except it would really have been great for Michael to have rejected the accusations "out of hand" -- whatever that means. But, poor Michael, all he can do is "deny". That's all any ordinary person can do, really, because the idea that the accused can "reject" the claims, that means that the accused is the judge! And to "reject out of hand" -- that means that the accused is the ultimate judge, God Almighty! I think that Martha Stewart is godly enough (or goddess enough) that she should have rejected out of hand. But poor Martha, even with her millions, all she could do was "deny". And, to the inane American cop-watch viewing public, anyone who has to "deny" must be guilty!
Maybe it could have worked for Kerry. Suppose it could have gone down this way: "A spokesman for John Kerry has rejected the SwiftBoat claims. Noting that it was 'absurd' to think that Kerry had not earned his Silver Star for bravery under fire, the spokesman said that Kerry had promised a full investigation." No, probably not, I guess it wouldn't have worked for Kerry -- you have to be in the White House to have the right to "reject". There's the Catch-22, to get into the White House you need to have the power to reject -- but to have the power to reject, you have to already be in the White House. Unless, maybe, you own the voting machines.
How about we borrow Shakespeare's idea about lawyers and kill all the journalists? Except the real journalists, like Sgrena, working for alternative media. (Maybe Dan Rather got out just in time.)
"U.S. Rejects Italy Journalist's Claims"
White House - AP Mon Mar 7,12:39 PM ET
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON - The White House on Monday said it was "absurd" for a former hostage in Iraq to charge that U.S. military forces may have deliberately targeted her car as she was being rushed to freedom.
Responding to Sgrena's statement that the car may have been deliberately targeted, McClellan said. "It's absurd to make any such suggestion, that our men and women in uniform would deliberately target innocent civilians.
"That's just absurd," McClellan repeated.
"And we regret this incident," McClellan added. "We are going to fully investigate what exactly occurred."