McClellan's Admission, Plame's Response

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:35:00 AM EST
Tags: Valerie Plame Wilson, Karl Rove, Scott McClellan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Former Press Secretary Scott McClellan's forthcoming book contains these paragraphs about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity:

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration "were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Valerie Plame Wilson responds: [More...]

"I am outraged to learn that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps and the American public about two senior White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby who deliberately and recklessly revealed my identity as a covert CIA operations officer. Even more shocking, McClellan confirms that not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice President Cheney, Presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and President Bush also ordered McClellan to issue his misleading statement. Unfortunately, President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's felony sentence has short-circuited justice.

"Vice President Cheney in particular knew that Scooter Libby was involved because he had ordered and directed his actions. McClellan's revelations provide important support for our civil suit against those who violated our national security and maliciously destroyed my career."

Sen. Chris Dodd is calling for a new investigation:

If in fact the President of the United of States knowingly instructed his chief spokesman to mislead the American people, there can be no more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.

"During his confirmation process, Attorney General Mukasey said he would act independently. Accordingly, today, I call on the Attorney General to live up to his word and launch an immediate investigation to determine the facts of this case, the extent of any cover up and determine what the President knew and when he knew it."

Let's look back at what McClellan said at the time: Here's his press briefing of September 29, 2003.

"All I can tell you is what I've seen in the media reports....we don't have any information that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear."

.... [Question]You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

....[The President is] aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

.... [Question] Scott, does he know -- is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?

McCLELLAN: There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. The media reports cite "senior administration official," or "senior administration officials....we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement.

....You need to keep in mind that there has been no specific information, there has been no information that has come to our attention to suggest White House involvement, beyond what has been reported in the newspapers.

....There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. (my emphasis)

....[Question] Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can you categorically say that he was not involved in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office, as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well.

....[Question] Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.

....I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I've already addressed it....I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

The White House response today:

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt.

Five high-ranking officials were involved in his passing along false information and she's not clear what he means?

< Clinton Now Engaging In Personal Attacks | Supreme Court Agrees to Hear D.C. Gun Case >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McClellan's Admission, Plame's Response | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If Perino meant to say it wasn't clear (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Edger on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:05:22 AM EST

she's a paid liar too. If she didn't mean to say it she's too stupid and incompetent for her job.

Well then, let's clarify his statements (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 09:33:52 AM EST

so that the waters aren't muddied and we all know exactly what McClellan meant, shall we?

"I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
"There was one problem. It was not true.
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

He was sent out to lie to protect Libby and Rove.

I doubt that anyone wants to try arguing that five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were not aware that McClellan was lying, or that some of the five would know that while some did not.

These are impeachable offenses. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Lora on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 12:27:41 PM EST

We must stop supporting a criminal administration. I don't care how "practical" it is. Not to call for impeachment becomes more and more morally inexcusable.

The Liberal Press (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:29:07 PM EST

Is at it again:

WASHINGTON (Thomson Financial) - A former White House press secretary has accused President George W. Bush of misleading the public over a CIA leak which blew the cover of one of their spies and rocked the US administration.
Scott McClellan, who was Bush's chief spokesman between 2003-2006, says in an excerpt from his upcoming book that he unknowingly gave wrong information about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003.

Forbes

Those liberals can't help just making sh*t up.

What protection? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by diogenes on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 10:09:14 AM EST

Obviously, the lie was meant to provide POLITICAL protection. After all, no one has been charged with the CRIME of leaking the information.
It is a press secretary's job to tell what the president wants told at a given time.

How... (none / 0) (#1)
by TomStewart on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:16:01 AM EST

Can these people sleep at night? Scotty was the sweatiest, most nervous deer in the headlights I've ever seen. I'd have felt sorry for him if I didn't know he was being given a paycheck every week to go up there and lie his a** off.

As to whether there will ever be any justice in the Plame case, I'm afraid I sincerely doubt it.

Oh, my poor cynical heart...

Well, his quoted statement is not clear. (none / 0) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:43:15 AM EST

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

He says 5 people were involved in his passing along false information. He does not say that all 5 of them knew the information was false although that may be what he meant.

It's easy enough to ask McClellan what he meant and the extent of his personal knowledge as to who knew what.

No one will ask. (1.00 / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 08:47:17 AM EST

That would take all the fun out of it.

Just like no one would ask the AG nominee if the post WWII supposed actions in Japan made waterboarding illegal (evidently it did not)or if Congress passed a law to make it illegal would he enforce it, the issue isn't facts but politics.

Joe Wilson decided to jump into politics, and I believe his wife knew he was doing so because I don't believe he wrote the NYT editorial without telling her and getting her agreement. They are both very intelligent people, well schooled in the ways of the world and office/Washington politics. I can not believe that they didn't know that the article would raise a controversy, and that she would be highlighted because of her involvement in sending him to Niger.

If she hadn't been outed by Ames to the Soviets, which was the reason she was brought home, then her husband's article did the job.

Politics is a nasty dirty job. When someone starts a mud slinging contest they shouldn't be surprised when someone throws back.

And they shouldn't complain.


You're better off (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by tnthorpe on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:40:56 PM EST

raving about metaphors than revising history.

Wilson's op-ed wasn't a "jump" into politics. It was an attempt to stop the Bush White House from lying the country into war. Your trivialization of his action reveals more about your wingnuttery than it ever could about Mr. Wilson's nobility.

What I Didn't Find in Africa

By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

Published: July 6, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
-----------
You're way out of your depth here. Now McClellan feels safe enough to let the world know the rot goes all the way to the top. Why he should feel so safe is a question that we all should wonder at.


"There was on problem. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jondee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:55:05 PM EST

It was not true."

Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.


: "one.." (none / 0) (#14)
by jondee on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:56:01 PM EST

Sheesh.

Your quoting Wilsons attack piece (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:12:35 PM EST

proves my point.

And beyond my depth??

hehe

When you can defend, attack, eh??


When did it become (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by tnthorpe on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:17:11 PM EST

conservative dogma to confuse facts with attacks?

Was it when they realized that reality has a liberal bias?

Stick to raving about metaphor, at least that's funny.


You want to continue to say (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:54:24 PM EST

that Wilson's editorial wasn't politics?

Be my guest.

I don't want to get in your way of making a fool of yourself.

BTW - The NYT of 7/6 wasn't his first.

On June 12, The Washington Post revealed that an unnamed ambassador had traveled to Niger and had reported back that the Niger caper probably never happened. This article revved up the controversy over Bush's claim--which he made in the state of the union speech--that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program.

BTW - That was the same article that he misspoke himself.

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged."

I chose not to include it (I wrote a second NRO piece on this issue on July 18) because it didn't seem particularly relevant to the question of whether or not Mr. Wilson should be regarded as a disinterested professional who had done a thorough investigation into Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.
What did appear relevant could easily be found in what the CIA would call "open sources." For example, Mr. Wilson had long been a bitter critic of the current administration, writing in such left-wing publications as The Nation that under President Bush, "America has entered one of it periods of historical madness" and had "imperial ambitions."
What's more, he was affiliated with the pro-Saudi Middle East Institute and he had recently been the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-Left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions and the no-fly zones that protected Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.

Care to change your comment?


: PPJ (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by tnthorpe on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 09:44:29 PM EST

stop embarassing yourself.
If you want to call trying to prevent an illegal war "politics" in the cheap sense you give it and pretty much everything else you post about, that's your problem. You've never met a Bush lie that you couldn't love, but it's you with the authoritarian personality disorder, not me. That your intellect is satisfied by the dime store reporting at the National Review is your cross to bear. Good luck with that.

No one will ask? (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 08:57:31 AM EST

I have not read the book, of course, and it's not clear whether that excerpt is the most informative one or merely the most dramatic one on the subject. If the book doesn't contain any more unambiguous assertions as to who knew what when, McClellan will be asked if he gives people poortunity to ask, and as we can assume he is interested in several things -- certainly selling books and making money, one assumes portraying himself as favorably as realistic, quite possibly retaliating against those who hung him out to dry and maybe even setting the record straight, I can't forsee him shying away from interviews in which he would be asked or from answering.

But when will the Dems demonstrate accountability? (none / 0) (#8)
by ctrenta on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 10:22:49 AM EST

"Oh no! We can't impeach now! That means we may have to stand up for something! We can't do that! That might ruin our chances for winning the next election!"

Whatever.

: When will the Dems demonstrate accountability? (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 10:35:58 AM EST

Probably never. Or at least as long as they are confident that they will win the presidency and a congressional majority next year without doing so.
But they might, if they are threatened with being "impeached" themselves at the polls next November if they don't end the Iraq Occupation or impeach Bush and Cheney or somehow hold them, and themselves, accountable by then.
In others words they won't, as long as voters capitulate to them.