Wash. Post cited no sources in exonerating McClellan of misleading media

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511040019

Wash. Post cited no sources in exonerating McClellan of misleading media about Libby's involvement in CIA leak


Without citing any sources, anonymous or otherwise, a November 3 Washington Post article by staff writers Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig asserted that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, denied to White House press secretary Scott McClellan any involvement in the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. By making this unsourced assertion, the Post exonerated McClellan of any intention to mislead reporters in asserting at an October 7, 2003, press briefing that Libby was "not involved" in outing Plame.

In addition, VandeHei and Leonnig cited only unnamed "people familiar with the case" in reporting that White House senior adviser Karl Rove told McClellan that Rove "was not involved in the leak," and two paragraphs later reported that "McClellan relayed Rove's denial to reporters from the White House lectern" without noting that Rove's denial was also merely alleged and not an established fact.

While McClellan's "most logical defense," as a November 3 report by The New York Times put it, might be that he was misled by Rove and Libby and therefore gave a good-faith denial to the press, whether that defense is true is not publicly known. It may also be the case that McClellan knew of Rove and Libby's involvement at the time of his false statement to the press on October 7, 2003. VandeHei and Leonnig wrote as if they knew. But if they do know, rather than just assume, they didn't indicate how they know; their sourcing is nonexistent in Libby's case and thin in Rove's.

By accepting McClellan's innocence as fact, the Post: 1) provides support for the proposition that any wrongdoing by Libby or Rove was their own and did not extend further into the White House; and 2) allows McClellan and other White House officials cover to avoid answering questions about what they really knew and when they knew it.

Maybe we should ask Keith to ask Jim where he got the info for these defenses of Rove?

He's pissed with his sand in his eyes and all.

That means he is actually just getting started. Thats his MO.

Don

Nah, they're run by a the same people who run *...or maybe they are the people who run *...hell, what difference does it make, the Post is not a newspaper. It is, in it's own way, as pathetic and disgraced as the NYT.

Great post.

poor Scotty as the WaPo article seemed to suggest. He's a doormat for the WH and the press.

Likely source for WaPo article is McClellan himself and maybe a couple of his buds.

Besides long after Scotty said Rove told him he had nothing to do with it, didn't Scotty flip this year and say he didn't ask Rove, he didn't have to to know Rove wasn't involved? Could have sworn I heard that.

Ari's no longer there, but he was press secty in 2003 and reportedly encouraged reporters to find the "real story" about how Wilson was sent to Africa. He may even have been Novak's first source. We don't hear much about Ari now, but wouldn't be surprised if he was cooperating with Fitzgerald. The indictment makes a point of noting that Libby told Ari about Wilson's wife. Who told Fitz and the grand jury that? Presumably not Libby. If Ari is cooperating, what else could he have told Fitz?

Need anything else be said?

I'd sooner read the Moonie times- at least you know that they're full of shit- no pretense there.