Regarding the McClellan snippet

{1}"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."
--snippet from Scott McClellan’s book

The news that Scott McClellan is attempting to distance himself from the incorrect information he provided to journalists at White House press briefings has created some renewed interest in the Plame scandal. There are over 700 articles listed in a google search, indicating that everyone from the corporate media to progressive bloggers are discussing the potential significance of the few sentences of McClellan’s book.

Is it simply an attempt to sell books? Could it lead to Patrick Fitzgerald calling for a new grand jury to examine what McClellan may know about the Plame scandal? Or might it be something different altogether?

Let’s take a closer look.

{2} " ’I’ve made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous,’ McClellan said. ‘I’ve known Karl for a long time, and I didn’t even need to go ask Karl, because I know what kind of person he is, and he is someone committed to the highest standards of conduct.’ But McClellan added, ‘I have spoken with Karl about this matter ….I’ve made it very clear that he’s not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was. …. I’ve made it clear that there’s nothing, absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office."
--Hubris; Isikoff & Corn; pages 322-323

In the fall of 2005, it had become clear that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had been involved in the Plame scandal. A 10-15 NY Times article "Bush Adviser Goes Before Grand Jury Again" noted that Rove had testified for the fourth time before the grand jury, which was considering handing down indictments in the case. The article’s sub-title read: "Testimony comes as a mood of foreboding grips Washington."

Three days later, the Times ran an article "Bush Crises Raise Criticism of Chief of Staff’s Management Style," in which Andrew Card’s role in the White House spin was detailed. The next week, an op-ed "Dick at the Heart of Darkness" focused on VP Cheney’s role.

However, the actual indictment of Scooter Libby, and the pre-trial court documents that followed, allowed the American public the chance to see evidence that indicated Libby and Cheney were as central to the scandal as progressive journalists had suggested.

A copy of Joe Wilson’s op-ed, complete with Cheney’s hand-written notes in the margins; a snippet of Libby’s grand jury testimony, indicating that both Bush and Cheney were involved in a decision to declassify NIE information to counter Wilson; and other related information removed any shadow of a doubt that the Plame scandal was an OVP operation.

{3} "On Monday, July 11, when Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, took the podium, the press corps ripped into him. It was as if the reporters were venting pent-up frustrations that had been gathering for years. AP’s Terry Hunt initiated the barrage: ‘Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anybody involved in the leak?’ McClellan responded that ‘while the investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.’ An angry David Gregory of NBC News grilled the press secretary: ‘This is ridiculous!’ Gregory exclaimed, adding, ’Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?’ And so it went."
--Hubris; pages 388-389

During the Libby trial, Government Exhibit 532 was made public. It was VP Cheney’s hand-written instructions to McClellan to tell the journalists, "People have made too much of the reference of how I described Karl and Libby. I’ve talked to Libby. I’ve said that it is rediculous (sic) about Karl and it is rediculous (sic) about Libby. Libby was not the source of the Novak story. And he did not leak classified information."

It was on the same page, where Cheney stressed this "Has to happen today," that he wrote "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres then crossed off "the Pres," before continuing, "that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

Hence, at this time, what McClellan wrote in his book is not new, in and of itself. But that does not mean it is not potentially significant.

It seems unlikely that what McClellan is speaking of is unknown to Patrick Fitzgerald. In fact, it is possible that McClellan has told the grand jury what he knows about Bush and Cheney’s involvement. While it may not have reached the level that would allow Mr. Fitzgerald to prosecute for criminal violations, it is obvious that Scott McClellan is describing abuses of power in the White House.

The Congress has the ability to call Scott McClellan to testify about what he knows. Congress also has the ability to access the information from the FBI and grand jury investigation of the Plame scandal that has not been made public in the Libby trial. That includes the information provided by Bush and Cheney in July of 2004, when they each met with Mr. Fitzgerald.

Is McClellan looking to sell books? Of course. But there could be more. I’ll never forget the day that Scott "resigned," when he walked out with Bush to talk to reporters on the White House lawn. McClellan was clearly upset, and was so choked up he had trouble answering questions. Bush, who is supposed to be his friend, took a disturbing amount of pleasure in McClellan’s suffering.

I doubt that Scott has forgotten that, either.

It will be interesting to see if it means anything. Meanwhile, anytime bu$h*, cheney, rove and the word 'lie' are connected in the media for days, I'm happy.

thanks for the post

especially that which focuses on the need for Congress to step up to the plate.

And a complete Congressional investigation should be able to discover the extent of his involvement. What he knew and when he knew it.

Gee, if only the House Judiciary Committee looked into who else was "involved". ;)

I am sure that he knows that Busholini & the Criminal Junta conspired to destroy V. Wilson & Joe Wilson & then cover up their actions. He just couldn't prove it, yet.

it is likely that Mr. Fitzgerald is unfamiliar with Scott McClellan's story. It is actually far more important at this time that Congress take an active role.

Mr. Fitzgerald said that there was a cloud over the office of the vice president. Though he decided not to press criminal charges, that cloud is reason for the Congress to step up to the plate. Abuses of power which are not "criminal" are indeed grounds for impeachment.

Impeachment is not a criminal trial.

There is no doubt that he was "interested" in having a response to Wilson's op-ed. Exactly what he did in the summer of 2003 remains uncertain, so far as what the public knows. But it is clear that he played some role in the White House response to the outcry to the exposing of a covert CIA operative. He may not have violated any laws in a way that allows for criminal charges, yet abuses of power that do not reach the level of a crime are absolutely grounds for impeachment.

I quite frankly don't know how you do it. Organized, rational, principled and showing a good grasp of the human natures involved. Do you tab and highlight the passages in the books you read so you can access them at times like this? I find it remarkable that you can access the relevant passages so (apparently) easily. I can only aspire to be so organized and familiar with what I read. Bravo, sir.
:applause:

I, too, took note of how Junior "took a disturbing amount of pleasure in McClellan’s suffering." It was evident and pathological. It was sooo easy to see the kid inside him that took pleasure in blowing up frogs with firecracker suppositories. The malignant narcissism is all-consuming in him.

:thumbsup:

He gasped, and said Dad, are you writing in that book? Since, he'd been trained from an early age to respect books and not deface them. We had a nice conversation about how a marginal note is different than coloring them.

I have a vision of H2OMan's library as stacks of books with post-its hanging from them.

-Hoot

Here's the truth: we needed dish soap and a couple other "last minute" items. I asked my son to drive me to the store. He said he needed to take a shower, because he had just worked out. (Golden Gloves coming up this spring!) So, while I waited, I thought I'd make a post that addressed a few of the issues that I think are important in regard to Scott McClellan's snippet. So if it appears organized, I would attribute it is an accident. Thanks, thought.

Bush's giddy response to Scott McClellan's suffering was, in my opinion, a result of a similar lack of structure .... when he feigns saddness over the hell he has created for people with his war, I always think of the description of a sociopath: they know the lyrics, but not the tune. In this case, it was just Bush unplugged.

I'm TERRIBLE at being able to cite something I've read in such a relevant manner - I'd be lost in trying to recover it. It's ALL I can do to comprehend, filter, and integrate what I read ... I just don't have the mental organization to remember where and what I've read. I was TERRIBLE at high school and college courses that required papers with bibliographies and footnotes - I avoided term papers like a plague.
Thus: Math major. :silly:

Thanks for the run down H2O Man. I'm going to be picketing my Rep on Saturday, who is part of the obstruction. My sign is going to say:

Debbie Wasserman Bush!

--IMM

Answer: Hiding under table that Nancy took impeachment off of. This revelation is a real test for them. There can be no question now of the need to impeach Cheney.

--IMM

As Elizabeth de la Vega says, it isn't a case of if there is enough evidence to warrent impeachment. There is enough now. The only question is will the members of Congress make a conscious choice to ignore the evidence?

I send e-mails to my Reps several times a week. I formulate my message, and then take out the f-words, s-words, a-words, etc. I am so angry,:mad: but I don't think cursing at them helps the cause. In these communications, I try to think of how the most civil DUers would handle it, (of which you are one.) You know, I never find myself getting angry at people here.

--IMM

... use them to write out a (legible, one-page) longhand letter and snail-mail it. Our Congresscriters give at least ten times (probably closer to 100 times) the weight to a handwritten letter - somewhat less to a typed/printed and hand-signed one, but still much greater than email.

Keyboarding has killed my once fine handwriting though.

(BTW I hope you're feeling OK. :hug:)

--IMM

... keyboarding, poorer eyesight, and my own sloth. HOWEVER ... it might be wise of me to incorporate hand-written letters in my personal "occupational therapy" program ... accompanied with onion soup.
:silly: :dunce:

Yes ... my mother was an absolute tyrant when I was in grade school. As a bookkeeper, she emphasized arithmetic and handwriting. (Good auditors and operational analysts are made, not born.)
:rofl:

who is a Democrat.

I just realize the people aren't represented right now, other interests are. Then I raise heck. At least it makes accepting the excuses impossible which keeps me on the right track.

He's a liar..just like all of them..

They withhold vital information when it matters, and then sell it to us when it's too late to matter :grr:

Scott McClellan could have spoken up when it counted. Now he is looking to count the profits from selling his book. A lot of republicans will point to his lack of character in order to dismiss the seriousness of what he is saying. Like Scott, they will be right, but for the wrong reasons.

I expect his lawyer kept him from self-incrimination. If this passage is the juiciest, there may not be any "there, there", in a criminal sense.

That said, I would love to see the sealed portions of the trial being pored over by the Committees.

the portion of the FBI/grand jury investigation that did not relate to Libby. That includes the interviews that Mr. Fitzgerald did with both Bush and Cheney. It also includes the testimony of numerous witnesses who were not connected to the Libby part, but had detailed information about, for example, VP Dick Cheney.

In his filings to the federal court regarding forcing Miller and Cooper to testify, Mr. Fitzgerald had revealed that Libby told the grand jury that Cheney might have instructed him to tell reporters about Valerie Plame, but he was not sure. (I am confident that was also included in the grand jury testimony played to the Libby jury.) It wasn't public knowledge at the time, however, but it is why the one judge found in favor of Patrick despite his Amendment 1 concerns. He wrote that Mr. Fitzgerald had presented important information that warrented forcing the journalists' testimony, and that bit about Cheney was a huge part of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3074190

It's just as well, as I posted on that thread,

Funny how fast some people can backtrack once they've been threatened by these criminals. The 'ol rear end tends to pucker up real tight when these people come after you. McClellan would have never lived long enough to testify before COngress anyway so it probably doesn't matter. No doubt he would be suicided and the story being he left his job because of "severe mental problems" and was extremely depressed ever since, or so the story would go.

Joe and Valerie are still alive, but their lives were made to be miserable.

Look what happened to JH Hatfield who was once a friend when he crossed them.

He has clarified, and what he said doesn't really take away from the snippet. I agree 100% that he recognized that he would become a target of the same folks to led the operation against the Wilsons, had he not clarified the snippet.

I would bet that Mr. Fitzgerald is still hoping to fit some pieces of the puzzle together in order to obtain a conviction. After all, he is a prosecutor. And being the dedicated, unmarried man that he is, I would bet he stays up at night sometimes.

Also, it may be that Scotty is trying to put distance between himself and the bigger criminals. Perhaps to stay out of trouble.

If nothing else, it renews public interest and discourse of this subject.

Put out a bombshell to promote the book then change the story to keep the Criminal Pres. in the clear.

I'm having a hard time believing that his book wasn't vetted by the FBI and the White House. And aside from that, I find it hard to understand how someone that close to the president would not be a diehard fan to the end.

But maybe there's more to the story that will come out. Like some of the posts that mention the obvious agitated appearance of Scotty during his departure.

On Olbermann tonight one of his guests (Turley?) brought up how strange it was that the vice president and Rove were both seemingly let off the hook for this Plame revealing act. And so regardless of what Scotty's intent was, he may have given us good cause to force the sealed testimony of those two to be studied by prosecutors, or whomever may review Fitzgerald's case. Why did Fitzgerald do, or not do, what he did? He seems to have gone easy on them.

I might add that another guest, if not the same one, used the word "treason". It sure felt cathartic.

is always interesting. Like John Dean last night, he takes the position that this should be something the Congress should be investigating.

Mr. Fitzgerald, of course, does not have the authority to make public the parts of the FBI/grand jury investigation that didn't come out in the Libby trial. Congress has attempted to get it from the Department of Justice, but the DoJ is stonewalling. Congress can access it by means of going to court and explaining the need for the information as part of a specific types of investigation. It can be done, and the democrats in Congress are fully aware of this.

It is likely that Patrick Fitzgerald concluded the information on Cheney did not warrent criminal charges, but was instead an abuse of the power of his office. This is something that is better dealt with in the civil trial of impeachment hearings in Congress.

I think I understand that as Patrick Fitzgerald had a fairly narrow mission, and one with limitations, to pursue.

Good. I'm quite confident that those who are in the know, like Jonathan Turley, are fully aware of the process and how it operates.

It sure is exciting. Especially as the clock continues ticking.



By the way, I hit water yesterday. I should be the happy owner of a beautiful redwood forest by Monday. :)

That's great news!

David Gergen is on CNN now. His take on McClellan is right on target. He suggests the president owes the country an explanation.

Correction: Gergen is saying Scott M owes it to the public and the president to more fully explain what he was talking about.

This sounds like him. Asking Scotty to explain, when the true blame lies elsewhere. But it's a good starting point. Come on Scott, fess up.

I think we may have an all out explosion shortly. As they say in the Tour de France- it's hotting up.

It's hard to smile when times are this dire. However, :)

The president owes the country a full explanation.

As CM said, 'the corpse is growing fingernails'

Listening to Tweety I can't help but wonder if Scotty is attempting to 'save' the Bush legacy and dump this on Cheney.
They are all guilty.

If he is, it is probably in good part because the Plame scandal was primarily a Cheney-Libby operation. Certainly others played significant roles. There should have been more people indicted. but the Plame scandal is best understood as Cheney, Libby, and a couple fellows at the OSP.

I was wondering when you'd chime in on this Scott McClellan's business. I've already read that he's starting to backtrack a little.

I know Fitzgerald's got a lot on his mind these days (his upcoming nuptials) but I hope he is paying attention. His website is still up and the investigation is still ongoing.

McClellan isn't really backtracking, so much as he is attempting to clarify what he said. His statement fits the evidence that is known, and I think he has simply said he doesn't have any new evidence.

It would be nice for Congress to learn about what, if any, conversations that Scott had with Bush regarding the information that he was tasked with serving up to journalists at the press conferences. We know he cleared Karl in the first one, but as Joe Wilson notes on page 444 of his book:

"The rumors swirling around Rove, Libby, and Abrams were so pervasive in Washington that the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, was obliged to address them in an October 2003 briefing, saying of Rove, 'The president knows he wasn't involved .... It's simply not true.' McClellan refused to be drawn into a similar direct denial of Libby's or Abrams's possible involvement, however."

It was after this that when VP Cheney pressured Scott to "clear" Scooter. It is unclear if McClellan then approached Bush, or Andrew Card, for further direction. I think it is most likely that he spoke to Card.

Subpoena Scottie and beam him up to a hearing.

Below please find what Senator Reid said on the Senate floor on April 6, 2006:


Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the American people received the shocking news that the Vice President's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, may have acted on direct orders from President Bush when he leaked classified intelligence information to reporters. It is an understatement to say that this is a serious allegation with national security consequences. It directly contradicts previous statements made by the President. It continues a pattern of misleading America by this Bush White House. It raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with Congress and the American people.
Today, I come to the floor to request answers on behalf of our troops, their families, and the American people. For years President Bush has denied knowing about conversations between his top aides and Washington reporters, conversations where his aides, like Scooter Libby, sought to justify the war in Iraq and discredit the White House's critics by leaking national security secrets. In fact, President Bush is on record clearly, in September of 2003, as saying:

I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take appropriate action.

Yesterday, we found there is much more to the story. According to court records, President Bush may have personally authorized the very leaks he denied knowing anything about. In light of this disturbing news, we need to hear from President Bush which of these is true: His comments in 2003 or the statements made by the Vice President's chief of staff. Only the President can put this matter to rest.

Harry Truman had on his desk in the Oval Office a plaque. It said: ``The buck stops here.'' In George Bush's White House, perhaps he should put one that says: The leaks start here.

He, the President of the United States, must tell the American people whether President Bush's Oval Office is a place where the buck stops or the leaks start. This is a question he alone must answer, not a spokesman, not a statement, only the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Where would he have gotten this impression?

The closest I remember GW getting to this was that he had authorized Cheney to "declassify" so that he (Cheney) could leak to Libby..

At least I remember that was the story they were telling about it...

Reid is really something.

So where did the leak start? I think it's a question for the vice president. I sometimes wonder just how foxy Bush really is. I'd start asking that question with the Big Bad Wolf. Cheney.

:hi:

And I don't plan to buy what he's sellin'.
For revenge on a foe
He'll say, "I didn't know!"
After years of defending a fellon.

(very good)

Cheney was pissed off that Joe Wilson dared publicly contradict his & Busholini's lies about Saddam's request for Nuke material. Cheney prolly mentioned this to Busholini, who most likely said that Cheney should do whatever he wished to do about Joe Wilson. He is not one for details. After this Cheney Op backfired Busholini had to cover the action.

That's how the conversation went down. Dick complained to * knowing that * always instinctively says "F--- him!" to enemies.

Dick had gained his approval from POTUS, and did what he liked with it.

Dick screwed George.

http://www.mikehersh.com/printer_All_Roads_Lead_To_Cheney.shtml

Novak Intelligence Leak: All Roads Lead To Cheney
By William Francis (PP), Oct 18, 2003

Regarding the Wilson intelligence scandal: We need to realize that everything Bush, Novak, and McClellan are SAYING is absolutely true. But everything they're telling us is a lie. We have to remember to listen carefully to the exact words.

Novak originally said that the information about Wilson's wife came from, "two senior administration officials." this is true.

Novak also says that, "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this." this is also true.

There is one man in the world who is BOTH a senior administration official, and does not release information from the administration (from the White House).

There is one man in the world who is a senior administration official, but is not officially (constitutionally) a member of the administration.

There is one man in the world who invested his reputation and resources in the Niger yellowcake story, more than any other.

There was one man in the world who knew of Wilson's trip to Niger as well as he knew about the identity of Wilson's wife.

In preparing his July 14 article, "Mission to Niger," there was one man in the world who Robert Novak would have contacted before any other.

The man's name is Dick Cheney.

....

dp

involvement in the operation against the Wilsons was greater than Nixon's role in Watergate.

The media knew this. Progressive and mainstream journalists knew this. So why mention it now?

I think I'm with you. Yeah, it could be to sell a few books, but I can think of precious few people who will waste their money on a book detailing things they already knew. I happen to think Scotty, in his own guilty way, is trying his hand (since Fitzgerald's comments haven't done the trick) at pursuading Congress to do their Constitutional duty.

This all just reiterates the fact that the current administration is criminal; something WE know, but the dumb, intellectually-lazy and apatheic Americans may need to be reminded of. I don't think it was something as petty as revenge. I remember when Scotty resigned. He looked, to me, quite shameful standing there next to Bush. Almost like he'd spent his life savings and future earnings on a bridge to nowhere.

Great post, per usual H2O.

That is what "we" ie. the press claimed they didn't know for certain. Bush has been implicated. This matter has now gone beyond the VP.

Key words - that implicate the President directly in the matter of Valerie Plame.

snippet connects the president in the effort to deal with a growing scandal. The words suggest that his role was greater than he has been willing to admit. It is not clear exactly when Bush became aware that Cheney, Rove and Libby were directly involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity.

Thanks for clarifying. :hi:

I'm seriously confused by the timing of this little 'snippet' from his upcoming book IN 6 MONTHS...What on earth would he (or the publisher for that matter) gain by dropping this out there NOW? It'll be interesting to watch how this plays out

it was released because they knew some people would think it is "huge."

Thus far, the interest it has generated in an unpublished book is huge. The number of reports in the newspapers, on web sites, and on tv is pretty large, too.

Perhaps the incorrect interpretation -- that McClellan's snippet indicated that Bush knowingly encouraged McClellan to lie -- was a huge error.

Looming far less large is the correct recognition that the snippet in and of itself is small. Yet it is also true that people who bemoan a lack of opportunity often overlook the fact that small doors often open into large rooms.

I cannot believe what little there is about this story today...Maybe if Scottie was dropping snippets in Aruba it would garner more coverage

think Snotticles was telling the truth'. 1) During the press conferences; 2) in his book; and 3) his latest claim that bush** knew nothing about the whole mess.

I think 3 is most likely. Why would the people who really run this administration tell the village idiot anything?

#2 and #3 are the same thing. A number of people assumed that he meant something different with #2, and a number of people understood what he has said to clarify the snippet.

Your last sentence is, of course, key. We need only look to how Cheney and Libby used Ari Fleischer to understand the relative minor role of a press secretary in the scandal.

I don't think McClennan's revelations will move congress though. The leadership has some ties somewhere that don't want it addressed. So we go without a working democracy and hope one day it will return.

is that it allows the grass roots to keep up high profile pressure on Congress.

As disappointed and discouraged as I have been, there actually has been a little movement since Kucinich brought it back and onto the floor. Ironically, it wasn't tabled thanks to republicans in a political maneuver. I guess pinpoint pressure is now needed.

...against both Dick Cheney and George Bush? H.R. 333 is sitting on the table waiting for active support from a majority of congress. All it takes is the will of Congress to act.