http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_....Z4.v7w4UsG1vAI
WASHINGTON - Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "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."
Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field — and often duck — those types of questions.
Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information," she said.
McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.
Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats.
McClellan's book, "What Happened," isn't due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn't get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.
In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.
"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.
Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.
Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.
McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."
In a CNN interview earlier this year, McClellan made no suggestion that Bush knew either Libby or Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan said his statements to reporters were what he and the president "believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."
Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.
Full Version: Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit
OH God! Do we have to hash and re-hash this again?
Look here.
...He wrote, "When Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in July [2003] and revealed that he had gone to Niger on a CIA assignment, he called attention to his wife. CIA people who are really undercover are very careful about not identifying themselves or their families with the agency. They wait until their children are old enough to keep their mouths shut before revealing, even to them, that they are CIA officers. Wilson listed his wife's maiden name in the biography he put on the web site of the Middle East Institute."
The nepotism was bad enough. But Romerstein is saying that Plame's role in arranging the mission for her husband is solid proof that she was not concerned about having her "cover" blown because she was not truly under cover. Part of the confusion stems from the different forms of "cover" available to CIA employees and which can be protected under law. Romerstein says she was under "cover" only in the sense that she had used a front company, an entity called "Brewster-Jennings & Associates." That was a "convenience" or "light cover," but not the kind of "deep cover" that has to be protected under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. What's more, she had not been overseas over the previous five years, as required for the law to apply. Instead, she had been driving in and out of the CIA headquarters in Virginia and had a desk job. That's not the mark of a real covert agent...
Look here.
...He wrote, "When Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in July [2003] and revealed that he had gone to Niger on a CIA assignment, he called attention to his wife. CIA people who are really undercover are very careful about not identifying themselves or their families with the agency. They wait until their children are old enough to keep their mouths shut before revealing, even to them, that they are CIA officers. Wilson listed his wife's maiden name in the biography he put on the web site of the Middle East Institute."
The nepotism was bad enough. But Romerstein is saying that Plame's role in arranging the mission for her husband is solid proof that she was not concerned about having her "cover" blown because she was not truly under cover. Part of the confusion stems from the different forms of "cover" available to CIA employees and which can be protected under law. Romerstein says she was under "cover" only in the sense that she had used a front company, an entity called "Brewster-Jennings & Associates." That was a "convenience" or "light cover," but not the kind of "deep cover" that has to be protected under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. What's more, she had not been overseas over the previous five years, as required for the law to apply. Instead, she had been driving in and out of the CIA headquarters in Virginia and had a desk job. That's not the mark of a real covert agent...
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Nov 20 2007, 06:16 PM) 
OH God! Do we have to hash and re-hash this again?
Look here.
...He wrote, "When Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in July [2003] and revealed that he had gone to Niger on a CIA assignment, he called attention to his wife. CIA people who are really undercover are very careful about not identifying themselves or their families with the agency. They wait until their children are old enough to keep their mouths shut before revealing, even to them, that they are CIA officers. Wilson listed his wife's maiden name in the biography he put on the web site of the Middle East Institute."
The nepotism was bad enough. But Romerstein is saying that Plame's role in arranging the mission for her husband is solid proof that she was not concerned about having her "cover" blown because she was not truly under cover. Part of the confusion stems from the different forms of "cover" available to CIA employees and which can be protected under law. Romerstein says she was under "cover" only in the sense that she had used a front company, an entity called "Brewster-Jennings & Associates." That was a "convenience" or "light cover," but not the kind of "deep cover" that has to be protected under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. What's more, she had not been overseas over the previous five years, as required for the law to apply. Instead, she had been driving in and out of the CIA headquarters in Virginia and had a desk job. That's not the mark of a real covert agent...
Look here.
...He wrote, "When Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in July [2003] and revealed that he had gone to Niger on a CIA assignment, he called attention to his wife. CIA people who are really undercover are very careful about not identifying themselves or their families with the agency. They wait until their children are old enough to keep their mouths shut before revealing, even to them, that they are CIA officers. Wilson listed his wife's maiden name in the biography he put on the web site of the Middle East Institute."
The nepotism was bad enough. But Romerstein is saying that Plame's role in arranging the mission for her husband is solid proof that she was not concerned about having her "cover" blown because she was not truly under cover. Part of the confusion stems from the different forms of "cover" available to CIA employees and which can be protected under law. Romerstein says she was under "cover" only in the sense that she had used a front company, an entity called "Brewster-Jennings & Associates." That was a "convenience" or "light cover," but not the kind of "deep cover" that has to be protected under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. What's more, she had not been overseas over the previous five years, as required for the law to apply. Instead, she had been driving in and out of the CIA headquarters in Virginia and had a desk job. That's not the mark of a real covert agent...
Doesn't matter, it's against the LAW. You believe in the law right??
QUOTE (Casublett @ Nov 20 2007, 06:37 PM)
Doesn't matter, it's against the LAW. You believe in the law right??
I guess you feel that the LAW is sacrosanct. Who are you trying to BS here. If Clinton was not prosecuted for lying to a Grand Jury why would you think that any enforcement is neccesary here? You and I both know the LAWS of the land are not enforced equally. Those of power or fame more times then not almost always get a pass on their transgressions.
BTW... Nice to have you back Cashew..............
QUOTE (Casublett @ Nov 21 2007, 08:37 AM)
Doesn't matter, it's against the LAW. You believe in the law right??
QUOTE
McClellan doesn't suggest that Bush deliberately lied to him about Libby's and Rove's involvement in the leak, said Peter Osnos, founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's memoir next year.
``He told him something that wasn't true, but the president didn't know it wasn't true,'' Osnos said in a telephone interview. ``The president told him what he thought to be the case.''
In an interview with CNN in March, McClellan said he had said what he ``believed to be true at the time'' and ``it was also what the president believed to be true at the time, based on assurances that we were both given.''
He said he spoke directly with Rove and Libby. Referring to press briefings he gave in 2003 denying Rove and Libby's involvement, McClellan told CNN: ``Knowing what I know today, I would have never said that back then.''
``He told him something that wasn't true, but the president didn't know it wasn't true,'' Osnos said in a telephone interview. ``The president told him what he thought to be the case.''
In an interview with CNN in March, McClellan said he had said what he ``believed to be true at the time'' and ``it was also what the president believed to be true at the time, based on assurances that we were both given.''
He said he spoke directly with Rove and Libby. Referring to press briefings he gave in 2003 denying Rove and Libby's involvement, McClellan told CNN: ``Knowing what I know today, I would have never said that back then.''
Now, pudding power, exactly what “law” do you refer to in this hyperbola of demagoguery and conspiring melodrama poetry?
The one that is obvious playing all, but the those most blind of the blinded, that do not see, this is a hyping in pre-release of a book, that is calculated to entice you mine field walkers of conspiracy, to bite the bait, and either, media drama queen and or nut root conspire it in hype so some will buy the book.
Or, the one that the tax payers spent $ 1.5 million in a three years investigation and trial to get a meager conviction of perjury, by Patrick Fitzgerald, a meticulous prosecutor known for his stellar winning record and being no shirker when given a chance to indict, who in his own words said he held back for good reasons of any further prosecutions.
Speaking at a press conference following Mr. Libby's indictment, Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the Espionage Act is "a difficult statute to interpret," and that it ought to be applied carefully with over whelming evidence. "The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that specifically just says if you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."
Now what law, do you respect, the one in your mine runners imagination of hyperbolic demagoguery, or the one that is real, in Statue, and that has substances and meaning, in real courts of law where Sir Fitzgerald dwell and tolled for three years proving merely nothing as to focus of investigation at all.
Only that a lie or confusion of the facts, can be viewed, as perjury,willful or otherwise in intent by a skillful prosecutor looking for entirely something else all together far more serious and failing in that, saving face in in another slight way in not finding anything set out to find.
If so should not you be arrested and convicted as well, if a distortion of facts, willfully or otherwise, is perjury? O that is right, your not under oath, then it is possible provable perjury, not just sex games, right?
Which law do your believe in, should be the true question?
That is all!!
QUOTE (Nomad @ Nov 20 2007, 08:17 PM)
I guess you feel that the LAW is sacrosanct. Who are you trying to BS here. If Clinton was not prosecuted for lying to a Grand Jury why would you think that any enforcement is neccesary here? You and I both know the LAWS of the land are not enforced equally. Those of power or fame more times then not almost always get a pass on their transgressions.
BTW... Nice to have you back Cashew..............
BTW... Nice to have you back Cashew..............
I WANTED Clinton to be punished... I'm sick of ALL politicians and the crap they get away with.
Yes you are correct, power and fame gets a free pass most of the time, but that doesn't mean it's right or that I must like it. Jail all the bastards.....
For the people, By the people... Not the cabal that the whole structure has become.
BTW, thx for the welcome and good to see you too. Now, you gotta give me a cheap baseless insult or it just wouldn't be the same... Come one... attack my mom or something...
QUOTE (ustrader @ Nov 20 2007, 10:15 PM)
Now, pudding power, exactly what “law” do you refer to in this hyperbola of demagoguery and conspiring melodrama poetry?
The one that is obvious playing all, but the those most blind of the blinded, that do not see, this is a hyping in pre-release of a book, that is calculated to entice you mine field walkers of conspiracy, to bite the bait, and either, media drama queen and or nut root conspire it in hype so some will buy the book.
Or, the one that the tax payers spent $ 1.5 million in a three years investigation and trial to get a meager conviction of perjury, by Patrick Fitzgerald, a meticulous prosecutor known for his stellar winning record and being no shirker when given a chance to indict, who in his own words said he held back for good reasons of any further prosecutions.
Speaking at a press conference following Mr. Libby's indictment, Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the Espionage Act is "a difficult statute to interpret," and that it ought to be applied carefully with over whelming evidence. "The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that specifically just says if you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."
Now what law, do you respect, the one in your mine runners imagination of hyperbolic demagoguery, or the one that is real, in Statue, and that has substances and meaning, in real courts of law where Sir Fitzgerald dwell and tolled for three years proving merely nothing as to focus of investigation at all.
Only that a lie or confusion of the facts, can be viewed, as perjury,willful or otherwise in intent by a skillful prosecutor looking for entirely something else all together far more serious and failing in that, saving face in in another slight way in not finding anything set out to find.
If so should not you be arrested and convicted as well, if a distortion of facts, willfully or otherwise, is perjury? O that is right, your not under oath, then it is possible provable perjury, not just sex games, right?
Which law do your believe in, should be the true question?
That is all!!
The one that is obvious playing all, but the those most blind of the blinded, that do not see, this is a hyping in pre-release of a book, that is calculated to entice you mine field walkers of conspiracy, to bite the bait, and either, media drama queen and or nut root conspire it in hype so some will buy the book.
Or, the one that the tax payers spent $ 1.5 million in a three years investigation and trial to get a meager conviction of perjury, by Patrick Fitzgerald, a meticulous prosecutor known for his stellar winning record and being no shirker when given a chance to indict, who in his own words said he held back for good reasons of any further prosecutions.
Speaking at a press conference following Mr. Libby's indictment, Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the Espionage Act is "a difficult statute to interpret," and that it ought to be applied carefully with over whelming evidence. "The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that specifically just says if you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."
Now what law, do you respect, the one in your mine runners imagination of hyperbolic demagoguery, or the one that is real, in Statue, and that has substances and meaning, in real courts of law where Sir Fitzgerald dwell and tolled for three years proving merely nothing as to focus of investigation at all.
Only that a lie or confusion of the facts, can be viewed, as perjury,willful or otherwise in intent by a skillful prosecutor looking for entirely something else all together far more serious and failing in that, saving face in in another slight way in not finding anything set out to find.
If so should not you be arrested and convicted as well, if a distortion of facts, willfully or otherwise, is perjury? O that is right, your not under oath, then it is possible provable perjury, not just sex games, right?
Which law do your believe in, should be the true question?
That is all!!
That's the Trader I remember... Ramble on Trader, ramble on.
double post
QUOTE (Casublett @ Nov 22 2007, 08:22 AM)
I WANTED Clinton to be punished... I'm sick of ALL politicians and the crap they get away with.
Yes you are correct, power and fame gets a free pass most of the time, but that doesn't mean it's right or that I must like it. Jail all the bastards.....
For the people, By the people... Not the cabal that the whole structure has become.
BTW, thx for the welcome and good to see you too. Now, you gotta give me a cheap baseless insult or it just wouldn't be the same... Come one... attack my mom or something...
That's the Trader I remember... Ramble on Trader, ramble on.
Yes you are correct, power and fame gets a free pass most of the time, but that doesn't mean it's right or that I must like it. Jail all the bastards.....
For the people, By the people... Not the cabal that the whole structure has become.
BTW, thx for the welcome and good to see you too. Now, you gotta give me a cheap baseless insult or it just wouldn't be the same... Come one... attack my mom or something...
That's the Trader I remember... Ramble on Trader, ramble on.
LOL :popcorn
Even in this we disagree, One, who says we the people are not in control, why it is we the people.
Now whose fault is that, why it is we the people.
It is not the many flaws and injustices of our governance that is broken, it is our unity and our purpose as a people, a culture and society, that is broken in how we deal with it and most of all our over dependence in what expect from governance and what do about it.
We the people get exactly what we elected and from that deserve, no more and no less, we can whine and moan and blame and shame, but we should do so looking in mirror first and foremost.
Clinton was punished to fullest existent of the law as to the offense he was charges with. He had a Trial under the law and constitution and was found not guilty.
Yet you want more, why? Because you think the outcome was unfair or that your cynicism for imperfections of our system is paramount in the minds of we the people who want perfection yet in action don not want to pay the price for that perfection?
QUOTE
Comfortability breeds complacency, which inherits the duplicity of acceptable imperfections.-Trader
Show us in your life were all is perfect and where there is an existence without flaw and mistake and duplicity in keeping the familiar within your own comfort zone.
Cynicism is not an answer, it is merely a complaint founded and often unfounded, but always with some merit in it of perfections imperfections.
I see that the power of substances in some here is a preference for that often-utilized Munchausen's syndrome, feigning complaints and absolution of facts in stated commentaries. While always seeking safe harbor in the shallows of mendacious bob, weave, and dodge ineptness, in their usual game of making arguments in debate. Then cowering, in inadequacies or fear of having them, by having no substance to respond to rebuttals and or inquiries, as to what evidence, facts, and proof they have other than the usual pumping of their stumps, as if they had something real to say and contribute that proves their case.
So who is rambling in conciseness and who but is honed in the mendaciousness of homily cowering in stump pumping pudding power there, wader in the shallow end, pretending you are a swimmer, but knowing full well your are not?
Again I ask, who has broken a law and what law and how do you suppose they go unaccountable and unpunished?
That is all!!
QUOTE
BTW, thx for the welcome and good to see you too. Now, you gotta give me a cheap baseless insult or it just wouldn't be the same... Come one... attack my mom or something...
OK.......... Your Mother wear Army boots......
QUOTE (Nomad @ Nov 22 2007, 10:29 PM)
OK.......... Your Mother wear Army boots......
And, without socks.
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Nov 23 2007, 09:41 AM)
And, without socks.
However I doubt Casu is old enough to remember that harmless juvinile insult. Goes back to the days of "Cheap Japanese Junk". How things have changed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.