McClellan Says Bush Didn’t Know
Earlier today, Scott McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee that he does not believe that President George W. Bush had knowledge of the CIA leak. Valerie Plame’s cover as a CIA operative was blown by the said leak, as a means to retaliate against her husband speaking out against the government’s case for war against Iraq.
However, McClellan did tell the committee that Bush ordered through his Chief of Staff to tell reporters that Karl Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby had nothing to do with the leak. Libby was convicted of Obstruction and Perjury and was sentenced for 2 1/2 half years prison sentence. However, Bush has commuted the sentence. As the scandal erupted, Bush said he would fire anyone involved with the leak.
McClellan said that both Rove and Libby deceived him about their role concerning the leak. The committee asked about Vice President Dick Cheney’s involvement. “I do not think the president in any way had knowledge about it,” McClellan said. “In terms of the vice president, I do not know. There is a lot of suspicion there.”
McClellan also stated Bush should fully explain what he knew about the leak and how he decided to invade Iraq. The White House was “less than candid and less than honest” as it made its case for war, he said.
Democrats on the committee have called for Bush’s impeachment, but Democratic Party leaders have rejected the notion. However, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced 35 articles of impeachment of President Bush on June 9th, 2008.
Okay, now for the opinion part…
I am sure everyone expected some sort of reaction from the Republicans. However, I do take issue of two Republican Congressmen on this issue.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) questioned McClellan’s motives and said that he sold out Bush for “few pieces of silver.” I do not have a problem if you are on a congressional committee and you try to ascertain the motives of the person testifying in front of your committee.
However, Smith could not attack the testimony of McClellan, so he resorted to attacking McClellan’s character because of McClellan’s book. I wager that if Bush was a Democrat, and McClellan did the same thing Rep. Smith would be calling McClellan, a Great American Hero!
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said McClellan should have kept his mouth shut. “From an integrity standpoint, could you not have taken some of this to the grave with you and done this country a favor?” King asked.
McClellan should have kept his mouth shut? Take information of corruption within the White House to his grave? What the hell? An U.S. Congressman actually suggesting keeping important information from the public?
How can King speak of integrity while suggesting this?
If a CIA agent was responsible for this leak, they would have arrested and tried for at least sedition. I do think Libby should do the time he was given by a jury. I also think an investigation of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney’s roll in this be done.
I do not care if the White House is controlled by Republicans or Democrats, this kind of corruption can not be allowed. If this happened during Clinton’s reign, the Republicans would be tripping over each other to impeach and convict him for this. I have to give them credit for that at least, while the Democrats are afraid to challenge Bush once they gained power of Congress back in 2006 with a clear mandate from the people.
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Source Article
Bush Didn’t Know about CIA leak, McClellan says
Additional Reading
What Happened by Scott McClellan
Fair Game by Valerie Plame Wilson
What I Didn’t Find In Africa by Joseph Wilson (Article by Valerie Plame’s husband that was suggested to cause the leak in retaliation.)
24. June 2008 at 12:01
This seems like awfully old news to be dredging up. I wonder, though, if you’ve heard the same things I remember hearing back when this was headline news. I was under the understanding that a number of the items being reported in this whole affair were factually incorrect. For one, I thought the sources had been revealed. Richard Armitage was the initial source, and Robert Novak has confirmed that. He had a source inside the CIA and, from what I understand, Rove just confirmed that Wilson’s wife had a role in getting Wilson the Niger job, not that he mentioned any names. Add to that, I thought the idea that Plame was undercover had been debunked as well. I even remember an interview where the author of the bill protecting undercover agent’s identities said that her law specifically does not cover Plame’s position.
I’ll agree that the backlash against McClellan is over the top and out of line, but I can’t say I’m surprised by that. I’d expect to hear that from any career politician. It’s part of why I personally despise both parties at the moment.
26. June 2008 at 13:30
StingRay,
Thanks for posting…
I would say that is something is “old news” and the media stopped covering it for a while does not mean it is not important.
Robert Novak said he had government sources in his column, and has confirmed both of them. Yes, one was Richard Armitage but the other one was Karl Rove. You are correct about a third source, CIA Spokesman, Bill Harlow.
According to the CIA itself, Plame had no role in Wilson getting the assignment traveling to Niger.
News Article
Washington Post-December 26, 2003
Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
“Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.
CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting.”
Also, StingRay, Plame’s status as a covert was never debunked. There were far right outlets that suggested this to be case, but Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald court filings documented she was covert at the time of the leak.
According to this report, Fitzgerald stated that Plame was covert and took measures to protect her identity as such. She had also traveled over seas under cover and even under a alias.
Since Fitzgerald documented her status as covert the law does apply.
Also, if her status was debunked, Fitzgerald would not have a case against Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald would have no grounds for the conviction that was returned. If this is what your are suggesting, then Libby had some really poor attorneys working for him.
28. June 2008 at 21:21
First off, lemme clarify that I don’t think you’re dredging up old news. McClellan’s new book is out, and so the mass media’s revisiting all its old story-lines. I’ve long been disenchanted with news media, ever since I started paying attention to politics in the mid-90s.
Second, what I’m suggesting is that investigations were performed. The leakers are all known, and yet none of them had any charges brought against them. Additionally, one of them was a CIA agent, and he was neither arrested, nor charged with sedition.
Libby’s conviction seemed to be a case of the prosecutor latching onto anything so that his time spent didn’t seem wasted. What exactly did Libby perjure himself over? I haven’t been able to find any specifics. Was it something major, or did he just misrepresent what he had for lunch the day before? Given the “win at all costs” mindset of a lot of prosecutors, and examples of gross incompetence such as the Duke lacrosse case, I’m wildly suspicious.
Lemme point out, as well, that I wasn’t a fan of Ken Starr when he was a special prosecutor in the 90s, either. I’m not just spouting a right-wing line. These are questions I haven’t seen addressed.
My question from all of this is really, where were the investigative reporters in all of this? Where’s our modern day Woodward and Bernstein? You called for further investigations, but do you honestly believe that the government has a vested interest in regulating itself any longer? It seems to me that if one branch weakens another, they all get weaker as a result. Asking government to investigate itself is no different, in my mind, to asking a big corporation to do the same.
Then there’s the news media. I have a hard time seeing them as anything more than a press release service. There’s no news any longer, and what gets passed off as news tends to be nothing more than repetition of polls, speculation and gossip.
Hmmm…. I think I might have wandered off track a bit. I’m not quite sure how to get back on track, either, so, I’ll just post this and hope it makes some sort of sense.