0
   

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 12:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Remember that Rove is far from the only leaker; there is plenty of evidence that others were involved.


exactimundo cyclo.

from Mission to Niger. by Robert Novak
0ctober 1, 2003

Quote:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.



here's a thought that intriques me;

let's say that rove is not, in fact, the actual leaker. he just sort of called the boys & gals to "warn" them, as was stated.

so then, who are the two senior admin officials that did do the tattling ?

cheney ? card ? (where's he been lately ?) libby ? mcclellan ? ( nobody has asked him if he did the deed, have they ?)

i don't think it's cheney. if he were to get caught being directly involved, there goes the whole shootin' match.

better to use someone below cheney that could be thrown over the side while dubya and grampa claim no direct knowledge.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 12:41 pm
parados wrote:
It's sounding like a well planned conspiracy at this point.

Rove reveals Wilson's wife works at the CIA and planned the trip but doesn't name her or say what she does.

Libby or someone else reveals that an undercover CIA agent, not named, planned the trip

and then a third person names Plame as Wilson's wife


They don't even need a third person. It doesn't seem like it would be difficult for any random person -- the journalists themselves, for example -- to figure out who Wilson's wife is.

As in, if it's been established that a) whomever planned the trip is a CIA operative and b) Wilson's wife planned the trip, c) follows -- Wilson's wife is a CIA operative. Just a matter of finding out who he's married to. Not that hard.

So, there we have the two senior administration officials. Makes sense to me. Not saying it happened, saying it makes sense. We'll see.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 12:44 pm
WOW!

Ol' Scotty McLellan got absolutely KILLED in the press briefing today!

KILLED!

I've never seen such a thing. Here's the transcript(long):

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/11/briefing-711/

Quote:
FULL TEXT: July 11 White House Press Briefing
WHITE HOUSE REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING
JULY 11, 2005
SPEAKER: SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

MCCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone.

I want to begin with a statement by the president.

On July 11th, we remember the tragic loss of lives in Srebrenica 10 years ago.
The mass murder of nearly 8,000 men and boys was Europe's worst massacre of civilians since World War II and a grim reminder that there are evil people who will kill the innocent without conscience or mercy.

This horrific event remains a source of pain for people in the Balkan region and for all those who believe in freedom and the dignity of human life.
I join all Americans in sending our deepest condolences and expressions of sympathy on this solemn occasion.

The United States supports the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the families of those who suffered, as they commemorate this terrible chapter in history.

We grieve for their loss and applaud the strength and courage of those who have returned to Srebrenica to rebuild their lives.

We also remain committed to ensuring that those responsible for these crimes face justice; most notably, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

I appreciate all the individuals who are advancing reconciliation and a strong European future for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A modern, democratic Balkan region is an essential element in a Europe that is unified, free and at peace.

As we work to make the world more peaceful, we share a common faith in the value of freedom, the sanctity of life and the triumph of good over evil.

May God bless the people of the Balkan region and the souls of the departed.

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions.



(Here is where Scott turns to a reporter from the India Times, who fufills the same position Gannon/Guckert used to; a softball question when things get tough. But watch how quickly this tactic pans out)

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.


QUESTION: A secret British memo says plans under way for a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq early next year. Does the president agree with those plans? And even though he doesn't want to give an exit date…

MCCLELLAN: Who has a plan? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: A secret British memo says plans are under way for a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq early next year. Does the president agree with those plans? And even though he doesn't want to give an exit date, is there White House and Pentagon pressure to draw down U.S. troop levels in Iraq as soon as possible?

MCCLELLAN: I think you're referring to reports of a British memo talking about a reduction in troop forces.

First of all, the military always plans for all contingencies. And that's something our military is always looking at: What are the various contingencies and how do we meet our commitments and complete the mission?

The president's made it clear that we are going to complete the mission and then our troops will return home with the honor that they deserve.

The president always looks to his commanders on the ground to make assessments in terms of what troops level are needed.

And the commanders on the ground will have the troops that they need to complete the mission. But the commanders have said that that will be based on the conditions on the ground; it will be based on circumstances on the ground. So you're always looking at the circumstances on the ground.

Now, one part of our strategy for the victory in Iraq is to train and equip the Iraqi security forces. As we stand up the Iraqi forces, we will stand down coalition and American forces.

And the president talked about that again today. That's part of our two-track strategy for succeeding in Iraq.

And what you're seeing now is that the number of Iraqi forces that are trained and equipped continues to go up. They are the largest contingent providing for security in Iraq. And we continue to expand those forces.

But not only are we expanding the numbers, we're strengthening their capability. And the commanders have talked about that as well.

So there's good progress being made there. The president referenced some of that in this remarks today.

QUESTION: There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it.

Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there's an investigation or not.

So are you saying that he's not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.

This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

And we're just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

QUESTION: But you acknowledged that he is free, as president of the United States, to take whatever action he wants to in response to a credible report that a member of his staff leaked information. He is free to take action if he wants to.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.
QUESTION: Scott, what was the president's interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation?

And understanding that Karl Rove was the architect of the president's reelection (OFF-MIKE) how important is Karl Rove to this administration?

MCCLELLAN: Again, this is coming at it from…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation. And I think I've responded to…

QUESTION: Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MCCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current administration?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question. I think I've responded.


QUESTION: Is the president going to make any outreach to conservative groups on the Supreme Court nominee and listen to their point of view at all?

MCCLELLAN: Well, we are listening to what others have to say, not only the United States Senate, but outside as well. And there are a lot of people expressing their views right now.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCLELLAN: I wouldn't try to label anything.

QUESTION: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor.

MCCLELLAN: And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.

Again, this is an ongoing matter. I'm just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time.

At the appropriate time, when it's complete, then I'll be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open…

MCCLELLAN: It's the same type of question. You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I'm not going to do that.

QUESTION: I'd like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.

MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what he expects people in the White House to do.

QUESTION: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with…

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've already responded.

QUESTION: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?

MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who's involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing.

I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The president wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: Was the request made of you or of whom in the White House?

MCCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.
QUESTION: In your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I'm just not going to say anything further. I expressed all I'm going to say on this matter from this podium.


QUESTION: How does the uncertainty over Chief Justice Rehnquist affect the president's selection of replacement for Justice O'Connor?

MCCLELLAN: How does the speculation about another vacancy…

QUESTION: The uncertainty about Chief Justice Rehnquist affect the process?

MCCLELLAN: Well, the president is moving forward to fill the vacancy. He spent time on his trip looking over the background materials of potential nominees and some of their key rulings or decisions.

The president has been talking with senior staff. I know he visited with Andy Card about it on the trip as well. And talking to them about potential nominees in the process for moving forward to name a nominee.

We are prepared for additional vacancies if they would occur. This is something that we have prepared for for quite some time at the White House. But I'm not aware of any announcement that's been made on an additional vacancy at this point.

QUESTION: Scott, on Voting Rights reauthorization, I understand the president is for Voting Rights reauthorization, but he still wants to study portions of it.
It sounds kind of contradictory. Could you explain what that means?

MCCLELLAN: Sure. As you point out, it's up for reauthorization in 2006. The president does support reauthorization. That process is getting under way in Congress. And as it works its way through Congress, the White House will look at and consider any improvements to strengthen it.
And that's really where it stands at this point.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) can strengthen it, what tweak is he thinking of right now?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think that's something we'll look at.
There are suggestions that, sure, people are going to make as we move forward and we'll look at and consider those suggestions.

The president also met with the Congressional Black Caucus and said he would take their views into account as we move forward as well.

Thank you.

END


Hee heee heee

I love the part where they ask if Scotty has hired a lawyer himself.

And I can't wait to see how Gannon/Guckert fits into this....

This is just going to get sweeter and sweeter. They are reduced to stonewalling....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 01:00 pm
Oh, that is lovely to see.

No matter what ends up happening, it's so good to finally see reporters asking hard-hitting questions. Even if everyone involved is pure as the driven snow, there are sure a lot of things that look bad and bear investigation. So good to see them being investigated aggressively on the part of the press corps.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 01:09 pm
sheesh...it's about time
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 01:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
WOW!

Ol' Scotty McLellan got absolutely KILLED in the press briefing today!

KILLED!

I've never seen such a thing. Here's the transcript(long):

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/11/briefing-711/

Hee heee heee

I love the part where they ask if Scotty has hired a lawyer himself.

And I can't wait to see how Gannon/Guckert fits into this....

This is just going to get sweeter and sweeter. They are reduced to stonewalling....

Cycloptichorn


it's apparent when you listen that "the podium" doesn't want to give many direct answers and spend a lot of time spinning. that's the job.

but in reading this, and other transcripts, it really glares out that this guy said absolutely nothing.

i wasn't an ari fliesher fan, but he was better than mcclellan. scott just kinda fumbles around like a telemarketer pitching a mark that won't follow the sales "script".

i read someplace that his mom's big in the texas republican party. anybody know anything about that ?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 01:37 pm
btw, cyclo... was the reporter david gregory from nbc ? or was it multiple reporters chasing the boy 'round ?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 01:49 pm
His mom is Carol Keeton Strayhorn. She's running for Gov. this cycle.

And, interestingly enough, McLellan has quite the reputation here in the Gay Bar scene. Or at least he did before he started working at the WH; this is why my money has always been on McLellan for the Gannon angle.

There were a lot of different reporters, but mostly David Gregory and David Corn, thus the preponderance of Davids.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 01:53 pm
Wow! Someone has suggested Clinton for the Supreme Court?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 01:55 pm
Don't Tread
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
btw, cyclo... was the reporter david gregory from nbc ? or was it multiple reporters chasing the boy 'round ?


David Gregory is becoming the new Sam Donaldson of the Whitehouse Press Corps. He seems to be the only one with a pulse. Perhaps the others will take up from their comas and do their job for the public trust.

VVV
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 02:05 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
but in reading this, and other transcripts, it really glares out that this guy said absolutely nothing.


actually, he did say four times that no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President. evidently, that doesn't constitute commenting on an ongoing investigation. :wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 02:08 pm
Oh and I loooooove the Clinton for Supreme Court idea. :-) There's the initial "wouldn't THAT be fun!!" reaction, but the Taft thing is valid and I think it suits his temperment well. (Absorb everything possible on the subject, cogitate, decide.)

I mean I realize that it's soooooooooooooo not gonna happen, but fun to think about.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 02:14 pm
Re: Don't Tread
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
btw, cyclo... was the reporter david gregory from nbc ? or was it multiple reporters chasing the boy 'round ?


David Gregory is becoming the new Sam Donaldson of the Whitehouse Press Corps. He seems to be the only one with a pulse. Perhaps the others will take up from their comas and do their job for the public trust.

VVV


... or is he the new Helen Thomas?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 02:23 pm
It seems the translation from todays press conference is...

We will comment on it as long as we can deny it. If we can't deny it and sound believable then we won't comment.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 03:07 pm
I wonder how long it will be before Scott McLellan develops a need to leave his job for personal reasons? :wink:
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 04:00 pm
Re: Don't Tread
Ticomaya wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
btw, cyclo... was the reporter david gregory from nbc ? or was it multiple reporters chasing the boy 'round ?


David Gregory is becoming the new Sam Donaldson of the Whitehouse Press Corps. He seems to be the only one with a pulse. Perhaps the others will take up from their comas and do their job for the public trust.

VVV


... or is he the new Helen Thomas?


Two pages; first page the smoke, now comes the mirrors. Next expect to see Tico trot out his dog & pony show.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 04:14 pm
For those of us old enough to recall the Nixon era, things are starting to seem eerily familiar: An arrogant administration, an unpopular war, and a slowly building series of questions from the press that can't be brushed aside.

Nixon, too, looked invincible for a while...
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 04:20 pm
D'artagnan
It would seem however, times have changed and Nixon did not have 9/11 and terrorism to save his bacon.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 04:36 pm
au1929, true, Nixon had no 9/11. But that's starting to wear thin as the rationale for everything Bush does. People, finally, are seeing through it...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 05:02 pm
I saw a dark political cartoon with Bush in front of a sign that says.......

We're fighting the war in London so we don't have to fight it here.



"London" is obviously pasted on the sign covering the word that we all know is there. My local paper seems to be a week slow in posting their political cartoons on their website or I would put the image here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/12/2025 at 12:34:58