Unravelling

[46zilzal]

McClellan to testify before House in CIA leak case

By Laurie Kellman / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush's former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House's role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday.

[delayjf]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26777

Bob Novacks take on McClellan.

"On page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was my source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown."

[Tread]

And here are Novak's comments about the circumstances surrounding his report, where he describes Armitage as the original leaker and that Rove and a CIA information officer BOTH CONFIRMED THE IDENTITY for him before he printed the article.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2006/07/13/my_leak_case_testiony

And here is testimony from Time reporter Mathew Cooper about where he got the information from, 3 days before Novak's column appeared in print.....

On July 11, 2003, according to Cooper's testimony at the trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Rove told Cooper about Plame's employment. From Cooper's January 31, 2007, testimony, documented in journalist Murray Waas' book, The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square, June 2007):
Q: And did there come a time when you discussed with anyone Mr. Wilson's wife?

A: Yes.

Q: And can you tell us when you first discussed Mr. Wilson's wife that week and with whom?

A: Sure. It was on Friday, July 11th, 2003. And it was with Karl Rove, a member of the White House staff.

Q: And can you tell us how that conversation came about?

A: Sure. Well, I put in a call to Mr. Rove's office. I believe I called through the White House switchboard, and I was routed to his office. At first they said he wasn't there or that he was busy, and then they put me through to him, and we talked.

Q: And tell us what you recall about the conversation with Mr. Rove on that day.

A: Sure. Well, these aren't the exact words, but the gist of it was I said, you know, we are interested in this Wilson story and the sixteen words. By this time, it had become a very big story. And he immediately said, well, don't get too far out on Wilson, which I took to mean, don't lionize Ambassador Wilson or don't idolize him.

And he went on to say -- and, again, I am paraphrasing -- that a number of things were going to be coming out about Ambassador Wilson that would cast him in a different light. He said that the director of the CIA had not sent him, I believe he said the Vice President's office had not been involved in sending him.

And then he said, you know, it would turn out who was involved in sending him.

And I had to draw it out of him a bit. I said, who? And he said, like his wife.

And I guess I, until that point, didn't know Wilson had a wife; I hadn't even thought about it. And then I said, "The wife?" And he went on to say that she worked on WMD at the agency, and by that I took to mean the Central Intelligence Agency, not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency.

And we talked a bit more. And then, at the end of the conversation, he said words to the effect of, "I have already said too much. I have got to go." And that was it.

Q: About how long was that conversation, if you recall?

A: A couple of minutes. (Pages 226-227)

If you want to naively assume that the only story here is Armitage, that's your mistake. It very clearly was information that many close to the president were anxious to get out to the public. There is certainly a difference between being the original leaker and playing a role in the leak, but if the question is whether or not Rove or CIA information officer Harlow played a role in the leak, they very clearly did based on sworn testimony.

[riskman]

The White House is angry that little Scotty, a lowly serf, has had the temerity to publish his memoirs, and to label his chapters in an accusatory and cynical way. "Selling the War," "Deniability," and "Out of Touch" leave little to even the Bush-league imagination. But if the White House, and its apologists at the various organs of state media, are upset about something, it means simply that a bunch of overpaid and underperforming bureaucrats are upset about something. So what?

We should all write a book, and document for the record that we count, that we can figure things out, that we can change things for the better.

[JustRalph]

The White House is angry that little Scotty, a lowly serf, has had the temerity to publish his memoirs, and to label his chapters in an accusatory and cynical way. "Selling the War," "Deniability," and "Out of Touch" leave little to even the Bush-league imagination. But if the White House, and its apologists at the various organs of state media, are upset about something, it means simply that a bunch of overpaid and underperforming bureaucrats are upset about something. So what?

We should all write a book, and document for the record that we count, that we can figure things out, that we can change things for the better.

Boy, you were doing good until that last line............. :rolleyes:

[delayjf]

If you want to naively assume that the only story here is Armitage, that's your mistake. It very clearly was information that many close to the president were anxious to get out to the public.

My question is why would the Administration be anxious to get Valerie's identity out to the public - what would be gained by that? And it's not like Wilson was secretive about where his wife worked, at least according to two different Army Generals that Wilson told worked for the CIA.

[ddog]

Ask scooter, he was convicted for it, i am sure he had an interest or he would have rolled out from under that, even in the sure fact that he would/will get a pardon.

Obviously the generals are not going to be able to give out the backstory, that's what needed to happen and for that to have cred that needed to come from the MSM via the leakers.

[delayjf]

Yet, no charges filed to date - this is much to do about nothing.

[Tread]

Yes, interesting isn't it? No charges filed. And no action taken by a president who promised to take action against anyone in his administration who played a role in the leak, and Karl Rove clearly did play a role according to the testimony from both Novak and Cooper.

My question is why would the Administration be anxious to get Valerie's identity out to the public - what would be gained by that? And it's not like Wilson was secretive about where his wife worked, at least according to two different Army Generals that Wilson told worked for the CIA.



This question has been answered many times, as payback for Wilson's criticism of the White House and undermining of their propoganda campaign trying to tie WMD to Iraq.

If it was much ado about nothing, why did the president even acknowledge it? Why pretend to treat it as a serious problem and threaten action (which he never took)? Did you read the transcript? Do you honestly believe Karl Rove saying "I've already said too much" was the result of a slip of the tounge and not a calculated move? comon, that guy knows exactly what he's doing at all times, it's his job, and ESPECIALLY when he knows he's talking to the press.

But maybe you are right, maybe there is no difference between discussing a CIA operative's identity with a millitary general who has full security clearance and a newspaper reporter.

[delayjf]

If it was much ado about nothing, why did the president even acknowledge it? Why pretend to treat it as a serious problem and threaten action

Because politically you have to address it; you can't just shrug your shoulders and say no biggie. It makes no sense to purposely out Plume, break the law and draw down the wrath of a criminal investigation. I have no doubt that Rove did want to discredit Wilson – especially given the lies of Joe Wilson.

But maybe you are right, maybe there is no difference between discussing a CIA operative's identity with a millitary general who has full security clearance and a newspaper reporter.
Point taken, but If there's no need to know. I doubt it is common knowledge for most US Generals to know the identities of "covert CIA agents". I think it says more about Wilson's disregard for his Wife’s "status" that he would bring it up casually in a conversation in a TV Studio waiting room, as was the case here, as opposed to a TS briefing at the Pentagon. If he’s that casual about it, you have to wonder who else he told.

[ddog]

because he WANTED "it" to address.

It served the purpose, you get to leak/plant the story then "show" that you and your crew are above reproach in the security area and that if anyone could even imagine doing it you will dump them.

At the same time , you get to paint the trip and the report (maybe true) as a Dim hatchet job inspired and setup by the guy's wife who along with Joe are biased against the country's policy goal from the outset.

The "whole thing" ,since Joe was not an unbiased observer, could only have taken place if Val was in the middle and handed the trip to Joe as opposed to someone with an open mind.

The whole scam was ok, just someone may have to be the firewall, well scooter looked a little burned to me.

[riskman]

Boy, you were doing good until that last line............. :rolleyes:

JR---Damn' I thought I was getting the hang of it ! :)

[delayjf]

It served the purpose, you get to leak/plant the story then "show" that you and your crew are above reproach in the security area and that if anyone could even imagine doing it you will dump them.
If that is what they were thinking, then boy they were wrong. Personnally I fail to see how acting in a manner that will bring down a Grand Jury investigation will show that your people are above reproach. I think, they could have attacked the integrity of Wilsons story without dropping his wifes name. I'm also not sure that anyone was under the belief that she was according to her "covert."

And financially, they whole incident has been probably the best thing to happen to Joe and Valerie. Book deal, movie, lecture circuit - what a deal.