Deconstructing McClellan: White House “Prefers” No Accountability
Deconstructing McClellan: White House “Prefers” No Accountability
In a shameful display of unaccountability from the White House podium Monday afternoon, Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly stonewalled questions from reporters about how the White House was responding to newly-disclosed information that Karl Rove was a leaker of classified information.
McClellan hid behind the assertion that the special prosecutor had requested that he not speak from the podium on the matter. A careful reading of McClellan’s talking point demonstrates that he was under no specific orders not to speak by the prosecutor. McClellan’s word games were deliberately chosen to create the impression that his hands were tied and he simply couldn’t comment on an “ongoing investigation.” But a closer inspection of his language shows that McClellan was admitting that he was opting not to answer questions that he most certainly could have answered.
“The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium.”
“That’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy.”
“There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.”
“Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House.”
“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.”
So McClellan could not answer any questions because the special prosecutor preferred that he not talk. But that’s never stopped the White House before. So where did the White House get the idea that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald “preferred” that they not speak? McClellan could not say who specifically made the request of the White House or when the request was made. In any case, the suffering credibility of the Bush White House demands that any considerations of a preference not to speak be overridden in favor of coming clean about this growing scandal.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Fitzgerald doesn’t strike me as someone who would say “please don’t talk, that might help my investigation afterall”.
What prosecutor would tell the ones they’re prosecuting to clam up?
There is no such prosecutor.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:07 pmScotty the Scrivener.
I’d prefer not to be lied to. Obviously my preference doesn’t carry quite the weight of Fitzgerald’s.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:08 pmIt all equates to “I am not a crook.” When do we get the resignation?
July 12th, 2005 at 12:02 amDeja Vu!
“The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are full of rebelling and rioting. Communists (Terrorists) are seeking to destroy our country. Russia (Iraq) is threatening us with her might and the republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order. Without law and order our nation cannot survive. Elect us and we shall restore law and order. We will be respected by the nations of the world for law and order. Without law and order our republic will fall.”
Adolph Hitler 1932
Richard Nixon 1968
Robert Dole 1996
George W. Bush 2004
“When will they ever learn?”
Kingston Trio, et al ca. 1965
We have beaten three of the four, let’s make it a grand slam.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:25 amI think the point here is that it is obviously counsel on Rove’s side that’s putting the muzzle on.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:47 amNOw, let’s not have a witch hunt. He only endangered the lives of CIA agents working to find WMD during a time of war. It’s not like he cheated on his wife or anything.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:52 amIt is highly unlikely that Rove (or any other as-yet-unidentified source) violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That statute applies when:
1) a person having access to classified information that identifies a “covert agent” discloses the agent’s identity to a person not authorized to receive the information, where the person making the disclosure knows that “the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States”;
2) same thing, only the person making the disclosure “learns the identity of a covert agent” through his access to classified information; or
3) a person discloses the identity of a covert agent “in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States.”
First of all, it is not clear that Valerie Plame was a “covert agent.” Here is the definition of “covert agent”:
(4) The term “covert agentâ€? meansâ€â€
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agencyâ€â€
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, andâ€â€
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:56 am“Andrea Mitchell was asked, on MSNBC, whether it was generally known to news people, before the hullabaloo, that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA. She answered, somewhat reluctantly, that it was. In the light of this, I don’t understand the ensuing fuss.”
Some things to consider FBA. It would rational to suspend judgement until the investigation is over. There is no certain evidence there has been a crime here. At least not to the degree that everyone here is HOPING for.
July 12th, 2005 at 1:20 amYou guys just don’t get it. Rove is just a cherry on top of the sundae. This goes to the crux of the biscuit. This White House’s Watergate. As Walter Pincus of the WaPo has already said, he knew about this as far back as 2002. They were setting up the Wilson and Plame as far back as 2002. It’s irrelevant if Rove is guilty under this law. It’s about obstruction now. You can’t obstruct justice, Bucko.
July 12th, 2005 at 6:19 amIt is highly unlikely that Rove (or any other as-yet-unidentified source) violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
You may be right, but only the special prosecutor and the grand jury know for sure. What is clear is that the White House lied about Rove being involved in the leak, which resulted in McClelan’s tap dance yesterday.
It would rational to suspend judgement until the investigation is over. There is no certain evidence there has been a crime here.
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. However, we do know that Rove was involved in the leak (whether it was criminal or not) and Bush himself said his administration does not stand for such behavior. Bush needs to keep his promise of two years ago, and fire Rove.
It’s irrelevant if Rove is guilty under this law. It’s about obstruction now.
Quite right. As we have ssen the concept bandied about, it isn’t the crime that is important, it is the cover up.
Thanks to all of you for pointing out the prize we should be keeping our eye on.
July 12th, 2005 at 7:53 amThis is exactly the point I am trying to make. There are two seperate issues here. One involves Rove engaging in criminal activity; the other involves the White House being caught in a lie and being forced to live up to their previous statements, or lie again.
“For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer’s identity and that whoever did would be fired.”
“The e-mail [Cooper's] did not say Rove had disclosed the name. But it made clear that Rove had discussed the issue.”
July 12th, 2005 at 8:12 amThis editorial makes the same case.
“Whether or not Rove violated the law, his actions on behalf of the administration broke trust with the American people and with the president’s own stated view of the matter.”
“Rove, it appears, cannot be trusted with the United States’ secrets.”
And Keith Olbermann is of like mind.
“To paraphrase Mr. Rove, liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers; conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared to ruin the career of one of the country’s spies tracking terrorist efforts to gain weapons of mass destruction — for political gain.”
“He destroyed an intelligence asset like Valerie Plame merely to deflect criticism of a politician. We have all the damned politicians, of every stripe, that we need. The best of them isn’t worth half a Valerie Plame.”
McClellan can stonewall and make “no comment” as much as he wants, but this one is not going away.
July 12th, 2005 at 8:34 amLook, McClellan is just another Muppet……someone has their hand up his ass and is making him talk….I am not exactly making excuses for him…
July 12th, 2005 at 9:16 amThank God it wasn’t something really critical to national security, like Rove getting caught with his pants down around his ankles with some young intern. Think of the mortal danger that would place us all in. And you know we would never hear the end of it. We should all be thankful for that, at least.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:15 amThe defenders of this administration will do so not matter what. That is why we feel that your opinions carry no weight around here.
I’ll bet you all wanted Clinton to resign for lying about adultery too.
Let’s see, exposing a working undercover CIA operative’s identity to help foster support for a buildup to war based on trumped up lies vs. lyibg about an embarrassing sexual encounter. Yea, I can see where you would think Rove is OK and Clinton should have gone…
You see, that’s my point. Your head is screwed on backwards. The emperor wears no clothes and you still refuse to see it OR let anyone who does see it say so without dragging them through the mud. That’s exactly what Karl did with Wilson through outing his wife.
Twits.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:18 amfake – Are you a US citizen? If so, are you comfortable when the White House cannot publicly declare (see yesterday’s transcript) whether or not the President has full confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff? I don’t think most Republicans would be comfortable with that either.
Steed – In most countries, people resign WAY before it gets to this stage, not AFTER a crime has been found. Crime or not, there is no question that SOMEONE leaked her name thus making it impossible to continue at her job. There is enough prima facie evidence against Rove. As a public servant, Rove should testify under oath and clear the air NOW.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:32 amAnd may I add, excellent point Susan. To think that a prosecutor would want anyone to control their statements is ludicrous.. if Scottie had said “White House legal counsel asked me not to comment” that would have made way more sense…
July 12th, 2005 at 10:36 amThe bottom line here is that lieing by the White House, and Rove should call for Impeachment. So where’s the special procuter for that????
July 12th, 2005 at 11:20 amFirst, Karl Rove and top members of the Bush Administration said they were bringing the country to war because of documents proving that there were WMDs in Iraq. Despite brave public statements from Wilson and others working to prove these documents were fakes, the cooperative media obediently followed the Pentagon and White House press releases. Now that the progressive media largely consisting of international volunteers has spent countless hours proving and reproving that the arguments for war were ludicrous, we see members of the White House Press corps suddenly able to leap into the fray and take on Karl Rove.
What if anything has changed here? The corporate media remains the same, and while the new energy for bringing Karl Rove down is encouraging we should not become complacent.
Like John Bolton, Karl Rove made a lot of enemies when he sought to strong arm people in government and media. That may be one of the reasons we are seeing the White House Press corps come to life.
What will happen once this matter is settled? Will other political leaders including the President still be able to say effectively, “trust us because we are good” as they take all of our rights to challenge government away?
What about the rest of the problem created by the obvious marriage of corporations with state? We are talking about very serious crimes, and once the Plame affair is fully outted, I do hope we will see investigations into them.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:38 pmfake but accurate makes a compelling argument that blowing the cover of a CIA agent in a time of war is not necessarily a bad thing.
You should all just trust the president in whatever he does, don’t question his actions, and enjoy your consumer products.
It could be worse. He could be a Democrat.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:55 pmTeddy Roosevelt (the first of the Progressives) would disagree:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”
- As quoted by the Kansas City Star (May 7, 1918)
July 12th, 2005 at 1:13 pmThe amazingly classic thing is how such a brilliant guy (and you have to admit he’s intelligent – he’s basically running the whole Republican machine right now), is tripped up by such an infantile act of revenge. But even if he get’s “fired”, does he suddenly disappear? I think not. It’s got to be prison. That’s the only way I’ll get any satisfaction.
July 14th, 2005 at 12:46 am[...] Bush’s response is misleading. He gives the impression that the White House has been instructed by the special prosecutor has instructed them not to talk about the case. That’s not true. Spokesman Scott McClellan has made clear that the White House was under no specific orders not to speak about the case by the prosecutor. [...]
October 4th, 2005 at 12:03 pmtwo thumbs up!!! coolblooded, white, memorizing nothing comparative to red: http://abcnews.go.com/ , to Win Cards you should be very Green to win slot you should be very small , Coolblooded Round Percieve or not big, superb, universal nothing comparative to red
December 1st, 2005 at 3:55 am