OLBERMANN: We know the White House sent out talking points. McClellan says this and I can tell you, from personal experience, I still have them. In 2004 — in retrospect, this looks like one of the great wastes of all time—they sent me a set of talking points, not fully understanding the nature of the show even in 2004, before I sat down and interviewed Joe Wilson. McClellan didn’t make this stuff up.

Watch it:

Q: Did people say call Sean, call Bill, call whoever? Did you do that as a regular thing?

McCLELLAN: Certainly. Certainly. It wasn’t necessarily something I was doing, but it was something that we at the White House, yes, were doing.

On his radio show yesterday, Bill O’Reilly let loose on McClellan, calling him a “liar” and an “idiot” for saying O’Reilly accepted the talking points. Today, McClellan went on O’Reilly’s show and in a tense back and forth, O’Reilly got McClellan to apologize for the “talking points” statement. “Do you owe me an apology?” O’Reilly asked. McClellan responded:

McCLELLAN: The truth is I messed up. I was specifically not trying to single anyone out, including you. But the way a couple of the questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen. … I understand why you got upset. … You’re the Big Kahuna at Fox News, and some people tried to paint in a black and white term through a preconceived notion.

Listen to it:

Despite McClellan’s apology, O’Reilly yelled at McClellan later in the segment, blaming McClellan for getting “played’ by Chris Matthews and accusing him of being a “liar” and “crazy”:

O’REILLY: Matthews played you. … He played you! You should be mad at him!

McCLELLAN: So you don’t owe me an apology for calling me a liar? –

O’REILLY: You are a liar! You said I received talking points and I didn’t!

McCLELLAN: No I didn’t! I was not confirming that. I’m telling you right now —

O’REILLY: Oh you’re parsing the damn thing! Come on, be honest! … He baited you! He baited you! … You’re crazy! You’re partners with [NBC] in selling your book!

McClellan, however, did stand by his original point. “I stand by what I said in terms of the larger things and everything.” Without pointing out specific names or networks, McClellan vaguely claimed: “There were other people that were friendly and sympathetic to us.”

McClellan goes on NBC. Hehe, I guess he lives there now. I never got a talking point in my life from anybody. And McClellan’s lying. Okay, Scott? Got it? I’m calling you a liar. Lost all respect for you. I treated you courteously when you came on the program. No respect for you now. … He’s an idiot. He wants to sell his stupid book.

Listen here:

Making a distinction between journalists like Brit Hume and commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, McClellan admitted that “certainly” the White House used Fox News talking heads as “spokespeople” with “a script”:

MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn’t use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you’d use some of the nighttime guys?

MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they’ll say, that’s because they agree with those views in the White House.

MATTHEWS: Well, they didn’t need a script though, did they?

MCCLELLAN: No, well, probably not.

McClellan later told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann that “it was done frequently, especially on high-profile issues” and that Fox often gave the White House “its desired results.” Current Press Secretary Dana Perino would only tell Olbermann, “I’m not aware of that.” Watch it:

Fox News’s close relationship to the Bush administration should come as no surprise to anyone, considering Fox’s Neil Cavuto once ran a segment asking if George W. Bush was “the best President.” But, as Olbermann notes, it “is one of those things you assumed to be true all along, yet you are shocked when the hard confirmation actually shows up on your door.”

Not only is Fox the network the White House turned to when Vice President Dick Cheney had to explain how he shot his friend in the face, but the network has also produced sympathetic documentaries on both Cheney and President Bush.

But in a podcast interview with ABC News’s Jake Tapper yesterday, McClellan disavowed his previous defenses of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. “I would have never made those comments from the podium had I known exactly what was happening,” said McClellan.

He then told Tapper that because of “waterboarding and some other harsh interrogation methods” used by the administration, he “could not say honestly today that this administration does not believe in torture”:

Now, looking back on that, I hold a very different view when I know today that were engaged in waterboarding and some other harsh interrogation methods and I would have never made those comments from the podium had I known exactly what was happening in some of those settings. Whether or not it was illegal is a matter for other people to address, but I could not say honestly today that this administration does not believe in torture, does not engage in torture.

Listen here:

Earlier this month, after he had himself waterboarded, journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote, “believe me, it’s torture.” “If waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture,” said Hitchens.

Apparently, Scott McClellan agrees.

Transcript:

TAPPER: Looking back on it, obviously in the…I read the book and there, obviously, you felt very stung, personally. And that was apparent to anybody watching.

MCCLELLAN: Right.

TAPPER: The whole Valerie Plame affair and the fact that you were misled by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby about their role. But, beyond that, do you look back at things you said from the podium that just were not true? That you knew at the time were not true?

MCCLELLAN: At the time, no, ah, maybe, no because I believe what I said from the podium was sincere, even though some times looking back on it now it may have been misguided. But let me give you another example. Yes, I, to the initial part of your question, are there other things beyond that, beyond the Valerie Plame episode that I look back to. One would certainly be the whole issue of detainee policy and to a large extent, or almost to a full extent, I had to rely on other people within the White House to provide me with the information I needed for that. I did not sit there and participate in the policy making process for detainees. We’re only now learning the full truth of who was involved in that and what exactly occurred. But when I went out and said, “we do not torture,” that we adhere to our international treaties and so forth, I was relying on what information was being given to me. Now, looking back on that, I hold a very different view when I know today that were engaged in waterboarding and some other harsh interrogation methods and I would have never made those comments from the podium had I known exactly what was happening in some of those settings. Whether or not it was illegal is a matter for other people to address, but I could not say honestly today that this administration does not believe in torture, does not engage in torture. Now, people within the White House continue to believe that it doesn’t — that it’s not tantamount to torture. I just hold a different view today on that subject.

Inquiring about Vice President Dick Cheney’s motivations to go to war, host Jim Brown noted that Cheney “doesn’t strike me as someone who would be particularly motivated by idealistic visions.” McClellan agreed, adding that Iraq’s oil occupied Cheney’s mind more than anything else:

MCCLELLAN: Certainly you can’t discount the large oil reserves inside Iraq and how much that plays into our national security interests and I don’t think you can discount how much that plays into the vice president’s thinking.

BROWN: Or his portfolio for that matter.

MCCLELLAN: Or his portfolio for that matter, absolutely with that being a former chief executive officer for Halliburton and that certainly played heavily into his thinking more so I think than the idea of transforming the Middle East into a beacon of democracy.

Listen here:

McClellan later added that he believes that Bush never “would have made the decision to go in and invade Iraq” if “he could see what had happened.” But when asked if Cheney “would do it differently a second time around,” McClellan said flatly: “No.”

BROWN: Do you think Dick Cheney would do it differently a second time around?

MCCLELLAN: No. Well he might have done some military things differently but I think he was determined to see Saddam Hussein removed from power and would have continued to encourage that.

During a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last month, McClellan suggested some book titles for Cheney should he choose to write a memoir of his own after leaving office: “The Lies I Told,” or “I Upped Halliburton’s Income – So Up Yours.”

Digg It!

McClellan who is clear that he has no great admiration for Cheney, joked to the audience that his national book tour has given him some ideas for book titles Cheney might consider: “The Lies I Told,” or “I Upped Halliburton’s Income – So Up Yours.”

McClellan also offered potential book title ideas for Karl Rove and Scooter Libby: “The Lies I Told to Whom and Why” and “Well, Pardon Me,” respectively.

Scott McClellan’s book and his congressional testimony shed some light on — as we alleged in our lawsuit — the decision by senior government officials to betray the identity of a covert CIA officer, Valerie Plame Wilson. Many questions, however, such as the role of Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney remain unanswered. Our civil suit, now before the Court of Appeals, is designed to permit us to uncover the truth, to hold to account those who would use their public positions to engage in private political vendettas, and to ensure that future generations of public servants do not engage in such despicable behavior against fellow Americans.

Mr. McClellan’s testimony today underscores why we need to continue to pursue our rights under the American judicial system, and why Congress should also fully investigate the circumstances of the leak, and the subsequent obstruction of justice which is ongoing.

Today, McClellan is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. In his opening statement, the committee’s ranking member Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), one of Bush’s most loyal defenders, derided the hearing as the committee’s “first book-of-the-month-club meeting,” and suggested the next book should one by right-winger Ann Coulter. Lamar also compared McClellan to Judas, insisting he was “selling out the president” for “a few pieces of silver”:

SMITH: Welcome to the House Judicary Committee’s first book-of-the-month-club meeting. I propose that next time we consider Ann Coulter’s book, “How To Talk To A Liberal If You Must.” It’s hard to take Mr. McClellan or this hearing too seriously. … Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a few pieces of silver.

There’s no comparison between Coulter — who never served in the administration — and McClellan, who was a member of Bush’s inner circle for most of the past decade. Later in the hearing, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) apologized to McClellan for the “aspersions as to your motives…that we heard a few minutes ago.” “Such character assassination has no business in this committee,” Nadler said.

Lamar’s attempts to dismiss McClellan’s testimony echoes the strategy on the right to write off McClellan’s complaints as unimportant and disloyal. McClellan’s former boss Ari Fleischer insisted that only “Washington and people who follow Washington” cared about McClellan’s allegation. “I’m bored,” Bill O’Reilly complained, while Former House Speaker declared, “I’m more concerned about American Idol than I am about Scott McClellan.” White House officials also blasted him as a “traitor” and a “Benedict.”

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would signal a special treatment, the same thing that happened with the commutation. And the President has always held a certain standard for a granting pardons, even going back to when he was governor, and I worked for him then. And that is, that the person must first repay his debt to his society, and second, must express remorse for the crimes which he committed. And we have seen neither of that from Scooter Libby at this point.

Watch it:

Earlier this month, McClellan said Bush should have fired Karl Rove for his involvement in exposing an undercover CIA agent. “He said we were going to set the highest of standards, we didn’t live up to that,” said McClellan.

Digg It!

But other GOP strategists say McClellan’s experience could underscore one of the weak points of the West Wing — the conversion of the press secretary’s job, at least under McClellan, into what some call a propagandist. “The press secretary has become the mouthpiece and not the fact checker,” says a former senior adviser to a Republican president.

White House officials, who are “concerned” about McClellan’s testimony, are trying to downplay the hearing, focusing instead on the 110th Congress’s “embarrassing lack of accomplishment over the past two years.”

When asked if his testimony next week might prompt any invoking of executive privilege – a power which can allow the president to block testimony- McClellan said, “I don’t have anything incriminating to say here if that’s what you’re looking for.

“Well I imagine if Congress tries to go into other issues, ones I haven’t spoken about in the book, I’m sure the White House would think seriously about that.“

In May, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino raised the possibility that the White House could block McClellan from testifying.

The White House never wanted to have the way the case was made, the way the intelligence was used to sell the war to the American people looked into by Congress. This was delayed for quite some time and Senator Rockefeller pushed this forward to get to the truth. And, the White House can continue to bury their heads in the sand but the reality is still the same.

I think the American people see it for exactly what it is. … We came to the very same conclusion that the intelligence was used in a way to make the threat sound more grave and urgent and serious than it was.

Watch it:

Before January 2007, the Senate Intelligence Committee was headed by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who used his position to delay, block, and stonewall the release of Phase II of the report:

“That [the Phase II report] is basically on the back burner.” [UPI, 3/10/05]

“I don’t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further.” [U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 3/31/05]

“To go though that exercise, it seems to me, in a post-election environment – we didn’t see how we could do that and achieve any possible progress. I think everybody pretty well gets it.” [U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 3/31/05]

Current Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said the committee faced “constant” pressure from Vice President Cheney to delay the report, and Roberts and his allies went “along with the administration.”

Pressed by Gross about Hagee’s specific influence, McClellan acknowledged that “yes,” he “certainly had some influence“:

GROSS: So Pastor Hagee was influential within the Bush administration?

Mr. McCLELLAN: I’d say he was one of a number that certainly had some influence and was able to quickly get someone on the phone at the White House. So yes.

Listen here:

Hagee, whose endorsement Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was forced to reject after audio surfaced of him saying that Hitler was fulfilling God’s will, has a long history with President Bush. As Sarah Posner has reported, when he was first running for president, Bush “enlisted Hagee to recruit other pastors to sign on to the Bush campaign effort.”

In fact, Hagee became such an enthusiastic Bush booster that he endorsed him in 2000 by writing a book titled God’s Candidate for America. According to Posner, Hagee was “unequivocal” in the book “that Jesus would vote for Bush“:

Despite accusing Bush Sr. of collaboration with the Antichrist, Hagee delivered for George W. Bush in his 2000 book, God’s Candidate for America. In that book, Hagee was unequivocal that Jesus would vote for Bush. “If you are concerned about the sort of America your children and grandchildren will grow up within,” Hagee wrote, “then you need to cast your vote for George W. Bush and the Republican Party.”

It appears that, according to McClellan, Hagee’s efforts paid off and Bush rewarded him by giving him “sway” in the White House.

Digg It!

On CBS’s Early Show today, McClellan responded to Dole’s and the right wing’s attacks on him. McClellan shrugged them off, saying the attacks were “personal” diatribes that still did not refute the “key themes” of the book:

McCLELLAN: These are some unpleasant truths and hard realities that I’m trying to address in the book. And no one is really refuting the key themes and perspectives in the book. What they are doing is taking some of these personal attacks and misrepresentations and trying to shift this focus away from what this book talks about. I think it’s important to get it back on the larger message in the book.

Watch it:

Indeed, it’s difficult to find a right-wing personality directly taking issue with the substance of McClellan’s book. For example, former White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy writes today, “Please forgive me, Scott, if this sounds personal, but you’ve just filleted me and everyone who worked with you.” “I mean my lack of interest in Scott McClellan’s personal odyssey of self-discovery is a negative,” said Newt Gingrich.

Whether McClellan’s charges have some truth to them is left unaddressed by these ad hominem attacks. “The ink [the book] generates isn’t doing much to distract the American public from the overarching narrative that McClellan’s book is a part of: Unpopular president, unpopular war, dispirited party,” notes Ana Marie Cox.

In an email to McClellan, Dole excoriated him as a “miserable creature.”

But on Fox News this week, Rove disputed McClellan’s description of their conversation, claiming that “Scott’s questions to me were: did I leak Valerie Plame’s name, and the answer is no.”

On NBC’s Meet The Press today, host Tim Russert asked McClellan about the discrepancy between his and Rove’s stories, pointing out that “one of you is not telling the truth.” Rove’s story is “pretty disingenuous,” replied McClellan. McClellan then added that he said the same thing under oath to a grand jury:

MCCLELLAN: But, let me mention this, that question, when I said, “were you involved in this in any way” and he categorically said, “no.” That is absolutely true. It is what I said under oath to the grand jury. It is what I told investigators. And, secondly, that is the same question I asked Scooter Libby. The very same question I asked Scooter Libby.

Watch it:

As McClellan points out, Rove was in fact involved in the outing of Valerie Plame, speaking about her to two reporters, including Robert Novak, whose column eventually outed her.

Later in the interview, Russert asked about whether President Bush should have fired Rove after his involvement was revealed. Recalling his own statement on behalf of the administration that “If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration,” McClellan said, “I think the president should have stood by the word that we said”:

RUSSERT: But you believe Rove should have left?

MCCLELLAN: I think the president should have stood by the word and that meant Karl should have left.

As McClellan notes, “the bar was moved” by President Bush when it was revealed publicly that his top adviser was involved in exposing an undercover CIA agent. “He said we were going to set the highest of standards, we didn’t live up to that,” said McClellan.