Karl Rove Source in Plame Case - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 07-11-2005, 02:06 PM

Relax, Mr. Mephisto. It really would help if you familiarized yourself with this case. There is a legal question here that remains unchanged:

Rove never revealed Plame by name in his correspondence with Cooper. Therefore, it still hasn't been proven that Rove committed a crime.

The article you quoted is nonsense. It sources this familiar Newsweek article to simply rehash that Cooper and Rove did in fact correspond. Old news. It then goes on to make the completely unsubstaniated leap that Rove outed Plame by revealing her name. Robert Novak was the one who did that, not Rove.

From the exact same Newsweek article (but curiously omitted from your version):

Quote:

"Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame’s name or knew she was a covert operative."

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Relax, Mr. Mephisto. It really would help if you familiarized yourself with this case. There is a legal question here that remains unchanged

Erm... powerclown.

If you care to reread my post, you will see that my position is not that different to yours. I think the calls for Rove's skin are just sour grapes.

Let jurisprudence take its course.

I could just as easily ask you to relax.

Mr Mephisto

moosenose · 07-11-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

And by refusing to give up her source, she's protecting the ability of journalists across the country to get the news out.

That's what is so amusing....the Democrats, in their foaming-at-the-mouth-get-Rove-at-any-cost movement, are the ones damaging the institution that they have relied on over and over again to muckrake for them.

They are publicly and spectacularly shooting themselves in the groin again, and are going to bellow like branded cattle when the chickens come home to roost. Remember how we ended up with "First Amendment Zones"??? Thanks, Planned Parenthood...

Elphaba · 07-11-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Rove never revealed Plame by name in his correspondence with Cooper. Therefore, it still hasn't been proven that Rove committed a crime.

Is there a legal distinction between referring to her by name vs. referring to her as Wilson's wife at the CIA?

powerclown · 07-11-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Is there a legal distinction between referring to her by name vs. referring to her as Wilson's wife at the CIA?

Legally, it's the difference between Guilt or Innocence. He never mentioned her by name - and that's what this is all about: revealing the name of a covert CIA agent.

A curious fact recently surfaced:

Weak-kneed journalist Matt Cooper's wife is a well-known Democratic "political consultant".
Her father used to be the Managing Editor for......Time Magazine (Cooper's employer).

Anyone else hear Rove whistling to himself in the background?

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Anyone else hear Rove whistling to himself in the background?

The trite response to a lot of the legitimate concerns brought up by this case is interesting.

As I've said, I think the more rabid calls for Rove's trial are a bit "out there", but something is troubling me about your position powerclown.

You seem to gleefully continue to mention how Rove is legally innocent. That he is protected by law. That he has no case to answer etc etc.

Let me ask you somethings in plain English.

Do you think he's morally guilty?
Do you believe that he did something wrong?
Or do you believe that "outting" (by name or by implication) a covert CIA operative, for political points only, is fair game?

Why does this question never enter in to it?

Mr Mephisto

powerclown · 07-11-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Let me ask you somethings in plain English.

Do you think he's morally guilty?
Do you believe that he did something wrong?
Or do you believe that "outting" (by name or by implication) a covert CIA operative, for political points only, is fair game?

1. I don't see why this is STILL going on after 2 years of investigations. I really don't. Especially after the 2004 presidential elections.
2. Not sure what you mean by "wrong". This is politics in Washington DC. Probably no different from politics anywhere else in the world.
3. See #1.

I will add that it takes 2 to Tango, and I believe that Joe Wilson for example, comes across as having a tremendous chip on his shoulder.

roachboy · 07-11-2005, 04:51 PM

it seems at this point disengenous to conflate the legal and political processes. right now the white house is finding itself hoisted by its own petard on this, is trying to stonewall the situation as it is blowing up in their face. this will not last, i dont think--sooner or later, the attempts at evasion will themselves become part of the scandal.

i think things will arrive at a point where rove will have to resign.
but that is a political question, not a legal one.
they are not the same.

he is obviously and publicly preparing his legal defense, and so the question of criminal guilt will be sorted there, either before a grand jury or in a subsequent trial.
the political consequences would play out seperately. this does not seem to me to be rocket science. this is not the first time in history that a political scandal has accompanied potentially criminal actions.

the right at the bottomfeeding level is obviously worried. you have the attack machine already working--arguments wholly ridiculous: like that is has taken quite a long time for this to blow up renders the whole question irrelevant. well the right was not concerned about either this or any other question of ethics and propriety when they were in opposition--remember limbaugh et al trying and convicting clinton over and over for their fantasy murder of vince foster? i didnt hear a whole lot of conservatives balking at that, nothing from the right about due process--they made up a crime and proceeded to convict clinton in their press without the slightest evidence. now of course, the shoe is on the other foot, as propriety is the order of the day. hypocrites.

addendum (post hoc edit):

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/po...sGpLkbVh57Y4IA

Quote:

Rove Comes Under New Scrutiny in C.I.A. Disclosure Case
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, July 11 - The White House went on the defensive today amid a barrage of questions from Democrats and reporters about the presidential adviser Karl Rove and whether he had disclosed the name of a covert intelligence operative in retaliation for criticism of the administration's Iraq policy.

President Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, declined to repeat his earlier assertions that Mr. Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, had nothing to do with leaking the name of the operative, Valerie Plame of the Central Intelligence Agency, to get back at her husband, a former United States ambassador who had publicly challenged Bush administration policy.

Nor would Mr. McClellan repeat his earlier statements that any White House staff person who had leaked the name should be fired.

"The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing," Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing.

His comments came as Democrats began to intensify the pressure on the White House.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said President Bush should follow his promise to preside over an ethical administration, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York demanded that Mr. Rove tell the public in detail what his role was.

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said the intentional disclosure of a covert agency's identity amounted to an "act of treason," while Representative Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, called for a Congressional hearing.

The spotlight was focused on Mr. Rove over the weekend, when Newsweek reported on its Web site that Mr. Rove had spoken with at least one reporter about Ms. Plame's role at the C..I.A., although without identifying her by name, a few days before the columnist Robert D. Novak identified her in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Newsweek's weekend disclosure seemed, at the very least, to call into question Mr. Rove's own earlier statements, and the White House's, that he had nothing whatever to do with disclosing Ms. Plame's identity shortly after her husband wrote in a 2003 Op-Ed article in The New York Times that he had found no evidence that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger to further its nuclear ambitions.

The affair has been brewing in Washington for two years. It reached a new intensity this month with the jailing of a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, who never wrote an article about the affair but resisted demands from prosecutors to reveal whom she had talked to about it.

Another reporter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, avoided jail when his company yielded a demand to turn over his notes on the matter. Mr. Novak, meanwhile, has appeared to be under no threat of jail, for reasons that are not clear. He has said he will be able to clear things up one day.

Meanwhile, several Democratic lawmakers demanded action immediately.

"I agree with the president when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct," Mr. Reid said. "The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

Mr. Schumer, in his letter to Mr. Rove, said it was time for him to tell all. "I urge you to come forward to honestly and fully discuss any and all involvement you have had with this incident," Mr. Schumer wrote to Mr. Rove. "I believe this is a very serious breach of trust with a woman who has spent her career putting her life on the line to protect our country's freedom."

Mr. Lautenberg said President Bush "should immediately suspend Karl Rove's security clearances and shut him down by shutting him out of classified meetings or discussions," Reuters reported. And Mr. Waxman told Reuters that "the recent disclosures about Mr. Rove's actions have such serious implications that we can no longer responsibly ignore them."

Mr. McClellan declined repeatedly, in response to hostile questions, to go beyond his statements that he could not discuss the Plame affair while the investigation into the disclosure of her name was continuing. Mr. McClellan would not budge even as he was reminded of his, and the president's, previous expressions of confidence in Mr. Rove.

Democrats are virtually certain to keep up the pressure, given the White House's earlier categorical denials about Mr. Rove, and given Mr. Rove's status as a key presidential adviser who helped to devise Mr. Bush's successful re-election strategy.

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

1. I don't see why this is STILL going on after 2 years of investigations. I really don't. Especially after the 2004 presidential elections.
2. Not sure what you mean by "wrong". This is politics in Washington DC. Probably no different from politics anywhere else in the world.
3. See #1.

I will add that it takes 2 to Tango, and I believe that Joe Wilson for example, comes across as having a tremendous chip on his shoulder.

Nicely dodged.

You should work in Washington yourself, as you are perfectly happy to throw mud but slippery as an eel when asked a simple, direct question.

Bravo!

Mr Mephisto

powerclown · 07-11-2005, 06:43 PM

Why argue semantics, Mr. Mephisto?

This is nothing more than a clumsy, botched, bald-faced political vendetta.

It's abundantly clear by now they've got nothing on the guy, but this nonsense continues. Why? How many more people are they going to senselessly throw in jail to get to Rove?

The way I see it, this is all Rove's doing to begin with anyway.

boatin · 07-11-2005, 07:30 PM

Powerclown,

If someone told a reporter that the wife of Wilson was a covert CIA operative (thereby skirting the legal law of "naming", did that person do something morally wrong?

Notice that is an "if" question. I believe the only non-dodging way to answer that is with a "yes", or a "no".

Care to try? If not, why not?

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

Care to try? If not, why not?

I tried and he dodged.

Mr Mephisto

powerclown · 07-11-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

Powerclown,

If someone told a reporter that the wife of Wilson was a covert CIA operative (thereby skirting the legal law of "naming", did that person do something morally wrong?

Notice that is an "if" question. I believe the only non-dodging way to answer that is with a "yes", or a "no".

Care to try? If not, why not?

Both sides, questionable ethics? YES.

You need to ask yourself why Plame, a spy directly involved with assessing WMD risks in Iraq, had her husband (An outspoken Anti-War Politician, best-selling book against the war, tight with John Kerry) sent to Africa to say the administration had nothing on WMD there. Is that really an Honest and Ethical arrangement? NO. He lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee by saying he wasn't trying to disprove the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa (after saying over and over in his book that Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa). Ethical? NO. Is it ethical that he is trying to push forth his own (and possibly others...TIME?) agenda, and lying about it in the process? NO.

In the trying to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs", as he puts it, has Wilson acted Morally and Ethically? NO.

Can anybody answer me this: Why was Judy Miller locked up, and not Matt Cooper? Cooper's father-in-law's publication - TIME Magazine - fed him to the prosecution...why?

host · 07-11-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Both sides, questionable ethics? YES.

You need to ask yourself why Plame, a spy directly involved with assessing WMD risks in Iraq, had her husband (An outspoken Anti-War Politician, best-selling book against the war, tight with John Kerry) sent to Africa to say the administration had nothing on WMD there. Is that really an Honest and Ethical arrangement? NO. He lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee by saying he wasn't trying to disprove the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa (after saying over and over in his book that Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa). Ethical? NO. Is it ethical that he is trying to push forth his own (and possibly others...TIME?) agenda, and lying about it in the process? NO.

In the trying to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs", as he puts it, has Wilson acted Morally and Ethically? NO.

Can anybody answer me this: Why was Judy Miller locked up, and not Matt Cooper? Cooper's father-in-law's publication - TIME Magazine - fed him to the prosecution...why?

powerclown, I'm convinced that, especially in light of the info in this article, you, or ustwo, or certainly moosenose, (after he failed to reply to my questions to him in this <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1829552&postcount=19">post</a>, and disappeared from TFP since July 3, only to re-emerge today) , would have long ago villified Rove as, at the very least, a suspected traitor, if not for your high opinion of him and his ideology. Rove appears to be legally culpable, and it is highly likely that Bush himself will be "lawering up" again, with his and "Kenny Boy" Lay's Washington criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp - http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=91795

Have you not considered the argument that prosecutor Fitzgerald can make in court, that, by telling a MSM news reporter that "Wilson's wife is a CIA employee", that, because of Rove's official and unofficial "standing" in the administration, his utterances to reporter Cooper automatically legitimize any prior rumors about Plame's professional capacity, and the expense and effort that Cooper and his editor can then justify to further pursue Plame's acutal role at the CIA, potentially "snowballing" the damage potential to CIA assets and thus, to national security? I submit that in view of Rove's perceived role in early July, 2003, it is irrelevant that he did not speak Plame's name. Rove can be "painted" by a talented prosecutor as someone who had the motive, foreknowledge, and the opportunity to bring this damage to the CIA about.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

<h3>A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.</h3>

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives were associated with Brewster-Jennings.

Also yesterday, the nearly 2,000 employees of the White House were given a Tuesday deadline to scour their files and computers for any records related to Wilson or contacts with journalists about Wilson. The broad order, in an e-mail from White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, directed them to retain records "that relate in any way to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency."

White House employees received the e-mailed directive at 12:45 p.m., with an all-capitalized subject line saying, "Important Follow-Up Message From Counsel's Office." By 5 p.m. on Tuesday, employees must turn over copies of relevant electronic records, telephone records, message slips, phone logs, computer records, memos, and diaries and calendar entries.

The directive notes that lawyers in the counsel's office are attorneys for the president in his official capacity and that they cannot provide personal legal advice to employees.

For some officials, the task is a massive one. Some White House officials said they had numerous conversations with Wilson that had nothing to do with his wife, so the directive is seen as a heavy burden at a time when many of the president's aides already feel beleaguered.

Officials at the Pentagon and State Department also have been asked to retain records related to the case. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday: "We are doing our searches. . . . I'm not sure what they will be looking for or what they wish to contact us about, but we are anxious to be of all assistance to the inquiry."

In another development, FBI agents yesterday began attempts to interview journalists who may have had conversations with government sources about Plame and Wilson. It was not clear how many journalists had been contacted. The FBI has interviewed Plame, ABC News reported.

Wilson and his wife have hired Washington lawyer Christopher Wolf to represent them in the matter.

The couple has directed him to take a preliminary look at claims they might be able to make against people they believe have impugned their character, a source said.

The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."

In fact, it appears the firm did exist, at least on paper. The Dun & Bradstreet database of company names lists a firm that is called both Brewster Jennings & Associates and Jennings Brewster & Associates.

The phone number in the listing is not in service, and the property manager at the address listed said there is no such company at the property, although records from 2000 were not available...............

Staff writers Dana Milbank, Susan Schmidt and Dana Priest, political researcher Brian Faler and researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

host · 07-11-2005, 11:12 PM

Rove is "done", IMO. Forgive me for posting this long, WH press briefing excerpt. The press challenge of the bogus WMD claims near the bottom, is an added "bonus"..............

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030929-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 29, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

.......And with that, I will be glad to jump right into questions.

Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --

Q Does he think it didn't come from here?

MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he doubt?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.

Q You're saying the White House won't take a proactive role?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to bring to my attention suggesting White House involvement?

Q If you would --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.

Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked information of this kind?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter. And it should be --

Q So why doesn't he want --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --

Q Right, so why --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice.

Q Why wouldn't he proactively do that, ask people on the staff to say that they had not leaked anything?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement? I saw a media report that said "senior administration officials." That's an anonymous source that could include a lot of people. I've seen a lot of "senior administration officials" in media stories.

Q Would they know -- to the White House?

Q Scott, when you say that it should be pursued by the Justice Department -- Justice has not said whether it actually is conducting an investigation. Does the President want the Justice Department to investigate this matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so.

Q And do you know that they are doing this?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question you need to ask the Department of Justice. My understanding is that if something like this happened and it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to pursue it further. But those are questions you need to ask the Department of Justice.

Q But, Scott, something like this did happen, right? Bob Novak had information he should not have had, that he was not authorized to have. So something --

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, all I can tell you is what I've seen in the media reports. And I've seen different statements in the media reports from, the CIA hasn't confirmed or denied that this was a covert agent for the CIA; I've seen media reports to suggest that it was referred to the Department of Justice, and that -- and comments the Department of Justice would look into it.

Q So the President of the United States doesn't know whether or not this classified information was divulged, and he is only getting his information by reading the media?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q He does not know whether or not the classified information was divulged here, and he's only getting his information from the media?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we don't know -- we don't have any information that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear.

Q All right. Let me just follow up. <h3>You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

Q But how does --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --

Q But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

Q Does he know whether or not the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby --

MR. McCLELLAN: If you have any specific information to bring to my attention -- like I said, there has been nothing that's been brought to our attention. You asked me earlier if we were looking into it, there is nothing that's been brought to our attention beyond the media reports. But if someone did something like this, it needs to be looked at by the Department of Justice, they're the appropriate agency charged with looking into matters like this --

Q Well, you do know that they are looking at it, don't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and so they're the ones that should do that.

Q They're telling reporters that they're looking at it; haven't they told you that they're looking at it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there you have it. There you have it.

Q Haven't they told you? Haven't you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've seen the media reports. There has been no requests made of us at this time.

Q But, Scott, it gets to the question if you know, if the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the President specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom of this?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the President wants, and I've been very clear about that.

Q Is the President convinced that there was no White House involvement in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if I could get "anonymous" to 'fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier.

Q That's not the question. That's not the question.

MR. McCLELLAN: But there has been nothing -- there has been absolutely --

Q Does the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm answering that.

Q Scott, does he know -- is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?

MR. McCLELLAN: There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. The media reports cite "senior administration official," or "senior administration officials."

Q But they're wrong, as far as you're concerned?

MR. McCLELLAN: But I haven't seen anything before that. That's why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it.

Q Those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement.

Q And the President is pretty passive on this, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest --

Q He's not doing anything proactive?

Q Let me just -- let me follow up on one of the --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's making it clear that this is a serious -- through his spokesman, me -- that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent.

Q But has he ordered an investigation inside the White House? If he thinks it's that serious, wouldn't you do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information, Helen, to bring to my attention?

Q No. Are you --

MR. McCLELLAN: If you have specific information, bring it to my attention.

Q Scott, you are answering questions out there for a few days on media reports. I just wonder, isn't there an internal investigation going on to find out what's happened?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to look into this. And if something like this happened, the President believes it should be pursued to the fullest extent.

Q Why wouldn't this be the --

Q Can I follow --

MR. McCLELLAN: Ed. I'll come back to you in a minute.

Q Scott, this is clearly a serious matter, with possible penalties being going to jail. It's not going to go away. Why -- and as you said earlier, there probably is a limited number of people with access to this information. It doesn't take much for the President to ask for a senior official working for him to just lay the question out for a few people, and end this controversy today.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Ed, do you have specific information to bring to our attention?

Q No. But it's not --

MR. McCLELLAN: But are we supposed to chase down --

Q -- for me a big story --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that. That's what -- I think you need to --

Q The anonymous reports, though, allege criminal activity.

MR. McCLELLAN: You need to keep in mind that there has been no specific information, there has been no information that has come to our attention to suggest White House involvement, beyond what has been reported in the newspapers.

Q The implication you're leaving us with, I'm afraid, is that nothing is being done here at the White House to even look into this matter --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait a second, I made it very clear that if something like this happened, the President believes the Department of Justice should look into it and pursue it to the fullest extent. Leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very serious matter.

Q Do you see any need to appoint a special counsel for this case, as some Democrats are demanding?

MR. McCLELLAN: At this point, I think the Department of Justice would be the appropriate one to look into a matter like this.

Q Can I follow up on that? Does that mean that you would say to the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to determine whether a special or outside counsel is necessary, that you believe it is not necessary at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of career professionals at the Department of Justice that address matters like this. I have made it clear that they're the ones, that if something like this happened, should look into it. You need to direct that question to the Department of Justice. It would be a Justice Department matter; it wouldn't be our place to get involved in that.

Q But wouldn't you like to see all questions about the independence of any investigation taken care of by putting it in the hands of somebody who has no formal statements out there?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think we're assuming certain things have happened. That's why I said you need to direct a question like that to the Department of Justice, to find out what has happened here, or to get a response to that..................

.......Q Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman --

MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.

Q -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical --

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention --

Q No, but you say that --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

Q Scott, the Independent Counsel Act, as you know, is no more. Prior to that act, what would normally be done in an instance like this, I believe, would be -- as you say, if there's enough evidence that warrants it, the Attorney General would appoint a special prosecutor. Do you think that --

MR. McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the Department of Justice about what they do, or what their intentions are.

Q And, also, the Executive Office the President is the only agency or entity in the federal government that does not have an inspector general's office to do its own internal investigations. Do you think, because of what is allegedly arising here today, the White House should revisit the idea of establishing an office of inspector general within the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I mean, you know, you're assuming that certain things happened within the White House, so I'm not going to get into that kind of speculation in the current environment that we're asking that question.

Q Scott, a quote coming out of this controversy is that the real story is why Ambassador Wilson was chosen for this mission. Has the White House asked the CIA why they've sent somebody who was so vehemently opposed to the administration's position on Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We made it clear that we weren't aware of his trip before we saw it in the media reports, and that still stands.

Q Scott, since the President takes it so seriously, and since the revelation was made two-and-a-half months ago, why does the President only now, since others have called for a Department of Justice inquiry, support that action?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you recall what I said a couple of months ago, as well? Because I made it very clear then what I'm making clear now, that there was no information that has come to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. So that's where things stood. But I made it very clear that that is not the way this White House operates, that the President expects people to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics -- and that he has made that very clear from day one of this administration.

But I answered this question a couple of months ago. I'm glad you brought that up, because we're answering some of the same questions today.

Q Did George Tenet -- did George Tenet bring this matter to the President's attention prior to the weekend?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware that anything was brought to our attention before information was apparently forwarded to the Department of Justice.

Q We do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name was leaked of a CIA operative. Whoever did it, does the President want some type of Justice Department investigation into just that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, one, I've only -- I've seen the media reports and in one report I saw that the CIA had neither confirmed or denied that this individual was a covert operative for the CIA.

Q Why don't they deny it, if it's --

MR. McCLELLAN: But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak of highly classified information of this nature, the President would want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice.

Q Are you saying the President is not even aware whether or not this actually was a CIA operative who was identified? I mean, you're not even saying that that is a given in this matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I just said is what I've seen in the media reports, was the CIA has neither confirmed or denied that. I don't know. But --

Q But that's always their policy. They never confirm.

Q They never do.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand that. And I'm saying, if someone leaked classified information of that nature, then it should be looked into by the Department of Justice. Now you need to ask the Department of Justice what their procedures are and what they would do.

Q And if the President thinks the Department of Justice should look into it, what kind of cooperation would the White House provide? In the past, there have been some concerns about records and that sort of thing --

MR. McCLELLAN: Of course, we always cooperate with the Department of Justice in matters like this. And you could expect we would in this matter, as well.

Q Like phone records and that sort of thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not aware of any requests that have been made. I mean, we can go down a whole list, but as far as I know, at this moment no request has been made. And I've checked on that --

Q They can't get on the phone with the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- but of course, of course, we will always cooperate with the Department of Justice in a matter of this nature.

Q Okay. Now, in terms of your efforts to -- and in terms of the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials, are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the President, or that it's too difficult?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, contact them in the sense of asking whether or not there is any involvement?

Q Well, obviously, someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I'm wondering, why not contact others? Were others contacted in the -- among the President's senior advisors?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there was a specific allegation leveled -- I saw it has now since been backed away from -- about Karl Rove. And that's why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down the White House directory of every single staff member and play that game. I'm not going to do that. What I've made clear is that if anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I'm not going to go down a list of every single staffer in the White House, when there's not specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest --

Q No, I understand your argument there. But there are a limited number of people who would be aware of this information. Is it --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right, I would think so.

Q -- is it inappropriate in your view? Or is it just too diffuse, it's too difficult? I don't understand exactly what the reason is that you wouldn't expand the effort from Karl Rove to, perhaps, another dozen or so people who might have been knowledgeable.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've got important work to do here in Washington, D.C. for the people of this nation. And the President will continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on terrorism, strengthening the economy. There are a number of important priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media reports that happen all the time. And it's not our practice to go and try to chase down anonymous sources every time there's a report in the media. If there's specific information that comes to our attention, that's another matter. But there has not been any information beyond what we've seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there was White House involvement.

Q So you're telling --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, are we supposed to go through every anonymous source?

Q No, no, no. But the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let's make that clear.

Q All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call a meeting here and find out. And if they all say, we didn't do it, he also can call the CIA. What is the big barrier?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because the Justice Department is the appropriate agency to look into a matter like this. There's nothing specific to suggest -- there's no information that's been brought --

Q I'm not saying that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Hold on, let me finish. There's been no information brought to our attention to suggest that there was White House involvement, beyond what we've seen in the media reports. And those are anonymous media reports, at that.

Q You're challenging anyone who has information about this --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- to step forward --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- and contact the Department of Justice?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely. And if there's a senior administration official -- I saw quoted in one article -- that senior administration official, if they have specific information, they should go provide it to the Department of Justice, absolutely, you bet, because this is a serious matter.

Q On pre-war intelligence, Scott, on pre-war intelligence, has the White House seen this letter from the House Intelligence --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, let me finish with -- are we finished with -- let me finish this topic, and I promise I'll come back to you.

Q You said that the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten those assurances. By those statements, you've implied that the President has not talked to Karl Rove specifically about this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said that --

Q Is that a correct inference, or did we --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question, when Terry asked it earlier, and I said that it's not my habit to get into conversations the President has with staff or with advisors. I'm not going to get into those conversations.

Q So he has --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that.

Q Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Are we on the subject? We're going to stay on the same topic. I want to stay on the same topic, and then we'll get on to -- go ahead.

Q I have a different subject.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, we'll come back to that.

Q Can you explain why the President, who ran to say that he would, himself, restore, honesty and integrity to the Oval Office, that he would do it, is now saying he has to do nothing proactively on this front and will leave it to the Justice Department, when it's his own staff who's been accused of committing a very, very serious federal crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think I've asked and answered that.

Q No, but why is he not doing anything proactively?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked and answered that question. I had that asked up here. I mean, I'll go back through it.

Q You haven't said why -- you haven't said what his thinking is and why he doesn't --

MR. McCLELLAN: Because there has been no information that's come to our attention, or been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports.

Q -- classified --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish, and then you can ask your question. I've seen the anonymous media reports. But like I said, there are anonymous media reports all the time. Are we supposed to go chasing down every single anonymous report?

Q No, no --

Q There are serious consequences --

MR. McCLELLAN: If there's -- no, no, there are anonymous reports all the time making accusations about the White House.

Q There are not anonymous reports all the time about serious leaks. The White House in the past has called for investigations based on leaks, based on anonymous sources up in Congress.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what -- what have I said?

Q So why not do the same in this case?

MR. McCLELLAN: And what have I said? The President believes that if someone leaked classified information of this nature, that it should be looked into. The Department of Justice should look into it, they should pursue it to the fullest extent possible. So we very much are saying -- we very much are saying what you're asking.

Yes, sir, Bob -- oh, sorry. I'll go to Kate next.

Q Has the White House Counsel Office issued any kind of paper to staffers --

MR. McCLELLAN: No --

Q -- regarding the President's, you know, desire to cooperate with any probe or anything like that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. Again, I've said that nothing has been brought to our attention. There have been no requests made of the White House and nothing has been brought to --

Q -- step forward. You said people should step forward --

MR. McCLELLAN: They should.

Q -- if they have information. Is there going to be anything circulated telling --

Q -- could put it in writing --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear -- well, there's no specific information being brought to our attention to suggest White House involvement. I think I've been through that.

Q -- then you're not saying you're going to tell people that?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I'm saying, because there's no specific information, or there's no information, period, that has been brought to our attention beyond what is in the media reports. But if someone has information, they should report it to the Department of Justice. We've made it very clear that if the Department of Justice looks into something like this, of course, we always cooperate with them in that.

Q Scott, you keep saying: if there was a leak. But Ambassador Joe Wilson has been all over the place, on ABC this morning, in other media outlets saying, himself, that his wife was outed, that she was -- he has confirmed it, that she was a CIA operative and that her identity has been revealed. So if that's the case, why wouldn't the President be proactive about this in trying to find out where that leak came from?

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, so if it's a "senior administration official" we should go to every single agency? I think that's -- the Department of Justice can do that, and that's what they're charged with doing. So they will look into it. If there is specific information relating to the White House, someone is welcome to bring it to our attention. But I have not seen any information, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q But isn't the President concerned when there is a leak of this magnitude, that could threaten someone's very life?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that earlier. Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information. The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously. And if it happened in this case, it's a particularly serious matter and it should be looked into by the Department of Justice.

But if you have specific questions about where it -- who is looking into it and what is happening, talk to the Department of Justice.

Q You're still saying "if" --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, talk to the Department of Justice and they'll get you more information.

Terry.

Q Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we're on ABC right now.

Q Thank you. In the Enron -- tag-teaming -- in the Enron matter, the White House Counsel's Office issued a request to all personnel to save their emails and phone logs and that kind of thing. That was proactive. Has that been done here? And, if not, why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: There had been some information there that we were pursuing to find out more about what contacts there had been. Again, there has been no information brought to our attention, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q So at this point there has been no request from the Chief of Staff's Office, from the President, for White House personnel to save emails, to save phone logs, to recall and account meetings and --

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if the Justice Department made a request of us, of course we would always cooperate. It is the appropriate place for the Department of Justice to look into this. I believe we did receive some request previously on that matter.

Q Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can you categorically say that he was not involved in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office, as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well.

Ken, did you have a question?

Q Yes. Your answer to Dick's question about a special prosecutor was to point to the career prosecutors at Justice who are going to be handling this. But those career prosecutors ultimately report to political appointees -- ultimately, of course, to the Attorney General. Why is that not precisely the kind of conflict of interest that the special prosecutor law envisages, and why, therefore, should there not be a special prosecutor?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went over this earlier, Ken. And, again, you need to talk to the Department of Justice. That's assuming certain people may be involved in something of this matter. I have not seen anything to suggest that anyone -- suggest who is or who is not involved in looking into this.

Q The Justice Department is run by the Attorney General. He's a political appointee.

MR. McCLELLAN: Right.

Q Ultimately, it's his call as to whether or not there is grounds for a criminal investigation.

MR. McCLELLAN: And have you asked the Department of Justice if he's involved in looking into something of this nature?

Q Are you saying he's refused --

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea. I don't know where the Department of Justice stands and whether or not they're even pursuing this further, if there's a need to.

Q Should the political appointees at the Justice Department, in the White House's view, recuse themselves from dealing with this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the Department of Justice, they have a lot of professionals over there and we believe that they are the appropriate ones to look into this, and that they can do an independent job of doing so.

Q Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.

Q Have you read any book about him lately?

Q -- have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation --

MR. McCLELLAN: I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I've already addressed it.

Q When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or this weekend?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I said then still applies today, and that's what I've made clear.

Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

Q Well, I'm trying to ask how --

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn't -- it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this.

Q And that conversation that you had with Karl was this weekend? Or when was it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? No, I've had conversations with him previously. I'm going to leave it at that.................

host · 07-11-2005, 11:23 PM

continued from immediately preceding post......

Quote:

Q If you would --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.

Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked information of this kind?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter. And it should be --

Q So why doesn't he want --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --

Q Right, so why --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice.

Q Why wouldn't he proactively do that, ask people on the staff to say that they had not leaked anything?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement? I saw a media report that said "senior administration officials." That's an anonymous source that could include a lot of people. I've seen a lot of "senior administration officials" in media stories.

Q Would they know -- to the White House?

Q Scott, when you say that it should be pursued by the Justice Department -- Justice has not said whether it actually is conducting an investigation. Does the President want the Justice Department to investigate this matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so.

Q And do you know that they are doing this?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question you need to ask the Department of Justice. My understanding is that if something like this happened and it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to pursue it further. But those are questions you need to ask the Department of Justice.

Q But, Scott, something like this did happen, right? Bob Novak had information he should not have had, that he was not authorized to have. So something --

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, all I can tell you is what I've seen in the media reports. And I've seen different statements in the media reports from, the CIA hasn't confirmed or denied that this was a covert agent for the CIA; I've seen media reports to suggest that it was referred to the Department of Justice, and that -- and comments the Department of Justice would look into it.

Q So the President of the United States doesn't know whether or not this classified information was divulged, and he is only getting his information by reading the media?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q He does not know whether or not the classified information was divulged here, and he's only getting his information from the media?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we don't know -- we don't have any information that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear.

Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

Q But how does --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --

Q But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

Q Does he know whether or not the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby --.............

.....Q They're telling reporters that they're looking at it; haven't they told you that they're looking at it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there you have it. There you have it.

Q Haven't they told you? Haven't you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've seen the media reports. There has been no requests made of us at this time.

Q But, Scott, it gets to the question if you know, if the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the President specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom of this?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the President wants, and I've been very clear about that.

Q Is the President convinced that there was no White House involvement in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if I could get "anonymous" to 'fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier.

Q That's not the question. That's not the question.

MR. McCLELLAN: But there has been nothing -- there has been absolutely --

Q Does the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm answering that.

Q Scott, does he know -- is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?

MR. McCLELLAN: There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. The media reports cite "senior administration official," or "senior administration officials."

Q But they're wrong, as far as you're concerned?

MR. McCLELLAN: But I haven't seen anything before that. That's why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it.

Q Those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement.

Q And the President is pretty passive on this, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest --

Q He's not doing anything proactive?

Q Let me just -- let me follow up on one of the --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's making it clear that this is a serious -- through his spokesman, me -- that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent.

Q But has he ordered an investigation inside the White House? If he thinks it's that serious, wouldn't you do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information, Helen, to bring to my attention?

Q No. Are you --

MR. McCLELLAN: If you have specific information, bring it to my attention.

Q Scott, you are answering questions out there for a few days on media reports. I just wonder, isn't there an internal investigation going on to find out what's happened?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to look into this. And if something like this happened, the President believes it should be pursued to the fullest extent.

Q Why wouldn't this be the --

Q Can I follow --

MR. McCLELLAN: Ed. I'll come back to you in a minute.

Q Scott, this is clearly a serious matter, with possible penalties being going to jail. It's not going to go away. Why -- and as you said earlier, there probably is a limited number of people with access to this information. It doesn't take much for the President to ask for a senior official working for him to just lay the question out for a few people, and end this controversy today.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Ed, do you have specific information to bring to our attention?

Q No. But it's not --

MR. McCLELLAN: But are we supposed to chase down --

Q -- for me a big story --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that. That's what -- I think you need to --

Q The anonymous reports, though, allege criminal activity.

MR. McCLELLAN: You need to keep in mind that there has been no specific information, there has been no information that has come to our attention to suggest White House involvement, beyond what has been reported in the newspapers.

Q The implication you're leaving us with, I'm afraid, is that nothing is being done here at the White House to even look into this matter --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait a second, I made it very clear that if something like this happened, the President believes the Department of Justice should look into it and pursue it to the fullest extent. Leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very serious matter.

Q Do you see any need to appoint a special counsel for this case, as some Democrats are demanding?

MR. McCLELLAN: At this point, I think the Department of Justice would be the appropriate one to look into a matter like this.

Q Can I follow up on that? Does that mean that you would say to the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to determine whether a special or outside counsel is necessary, that you believe it is not necessary at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of career professionals at the Department of Justice that address matters like this. I have made it clear that they're the ones, that if something like this happened, should look into it. You need to direct that question to the Department of Justice. It would be a Justice Department matter; it wouldn't be our place to get involved in that.

Q But wouldn't you like to see all questions about the independence of any investigation taken care of by putting it in the hands of somebody who has no formal statements out there?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think we're assuming certain things have happened. That's why I said you need to direct a question like that to the Department of Justice, to find out what has happened here, or to get a response to that.

Q Well, clearly, there is, at least on a preliminary basis, an investigation going forward.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, keep in mind what I said earlier, that it's my understanding that in a situation like this, that if information was forwarded to the Department of Justice, the first step would be to look at it to determine whether or not it warrants looking into further. So that's where -- that's what I understand the process is on something like this.

Q Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman --

MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.

Q -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical --

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention --

Q No, but you say that --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

Q Scott, the Independent Counsel Act, as you know, is no more. Prior to that act, what would normally be done in an instance like this, I believe, would be -- as you say, if there's enough evidence that warrants it, the Attorney General would appoint a special prosecutor. Do you think that --

MR. McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the Department of Justice about what they do, or what their intentions are.

Q And, also, the Executive Office the President is the only agency or entity in the federal government that does not have an inspector general's office to do its own internal investigations. Do you think, because of what is allegedly arising here today, the White House should revisit the idea of establishing an office of inspector general within the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I mean, you know, you're assuming that certain things happened within the White House, so I'm not going to get into that kind of speculation in the current environment that we're asking that question.

Q Scott, a quote coming out of this controversy is that the real story is why Ambassador Wilson was chosen for this mission. Has the White House asked the CIA why they've sent somebody who was so vehemently opposed to the administration's position on Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We made it clear that we weren't aware of his trip before we saw it in the media reports, and that still stands.

Q Scott, since the President takes it so seriously, and since the revelation was made two-and-a-half months ago, why does the President only now, since others have called for a Department of Justice inquiry, support that action?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you recall what I said a couple of months ago, as well? Because I made it very clear then what I'm making clear now, that there was no information that has come to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. So that's where things stood. But I made it very clear that that is not the way this White House operates, that the President expects people to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics -- and that he has made that very clear from day one of this administration.

But I answered this question a couple of months ago. I'm glad you brought that up, because we're answering some of the same questions today.

Q Did George Tenet -- did George Tenet bring this matter to the President's attention prior to the weekend?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware that anything was brought to our attention before information was apparently forwarded to the Department of Justice.

Q We do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name was leaked of a CIA operative. Whoever did it, does the President want some type of Justice Department investigation into just that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, one, I've only -- I've seen the media reports and in one report I saw that the CIA had neither confirmed or denied that this individual was a covert operative for the CIA.

Q Why don't they deny it, if it's --

MR. McCLELLAN: But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak of highly classified information of this nature, the President would want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice.

Q Are you saying the President is not even aware whether or not this actually was a CIA operative who was identified? I mean, you're not even saying that that is a given in this matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I just said is what I've seen in the media reports, was the CIA has neither confirmed or denied that. I don't know. But --

Q But that's always their policy. They never confirm.

Q They never do.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand that. And I'm saying, if someone leaked classified information of that nature, then it should be looked into by the Department of Justice. Now you need to ask the Department of Justice what their procedures are and what they would do.

Q And if the President thinks the Department of Justice should look into it, what kind of cooperation would the White House provide? In the past, there have been some concerns about records and that sort of thing --

MR. McCLELLAN: Of course, we always cooperate with the Department of Justice in matters like this. And you could expect we would in this matter, as well.

Q Like phone records and that sort of thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not aware of any requests that have been made. I mean, we can go down a whole list, but as far as I know, at this moment no request has been made. And I've checked on that --

Q They can't get on the phone with the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- but of course, of course, we will always cooperate with the Department of Justice in a matter of this nature.

Q Okay. Now, in terms of your efforts to -- and in terms of the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials, are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the President, or that it's too difficult?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, contact them in the sense of asking whether or not there is any involvement?

Q Well, obviously, someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I'm wondering, why not contact others? Were others contacted in the -- among the President's senior advisors?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there was a specific allegation leveled -- I saw it has now since been backed away from -- about Karl Rove. And that's why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down the White House directory of every single staff member and play that game. I'm not going to do that. What I've made clear is that if anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I'm not going to go down a list of every single staffer in the White House, when there's not specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest --

Q No, I understand your argument there. But there are a limited number of people who would be aware of this information. Is it --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right, I would think so.

Q -- is it inappropriate in your view? Or is it just too diffuse, it's too difficult? I don't understand exactly what the reason is that you wouldn't expand the effort from Karl Rove to, perhaps, another dozen or so people who might have been knowledgeable.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've got important work to do here in Washington, D.C. for the people of this nation. And the President will continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on terrorism, strengthening the economy. There are a number of important priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media reports that happen all the time. And it's not our practice to go and try to chase down anonymous sources every time there's a report in the media. If there's specific information that comes to our attention, that's another matter. But there has not been any information beyond what we've seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there was White House involvement.

Q So you're telling --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, are we supposed to go through every anonymous source?

Q No, no, no. But the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let's make that clear.

Q All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call a meeting here and find out. And if they all say, we didn't do it, he also can call the CIA. What is the big barrier?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because the Justice Department is the appropriate agency to look into a matter like this. There's nothing specific to suggest -- there's no information that's been brought --

Q I'm not saying that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Hold on, let me finish. There's been no information brought to our attention to suggest that there was White House involvement, beyond what we've seen in the media reports. And those are anonymous media reports, at that.

Q You're challenging anyone who has information about this --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- to step forward --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- and contact the Department of Justice?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely. And if there's a senior administration official -- I saw quoted in one article -- that senior administration official, if they have specific information, they should go provide it to the Department of Justice, absolutely, you bet, because this is a serious matter.

Q On pre-war intelligence, Scott, on pre-war intelligence, has the White House seen this letter from the House Intelligence --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, let me finish with -- are we finished with -- let me finish this topic, and I promise I'll come back to you.

Q You said that the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten those assurances. By those statements, you've implied that the President has not talked to Karl Rove specifically about this.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said that --

Q Is that a correct inference, or did we --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question, when Terry asked it earlier, and I said that it's not my habit to get into conversations the President has with staff or with advisors. I'm not going to get into those conversations.

Q So he has --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that.

Q Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Are we on the subject? We're going to stay on the same topic. I want to stay on the same topic, and then we'll get on to -- go ahead.

Q I have a different subject.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, we'll come back to that.

Q Can you explain why the President, who ran to say that he would, himself, restore, honesty and integrity to the Oval Office, that he would do it, is now saying he has to do nothing proactively on this front and will leave it to the Justice Department, when it's his own staff who's been accused of committing a very, very serious federal crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think I've asked and answered that.

Q No, but why is he not doing anything proactively?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked and answered that question. I had that asked up here. I mean, I'll go back through it.

Q You haven't said why -- you haven't said what his thinking is and why he doesn't --

MR. McCLELLAN: Because there has been no information that's come to our attention, or been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports.

Q -- classified --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish, and then you can ask your question. I've seen the anonymous media reports. But like I said, there are anonymous media reports all the time. Are we supposed to go chasing down every single anonymous report?

Q No, no --

Q There are serious consequences --

MR. McCLELLAN: If there's -- no, no, there are anonymous reports all the time making accusations about the White House.

Q There are not anonymous reports all the time about serious leaks. The White House in the past has called for investigations based on leaks, based on anonymous sources up in Congress.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what -- what have I said?

Q So why not do the same in this case?

MR. McCLELLAN: And what have I said? The President believes that if someone leaked classified information of this nature, that it should be looked into. The Department of Justice should look into it, they should pursue it to the fullest extent possible. So we very much are saying -- we very much are saying what you're asking.

Yes, sir, Bob -- oh, sorry. I'll go to Kate next.

Q Has the White House Counsel Office issued any kind of paper to staffers --

MR. McCLELLAN: No --

Q -- regarding the President's, you know, desire to cooperate with any probe or anything like that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. Again, I've said that nothing has been brought to our attention. There have been no requests made of the White House and nothing has been brought to --

Q -- step forward. You said people should step forward --

MR. McCLELLAN: They should.

Q -- if they have information. Is there going to be anything circulated telling --

Q -- could put it in writing --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear -- well, there's no specific information being brought to our attention to suggest White House involvement. I think I've been through that.

Q -- then you're not saying you're going to tell people that?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I'm saying, because there's no specific information, or there's no information, period, that has been brought to our attention beyond what is in the media reports. But if someone has information, they should report it to the Department of Justice. We've made it very clear that if the Department of Justice looks into something like this, of course, we always cooperate with them in that.

Q Scott, you keep saying: if there was a leak. But Ambassador Joe Wilson has been all over the place, on ABC this morning, in other media outlets saying, himself, that his wife was outed, that she was -- he has confirmed it, that she was a CIA operative and that her identity has been revealed. So if that's the case, why wouldn't the President be proactive about this in trying to find out where that leak came from?

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, so if it's a "senior administration official" we should go to every single agency? I think that's -- the Department of Justice can do that, and that's what they're charged with doing. So they will look into it. If there is specific information relating to the White House, someone is welcome to bring it to our attention. But I have not seen any information, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q But isn't the President concerned when there is a leak of this magnitude, that could threaten someone's very life?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that earlier. Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information. The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously. And if it happened in this case, it's a particularly serious matter and it should be looked into by the Department of Justice.

But if you have specific questions about where it -- who is looking into it and what is happening, talk to the Department of Justice.

Q You're still saying "if" --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, talk to the Department of Justice and they'll get you more information.

Terry.

Q Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we're on ABC right now.

Q Thank you. In the Enron -- tag-teaming -- in the Enron matter, the White House Counsel's Office issued a request to all personnel to save their emails and phone logs and that kind of thing. That was proactive. Has that been done here? And, if not, why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: There had been some information there that we were pursuing to find out more about what contacts there had been. Again, there has been no information brought to our attention, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q So at this point there has been no request from the Chief of Staff's Office, from the President, for White House personnel to save emails, to save phone logs, to recall and account meetings and --

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if the Justice Department made a request of us, of course we would always cooperate. It is the appropriate place for the Department of Justice to look into this. I believe we did receive some request previously on that matter.

Q Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can you categorically say that he was not involved in this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office, as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well.

Ken, did you have a question?

Q Yes. Your answer to Dick's question about a special prosecutor was to point to the career prosecutors at Justice who are going to be handling this. But those career prosecutors ultimately report to political appointees -- ultimately, of course, to the Attorney General. Why is that not precisely the kind of conflict of interest that the special prosecutor law envisages, and why, therefore, should there not be a special prosecutor?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went over this earlier, Ken. And, again, you need to talk to the Department of Justice. That's assuming certain people may be involved in something of this matter. I have not seen anything to suggest that anyone -- suggest who is or who is not involved in looking into this.

Q The Justice Department is run by the Attorney General. He's a political appointee.

MR. McCLELLAN: Right.

Q Ultimately, it's his call as to whether or not there is grounds for a criminal investigation.

MR. McCLELLAN: And have you asked the Department of Justice if he's involved in looking into something of this nature?

Q Are you saying he's refused --

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea. I don't know where the Department of Justice stands and whether or not they're even pursuing this further, if there's a need to.

Q Should the political appointees at the Justice Department, in the White House's view, recuse themselves from dealing with this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the Department of Justice, they have a lot of professionals over there and we believe that they are the appropriate ones to look into this, and that they can do an independent job of doing so.

Q Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.

Q Have you read any book about him lately?

Q -- have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation --

MR. McCLELLAN: I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I've already addressed it.

Q When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or this weekend?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I said then still applies today, and that's what I've made clear.

Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

Q Well, I'm trying to ask how --

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn't -- it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this.

Q And that conversation that you had with Karl was this weekend? Or when was it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? No, I've had conversations with him previously. I'm going to leave it at that.

Q -- on the record?

Q Has the President spoken to the Attorney General today, or over the weekend, on this subject? Or directed any aides to speak to the Attorney General?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any contact. And, no, that -- we would not do that, talk to the -- I'm not aware of any contact the Attorney General has had with anyone in this administration about that.

Q What about intelligence letters? Does the White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, are we through with this subject?

Q No.

Q No.

MR. McCLELLAN: Because I'm going to move on. I'm going to go quickly. Paula, you've already one, so I'm going to go to April, and then we're going to move on to another subject..........

.......Q Just to clarify something earlier that came out of a question. Has this White House, this White House specifically, in the past conducted an internal investigation into media leaks?

MR. McCLELLAN: Into media leaks?

Q Yes, has this White House ever looked into media leaks?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd have to check. If you have a specific one you want me to check in. There have been some requests of us from others at times that have been looking into matters. And we've always cooperated, just like we would in this one, as well.

Q Right. And just to follow up, in the 70's we had a very similar situation where a CIA operative was outed. That actually ended up -- resulted in a loss of life.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it's a very serious matter.

Q At that time, we had FBI, CIA, Interpol, many agencies around the world looking into it. Why would we not, at this point, want to go to the full extreme and have as many different eyes looking for this as possible?

MR. McCLELLAN: Make no mistake about it, something like this happened, someone leaked classified information of this nature, the President wants it pursued to the fullest extent. And that's what should happen.

Do we have any more on this topic? Yes, go ahead.

Q How is it that the Justice Department, and I know you -- this has been asked before, but I didn't get a clear answer -- the Justice Department, headed by a man that the President, himself, appointed, how can that Department credibly investigate a claim that could be very embarrassing, could be -- could result in criminal prosecution for someone in the White House? How can that be fairly --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are some -- there are some outstanding career employees at the Department of Justice that do an outstanding job, and they look into matters like this. And we expect that they would treat this just like they should and that they would treat this just like any other matter of this nature.

Q Certainly, the minute the Justice Department came out with something that exonerated anyone --

MR. McCLELLAN: You can obviously try to suggest that about anything in the administration that went to the Department of Justice.

Q I don't see how a Justice Department that's headed by a man --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is charged with independently looking into matters like this, as well as other law enforcement matters. And that's fully what we would expect them to do in a matter like this.

Anymore on this topic? No more? One more?

Q Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter to Justice?

MR. McCLELLAN: What may have been sent to the Department of Justice? Not that I'm aware of. You're talking about "seen it"?

Q Have you seen it or --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, we read the media reports about what has happened.

Q Yes, I understand that. But I mean outside the media reports. Have you seen a copy of the letter or been told about it by anybody at the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: A copy? No, I've not been told about a specific letter or a copy of that.

Q I'm talking about Mr. Gonzales or anybody else?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We've seen the media reports.

Q Scott, on another letter --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm going to Russ, and then we're going to go to you. We've got to keep moving.

Q Even though the independent counsel statute has lapsed, there is a provision where the Attorney General can appoint a special prosecutor. Why wouldn't the President support --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked this question earlier and I answered it. So I'm going to move on. I've already been asked that question and I answered it earlier. And now --

Q Scott, the statement you gave about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor was almost word for word what the Clinton people said in 1994 about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor in Whitewater. Why should it stand now if it didn't stand then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I just reject that comparison.

Q You can reject it, but it is the same issue. Why is --

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement?

Q No, but why --

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any information to suggest White House involvement?

Q My issue -- the issue is the credibility --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, bring it to my attention if you have information. But there's no information we have beyond the media reports to suggest White House involvement.

Q But Novak --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think the media has obligations, too. If they are aware of something that has happened, of the leaking of classified information, like anyone else they should report it to the appropriate authorities. In this case, it would be the Department of Justice.

And with that, I'm going to move on to a new topic. I know we could go through this all day. I'm going to David -- David first, then Sarah, then Goyal.

Q Is the White House aware of the House Intelligence letter to the CIA on prewar intelligence, and what's the reaction to it? And does the President think that he was given bad or incomplete information that ultimately led to his decision to war?

MR. McCLELLAN: One, if you look at the statement put out by the CIA, they said that the intelligence community stands -- and this is a quote -- "The intelligence community stands fully behind its findings and judgments as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs."

And that is the part of the judgment -- that is the judgment of the intelligence community. We looked at that, as well. But let's go back when we're talking about Iraq and look back at everything here. Let's look at what we knew. We knew, just like the United Nations Security Council and intelligence agencies across the world and previous administrations, that Saddam Hussein had possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, that he had used chemical weapons, that he had a history of doing that. We knew that Saddam Hussein had large, unaccounted for stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. We knew that he had -- and everybody knew -- that he had invaded his neighbors. So this was a very unique situation.

Saddam Hussein and his regime defied the United Nations over 12 years and some 17 resolutions -- they were in defiance of the international community. They went to great lengths to conceal their program. We know that he had -- that Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorist organizations. We know that it was a brutal and oppressive regime. We've seen that from the torture chambers and the mass graves. So we knew all these facts.

Then came September 11th, the attacks of September 11th. September 11th taught us that we must confront the new, dangerous threats of the 21st century, that we can no longer wait for threats to gather and come to our shores before it's too late. The nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations is the most dangerous threat of our times. And we must confront those threats before it's too late.

Q Given that 180 members of Congress cited the nuclear threat, as reported to them by the President of the United States, as a primary reason to support a war authorization resolution, and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found to date in Iraq, why shouldn't the American people believe that this President overstated the predicate for war?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I answered that with some of what I just went threw. But Chairman Goss, who is also one of the signatures on this letter, stated that he believes that what our -- at least sources in his office have stated that he believes that this was accurate information presented by the intelligence community. He was certainly -- he was concerned about one area, about the human intelligence. And you look at the letter and it talks about this is a preliminary assessment, that they want to get some comment, they're still looking at this, they're still looking at the findings. So that's where things --

Q -- the White House been sent the letter?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's where that stands.

Q Has the White House been sent the letter?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen a copy of it.

Q You have?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q But, Scott, you said --

Q Can I follow on that?

<h3>Q -- you just said a moment ago that: we knew there were large unaccountable -- unaccounted stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. In 2001, in March or February, Colin Powell said there weren't, as we learned of two days ago --</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and said, there were.

Q No, no, listen to this. No, no, he said, at that point, there weren't. The DIA produced a classified --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what he said.

Q -- assessment in October 2002 which said: we don't have any hard or reliable information about stockpiles. And the U.N. inspectors, themselves, said they had no hard information about stockpiles. So where are you getting your information from?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think you're mischaracterizing Secretary Powell's comments. Secretary Powell went before -- and he said, that I never said that he was not a threat. He went before --

Q -- looking for WMD.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and presented that very case to the world and made it very clear what was unaccounted for. Secretary Powell went through an exhaustive process to back up everything that he said, talking directly with members of the intelligence community --

Q -- to what he said in early 2001. You said, before 9/11 we knew there were accounted stockpiles. He said, there weren't.

MR. McCLELLAN: Before 9/11 -- I'm glad you pointed that out, because September -- and, no, that is not what he said. September 11th taught us --

Q He said that in --

MR. McCLELLAN: It was well documented by the United Nations Security Council that there were undocumented stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Q That's not true. Talk to Ekeus, the Chairman. He has said that that's not the case, that you are mischaracterizing U.N. reports.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to move on. I think I've answered this question. I think September 11th, again, changed the way we look at threats. I want to make that point very clear, and that it became even more real after September 11th, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime.

Let me make very clear --

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. McCLELLAN: -- no let me make very clear the results of the action that we took. America is safer, the world is better, the world is safer because Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime have been removed from power. Saddam Hussein will no longer be able to oppress the people of Iraq. He will no longer be able to carry out the brutality that he did in the past. His regime is gone, it is removed from power, and it is not coming back. And it's very clear that America is more secure because of the action that we took.

Q Can I follow up? When the Secretary of State says, as he did yesterday, that the administration believes Iran is trying to pursue nuclear weapons and that there is no legitimate justification for any of its nuclear programs, does the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and what seems to be the gulf between pre-war claims and post-war reality, does that hurt the credibility of the country, in making it --

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think, one, Dr. Kaye continues to do his job. I think the CIA, in their statement, put out -- let me go back to this part of their statement that they put out about the NIE and the letter from the congressional leaders: "David Kaye has, for only two-and-a-half months, been attempting to unravel Iraq's WMD programs. His effort, which has only just begun, will be important in our process of continuing self-evaluation."

There are miles of documents that Dr. Kaye is still going through in his Iraq survey group. There are interviews that he is still conducting with Iraqis, themselves, who are providing more information. So that process needs to continue. We'll know the truth. He'll pull together the full extent and full picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction program.

But I, again -- look at the results that we've achieved. Look at the opportunity that is presented to us in Iraq. The stakes are very high in Iraq. The world has a stake in seeing a free, sovereign and prosperous Iraq. It's the central front in the war on terrorism. And foreign terrorists and remnants of the former regime are desperate, because they know we are making significant progress. And when we prevail in this front in Iraq, then we will have dealt a significant blow to the terrorists, and we would have made a significant -- we will make significant progress in the war on terrorism. And we will see it through.

Q I have two questions. An audiotape claims to be from the number two leader in the al Qaeda, says the U.S. war on terrorism is really a war against Islam. Any comment from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President -- first of all, people who carry out attacks in the name of a religion are not committed to that religion. The President has made it very clear that Islam is a faith that teaches peace. And the enemies of peace are those who carry out brutal terrorist attacks in the name of a religion like that.

Let me keep going. Goyal.

Q Scott, two quick questions. Just came back from the United Nations. There were -- the President saw the demonstrations against many countries and dictators, including demonstrations against the U.S., India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma and also China.

Is President so busy in other issues like Iraq and also -- that he didn't care or doesn't have time for the (inaudible) of information that are being committed against the people of minorities in Bangladesh and also people of -- religious persecution in China and also against the people of Burma?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. In fact, we're pursuing all those areas you just talked about. Human rights abuses cannot be allowed to stand, and we speak out against them, we pursue action to be taken to reverse that trend, and we will continue to do so.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you. Oh, wait, wait, I'm sorry -- go ahead. Last one.

<h3>Q The Vice President continues to suggest that there is a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And the President a few days ago said there is not any link. So what does the Vice President know that --</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think we're saying the same thing -- that there has been no evidence that's come to our attention to suggest a link. Now, again, it goes back to what I said before --- 9/11 taught us that we have to confront these kind of dangerous new threats we face. Saddam Hussein and his regime certainly had ties to terrorist organizations. That is well documented and not in dispute. And he publicly supported terrorist organizations.

Thank you very much.

END 1:03 P.M. EDT

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

boatin · 07-11-2005, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Both sides, questionable ethics? YES.

You need to ask yourself why Plame, a spy directly involved with assessing WMD risks in Iraq, had her husband (An outspoken Anti-War Politician, best-selling book against the war, tight with John Kerry) sent to Africa to say the administration had nothing on WMD there. Is that really an Honest and Ethical arrangement? NO. He lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee by saying he wasn't trying to disprove the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa (after saying over and over in his book that Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa). Ethical? NO. Is it ethical that he is trying to push forth his own (and possibly others...TIME?) agenda, and lying about it in the process? NO.

In the trying to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs", as he puts it, has Wilson acted Morally and Ethically? NO.

Can anybody answer me this: Why was Judy Miller locked up, and not Matt Cooper? Cooper's father-in-law's publication - TIME Magazine - fed him to the prosecution...why?

The question wasn't that complicated. You sound a little like you think it depends on the what the definition of "is", is.

I just don't see this as complicated. If someone, anyone, left OR right, gives up a covert operative, then that's shitty. Wrong. Corrupt. Stupid. Choose your own description, as long as it's related to traitorous.

I have heard many people argueing about taking responsibility for his/her actions. It doesn't MATTER what other people did that was shitty. If the yes/no question is YES, then that's shitty. Maybe there is other crap to spread around. Fine. Let's deal with that too.

But it doesn't take away from someone giving up a covert operative. I say we figure that out, and run em on a rail.

If that's Rove, screw him. If it's my best friend, screw him. I need to find better friends. Why do you find that hard to say?

Wanna try again?

Quote:

Powerclown,

If someone told a reporter that the wife of Wilson was a covert CIA operative (thereby skirting the legal law of "naming", did that person do something morally wrong?

Notice that is an "if" question. I believe the only non-dodging way to answer that is with a "yes", or a "no".

Care to try? If not, why not?

host · 07-12-2005, 12:13 AM

Now....we have every excerpt from (July 11, 2005) monday's McClellan press "briefing" related tp the "Rove matter". Now that "damage control" has backfired.....we have a retreat, IMO, by a BS press secretary for a BS presidential administration. Excuses, contrived distortions.......so much for the press as a surrogate for the people, exercising their "right" to know!

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050711-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 11, 2005

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Briefing Room

1:06 P.M. EDT

MR. 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........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. Terry.

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. 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. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. 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.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. 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. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

<h3>Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."</h3>From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

<h3>Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

<h3>Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.

Go ahead.

Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: 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. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Can I finish, please?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go ahead, Goyal. ..........

......Carl, go ahead. I'll come to you, David, in a second.

Q Does the President continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

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

<h3>Q So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff?</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, you're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation. And I would not read anything into it other than I'm simply not going to comment on an ongoing --

Q Has there been -- has there been any change --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- investigation.

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

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions. .......

......Now I'll go back to David. Go ahead.

Q There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an email 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has previously spoken to this. This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. 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.

Q But you acknowledge 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.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it. ........

......MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, April. Go ahead.

Q 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 win for the second term in the Oval Office, how important is Karl Rove to this administration currently?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is coming at it from --

Q It has nothing to do with what you just said.

MR. McCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

Q Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

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

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the question, April. I think I've responded. ......

........<h3>Q Scott, I think you're barrage today in part because we -- it is now clear that 21 months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete. I'm not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

Q Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you've said previously, when you were talking about this, that you're still standing by that, or are those all inoperative at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're still trying to come at this from a different angle, and I've responded to it.

Q Are you standing by what you said previously?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've heard my response. ........

......Go ahead.

<h3>Q Scott, was it -- 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 the request of you --</h3>

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, you can ask -- 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.

Q Was the request made of you, or of whom in the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.............

.....Bob, go ahead.

Q Yes, in your dealings with the special counsel, <h3>have you consulted a personal attorney?</h3>

MR. 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............

Mephisto2 · 07-12-2005, 03:37 AM

That's some power posting right there host!

Mr Mephisto

powerclown · 07-12-2005, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Rove can be "painted" by a talented prosecutor as someone who had the motive, foreknowledge, and the opportunity to bring this damage to the CIA about.

Then why hasn't it happened YET? This case is over 2 years old! More importantly in my view, why wasn't this released during the 04 presidential elections?

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

I just don't see this as complicated. If someone, anyone, left OR right, gives up a covert operative, then that's shitty. Wrong. Corrupt. Stupid. Choose your own description, as long as it's related to traitorous.

I don't make up the rules in Washington DC. This guy Wilson tried to dishonor and discredit his government (lying about it in the process), and his government pushed back. Are you interested in examining Wilson's/Plame's/TIME's agenda as much as you are Rove's?

Judith Miller: reasons, connection, motive, jail, guilty, Cooper walks...anyone?

ObieX · 07-12-2005, 08:32 AM

Wow, its amazing how much shorter that post would have been if McClellan would have just said "I don't know" on most of those questions instead of breaking off into a 3 hour essay about how he didn't know. I also love how most of the questions aren't even close to being answered directly in any way.

trickyy · 07-12-2005, 09:04 AM

you should watch the video. it's even better live, as he was asked many more questions on the matter. the reporters kept trying to find some area where he would open up, but he refused to address the broadest of tangential questions. and then they'd try another angle. and then he'd refuse to answer, etc.

http://www.cspan.org/

smooth · 07-12-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Then why hasn't it happened YET? This case is over 2 years old! More importantly in my view, why wasn't this released during the 04 presidential elections?
I don't make up the rules in Washington DC. This guy Wilson tried to dishonor and discredit his government (lying about it in the process), and his government pushed back. Are you interested in examining Wilson's/Plame's/TIME's agenda as much as you are Rove's?

Judith Miller: reasons, connection, motive, jail, guilty, Cooper walks...anyone?

the answer to your first question seems to be that the administration did everything in its power to stonewall the investigation while telling the public that whose ever head was responsible would roll...but now that the investigators have rooted enough information out to place Rove as the shitstick, mums the word...

I don't really have a response to your second assertion. I'm curious how you figure Wilson dishonored and discredited his government with lies...is this the guy who was saying Iraq wasn't trying to buy uranium from Niger? This is one of the most blatant examples of conservative projection I've seen...I was under the impression that Bush admin, et al had been using doctored documents to "prove" to the public that Iraq was doing some shady shit...wow...wow...the total reversal of the facts at least partially explains what you've been posting up until now

Elphaba · 07-12-2005, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Then why hasn't it happened YET? This case is over 2 years old! More importantly in my view, why wasn't this released during the 04 presidential elections?

You've asked "why now" a few times. It has taken two years because of the appeals to the state and federal supreme courts. The decision requiring that the reporters notes be turned over was only recently made. That is why it is NOW moving forward.

host · 07-12-2005, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

That's what is so amusing....the Democrats, in their foaming-at-the-mouth-get-Rove-at-any-cost movement, are the ones damaging the institution that they have relied on over and over again to muckrake for them.

They are publicly and spectacularly shooting themselves in the groin again, and are going to bellow like branded cattle when the chickens come home to roost. Remember how we ended up with "First Amendment Zones"??? Thanks, Planned Parenthood...

moosenose, there you are. I posted the message below to you on July 3, on this thread. You "disappeared", your last TFP post was a half hour later. You re-emerged at TFP, eight days later. You still have not responded to my post.
You seem to have a double standard as to who you suspect and who you reflexively defend...........

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=19

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

That's what is so funny about this. The Far Left is foaming at the mouth for the chance to go after Rove. They don't seem to realize just HOW fucked they will be in the future if they manage to get him. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", and all that...

BTW, I'm not particularly fond of Bush. I just am not the kind of person who runs around committing sedition or betraying my country or wishing harm upon people who are serving our country because I don't like who is in office. I DID vote for Bush, but that was because I see him as by far the lesser of two evils. The Democrats could have had my vote on '04, all they had to do was nominate somebody to the Right of Lenin. They didn't.

I don't hate my country just because I am not enthused about my President. That's not true of a great many people on the far left, who hate America because we are a great nation that has stood up to their favorite governments, like the Soviet Union and the communist government of Cambodia/Kampuchea. For example, on another board that I've been known to read (DU), there's a poster named Tinoire who came out and spoke her mind, saying that she supported the insurgents in Iraq, and that she hoped that a lot of US servicemen died in Iraq. In my opinion, her statements crossed the line from "free speech" to "adherence to the enemy". The admin over there quickly pulled her posts, probably because they didn't want the legal liability for being accomplices for hosting and distributing such comments.

I am growing more concerned about your participation on this forum and the
veiled but obvious tone of intimidation that I perceive in your posts, especially the ones that you direct toward (at) me. Are you here to threaten, investigate, prosecute, or all three ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

I disagree with you. I watch our government at work on a daily basis, being yet another cog in the machine. I think that there is probably a LOT more idealism at work in our government than you give it credit for. I know that I signed up not for the money (which is 1/10th of what I'd reasonably be expected to make outside of Tha G) or for the power (which is beyond fleeting) but rather out of a genuine desire to do what I do for the good of the People. And rest assured, what I do IS for the EXCLUSIVE good of the People.

Of course, I just see "my little corner"...but I know a lot of people, and the opportunistic assholes are most definitely a rarity from what I've seen with my own eyes.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...34&postcount=3

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Saddam was not a nice man. Your defense and support of his rule is duly noted. "Aid and comfort", "aid and comfort", my "friend"...
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ed#post1823205

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

So let me see if I've got this right...there's a guy who says he committed a felony, and then spent seven years living as a fugitive from justice, who thinks he did the right thing, and is encouraging others to do the same. Then there's another guy who says "breaking the law is bad", so he's the bad guy here. Does that about sum it up?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1735417

If you are an employee of a federal agency with investigatory, law enforcement, or prosecutorial responsibilities or associations, isn't your very presence here enough to give pause to those of us who disagree with you politically or philosophically? The mods are here to preserve order and a civil discourse. Are you here to discourage our right to express our opinion or our dissent freely and publicly?

boatin · 07-12-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I don't make up the rules in Washington DC. This guy Wilson tried to dishonor and discredit his government (lying about it in the process), and his government pushed back. Are you interested in examining Wilson's/Plame's/TIME's agenda as much as you are Rove's?

Judith Miller: reasons, connection, motive, jail, guilty, Cooper walks...anyone?

Not sure why I'm tilting at windmills here, but I'm willing to go again.

Powerclown,

Is there a difference between giving up a covert operative, and "dishonoring and discrediting his government" (while lying), to you? Yes or no?

Is it morally wrong to point out a covert operative, while technically not breaking the law? Yes or no?

For me, the answer is Yes, and Yes.

To your question, my answer is: I'm asking philosophical questions. I haven't mentioned Rove. But yes, I AM interested in everyone's agendas. As I believe I implied in a previous post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

I have heard many people argueing about taking responsibility for his/her actions. It doesn't MATTER what other people did that was shitty. If the yes/no question is YES, then that's shitty. Maybe there is other crap to spread around. Fine. Let's deal with that too.

Lest you think I'm being coy, I want to assure you: I'm not. I haven't mentioned Rove, because WHO did it doesn't matter until we know how we feel about the issue.

It's important to me to not be a hypocrit. If I feel that giving up a covert operative is a crime, then it doesn't matter who did it. That's phase 2.

But it's crystal clear, now, that you hold differnet standards. You can't/won't judge an issue without caring about who the culpret is. Nice to be a team player, i guess.

moosenose · 07-12-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If you are an employee of a federal agency with investigatory, law enforcement, or prosecutorial responsibilities or associations, isn't your very presence here enough to give pause to those of us who disagree with you politically or philosophically? The mods are here to preserve order and a civil discourse. Are you here to discourage our right to express our opinion or our dissent freely and publicly?

Personally, I'd think you would be more concerned about the mods or admins than me. After all, if you post something illegal (like, after explaining how you had broken the law as an act of civil disobedience, and then spent six or seven years as a fugitive from justice before being pardoned, and then encouraged others to commit what some would call "acts of civil disobedience" and the rest of us would refer to as "felonies"...) THEY are the ones with an incentive to report you, if for no other reason than to avoid criminal liability for themselves. Take, for example, if somebody repeatedly posted pictures in the EZ of a 30 something year old man having sex with an obviously very underage female. That would obviously be a criminal act, yes? What do you think their response would be? After all, the record of the criminal act would be on their servers, so just deleting the posts without reporting it to the appropriate authorities could be construed as obstruction of justice or various other charges of a similar nature depending on the locality. They obviously couldn't legally leave the posts up, either, lest they become guilty of distribution of child pornography. So what would they do? I haven't spoken with them about such a scenario, but I think it is a virtual given that they would do the right thing and report it to the appropriate authorities.

I'm sure that you are well aware that the First Amendment freedom of speech is not absolute. Certain speech alone can be criminal. The standard example of this is "falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater". As another example that I am certain you are aware of, it's illegal to threaten certain high-ranking governmental officials (not me, I'm not "high ranking"), even in jest, and the enforcement agency of such crimes is both very good at enforcing that law, and not known for it's sense of humor in such matters.

Just out of curiosity, if you had a police officer move in next door to your house, would you assume that he did so as part of a grand governmental plot to inhibit your criminality? If you see an off-duty cop driving on the highway, is it "Tha Man" trying to "keep you down", or is it a guy who works for the government on the way to the grocery store or work or whatever?

My presence here is not part of my job description. I have never, EVER accessed this site from work, because to do so would be a violation of my agency's internet use policy. I'm not a Federal LEO. And I doubt VERY seriously that you live within my jurisdiction. So I'd postulate that I am NOT any more of a "threat" to your dissenting in this forum than any other person with email or a telephone would be, unless you should consider my "personal network" of friends and professional associates to be a "threat" to you, which I don't think a rational person would. In fact, as I discussed above, I'm far less of a "threat" to you than any of the mods or admin are, since they have a very large vested interest in keeping you from posting illegalities here, and I do not.

stevo · 07-12-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

Not sure why I'm tilting at windmills here, but I'm willing to go again.

Powerclown,

Is there a difference between giving up a covert operative, and "dishonoring and discrediting his government" (while lying), to you? Yes or no?

Is it morally wrong to point out a covert operative, while technically not breaking the law? Yes or no?

For me, the answer is Yes, and Yes.

Whats all this talk about moral this and morally that? Apparantly most think he's evil and his blood is blacker than satan's. So what's this talk about whether what he did was moral or not? If he was evil last week, he's evil now and nothing he does is moral. But you know what? Its not about morals its about the LAW. The question is, did he break the law? We shall see. But give it a rest on this moral crap, the guy's evil, remember?

boatin · 07-12-2005, 01:51 PM

And how does a post like yours help the creation of a useful dialogue here in TFP? You don't want to raise our standards?

Sorry if talking about right and wrong derails all the partisan bickering.

stevo · 07-12-2005, 02:02 PM

No one seemed to care any time before this thread started with comments like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TM875

What do you all think? Personally, I find it disgusting that this purveyor of evil would dare say such disgusting things condemning Democrats and Liberals for 'coddling terrorists' and being in support of terrorism. Apparently, we all should repent for our evil ways, or else we shall burn in Hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I find Rove pathetic and extremely divisive

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

essentially, rove is a thug, the juluis streicher of bushworld

and thats from part of one thread.

boatin · 07-12-2005, 02:50 PM

and what does that have to do with my comments? if you can't rise above what you don't like, why even be here? and how do you critique if you are doing the same thing?

are you saying that because others say such things, concepts like right and wrong, moral and immoral have no place??

I don't understand. Any chance you'd care to answer the question I posed above with a yes/no?

host · 07-12-2005, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Personally, I'd think you would be more concerned about the mods or admins than me. After all, if you post something illegal (like, after explaining how you had broken the law as an act of civil disobedience, and then spent six or seven years as a fugitive from justice before being pardoned, and then encouraged others to commit what some would call "acts of civil disobedience" and the rest of us would refer to as "felonies"...) THEY are the ones with an incentive to report you, if for no other reason than to avoid criminal liability for themselves. Take, for example, if somebody repeatedly posted pictures in the EZ of a 30 something year old man having sex with an obviously very underage female. That would obviously be a criminal act, yes? What do you think their response would be? After all, the record of the criminal act would be on their servers, so just deleting the posts without reporting it to the appropriate authorities could be construed as obstruction of justice or various other charges of a similar nature depending on the locality. They obviously couldn't legally leave the posts up, either, lest they become guilty of distribution of child pornography. So what would they do? I haven't spoken with them about such a scenario, but I think it is a virtual given that they would do the right thing and report it to the appropriate authorities.

I'm sure that you are well aware that the First Amendment freedom of speech is not absolute. Certain speech alone can be criminal. The standard example of this is "falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater". As another example that I am certain you are aware of, it's illegal to threaten certain high-ranking governmental officials (not me, I'm not "high ranking"), even in jest, and the enforcement agency of such crimes is both very good at enforcing that law, and not known for it's sense of humor in such matters.

Just out of curiosity, if you had a police officer move in next door to your house, would you assume that he did so as part of a grand governmental plot to inhibit your criminality? If you see an off-duty cop driving on the highway, is it "Tha Man" trying to "keep you down", or is it a guy who works for the government on the way to the grocery store or work or whatever?

My presence here is not part of my job description. I have never, EVER accessed this site from work, because to do so would be a violation of my agency's internet use policy. I'm not a Federal LEO. And I doubt VERY seriously that you live within my jurisdiction. So I'd postulate that I am NOT any more of a "threat" to your dissenting in this forum than any other person with email or a telephone would be, unless you should consider my "personal network" of friends and professional associates to be a "threat" to you, which I don't think a rational person would. In fact, as I discussed above, I'm far less of a "threat" to you than any of the mods or admin are, since they have a very large vested interest in keeping you from posting illegalities here, and I do not.

You have it wrong, IMO, moosenose, about you (your POV and how you convey it here) being "far less of a threat to me", than the "mods or admin" at TFP are. The mindset that it takes to write what you wrote in your last post, combined with your opinion that your point of view is reasonable, or even "American" <b>"then encouraged others to commit what some would call "acts of civil disobedience" and the rest of us would refer to as "felonies"</b>, is indicative of the gulf that exists between you and those of us who have an understanding and an admiration for the words contained in Thomas Jefferson's <a href="http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html">"Declaration of Independence."</a>

If you recall, you responded to my comments and examples as to my opinion:

Quote:

host wrote:
I am growing more concerned about your participation on this forum and the
veiled but obvious tone of intimidation that I perceive in your posts, especially the ones that you direct toward (at) me. Are you here to threaten, investigate, prosecute, or all three ?

Is it your opinion, moosenose, that you could draw an analogy between my "crimes", as you label them, and a description of the activities of a child molestor, into an argument that would persuade anyone that your post is
"reasonable"? The only consistancy is that your tone is still threatening and designed to discourage discussion and protest.

You are not "Federal LEO", yet you still intone that you have a "jurisdiction".
You mention your ""personal network" of friends and professional associates",
but you state that it would not be rational of me to view them as a "threat".
Why mention them at all, unless it is to try to "influence me"? Heaven knows
what resources are at their disposal, especailly the "professionals" in your network, to deal with the likes of me, if called upon.

Consider that, in your own words, when you try to shift my focus from you, because of confrontational statements you've directed at me, to those who you perceive as most likely to "inform" on me, you likely demonstrate to more than a few of us here, how removed you are from what we consider being an "American" is; i.e., a non-violent, informed, reasonable, tolerant person.

I would not assume anything untoward about a neighbor who was employed as a policeman, or about another motorist who was an "off-duty cop", to use two examples that you cited, unless one of them directed something like your
post at me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Saddam was not a nice man. Your defense and support of his rule is duly noted. "Aid and comfort", "aid and comfort", my "friend"...
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ed#post1823205

The tone in your posts is inappropriate here, and in Amercia, from my point of
view. Nothing that I said in the following three quoted posts on this thread,
warranted the following from you. You still do not recognize it, judging by the tone, technique, and content in your last post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

So let me see if I've got this right...there's a guy who says he committed a felony, and then spent seven years living as a fugitive from justice, who thinks he did the right thing, and is encouraging others to do the same. Then there's another guy who says "breaking the law is bad", so he's the bad guy here. Does that about sum it up?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1735417

moosenose wrote the preceding post in response to my words in these three posts:
Shoukd We "Move On" or Take to the Streets? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=86476
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...73&postcount=1

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I look at the stench kicked up by Gore v. Bush 2000 and the SCOTUS Ruling,
the Unlikelyhood of Nebraska Senator (R) Chuck Hagel's 1996 election victory,

And now this latest.....I gotta tell ya, people.....I'm havin' trouble "dumbing down" enough to simply "move on !!!!!!!!!!!!" ...........Any advice ???????

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=11

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I believe you are voicing sincere concern, daswig......but it is misplaced for at least two reasons:

1.)It is too late for me to "fuck up my life in record time". I am past 50 years of age and my big moment of protest happened 35 years ago when I refused to register for the draft. I was never issued a draft card. I waited seven years until Jimmy Carter's blanket pardon to get my life back.

Right after 9/11 Ari Fleischer warned all of us to "watch what we say". Is that
the kind of country you want for your child to live in? What is more important than freely exercising my right to speak in protest of possible widespread election fraud in close presidential balloting?

Sorry......Ari......you're wrong, and it is always the right time to publicly label your remarks as un-American, outrageous, and you disgraced yourself !

2.)I wish that you were not so apparently entrenched in a belief system that prohibits you from reacting more like Colin Powell and the patriotic citizens of Ukraine did when they reviewed uncannily similar reports about discrepancies between reported polling results and independent exit polls.

daswig, is there any line to official corruption and hypocrisy that you will not cross? Have you ever given any thought as to your own high limit?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=32

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The title of this thread was inspired by these words, at the bottom of the last qutoe box, in my last post:

Quote:

pro-Yushchenko lawmaker Petro Poroshenko accused the election commission of carrying out a coup d'etat. "Now the streets will speak. Now the people will speak," he said.

The last time that I was was faced with the perception that my government
was engaged in a massive and criminal course of deception, crimes against the constitution, and in the planning and ordering of war crimes at the level of the federal executive branch, I was much younger and more idealistic, and I faced a deadline to decide whether to voluntarily make myself available to
the government as a complying candidate for participation in the war.
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/</a> is the link to information about the movie, the Fog of War, an excellent film in the way it examines Robert Macnamara's views of the morality of war. He was the secretary of defense who was most responsible officials in the decision making and in the prosecution of the Vietnam war.

The bottom line is that in response to what I perceived to be signifigant crimes committed by the U.S. government, I refused to participate, and I lived an "underground" life for over seven years to avoid arrest and prosecution of a felony punishable by 5 years in federal prison. Hindsight has demonstrated that I probably made the correct moral choice; I had to live with myself then, as I do now. The war was wrong, Nixon was a criminal president on many fronts, as was his atty general John Mitchell, and Nixon's two top assistants, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman, all three convicted of felonies and served time in federal prison. NS Advisor and later Sec'ty of State Henry Kissinger is to this day regarded as a war criminal, unable to be accepted as Bush's appointment as chair of the 9/11 commission.

I intended this thread to evolve into a discussion of when is "enough is enough"? Do we wait until a third presidential election is stolen? Were the last two elections stolen?

daswig seems to be throwing his "weight" around, here. Judge for yourself whether he is communicating a friendly warning because he "knows what he knows" about "big brother's" possible reaction to a discussion like this, because of his position as an "insider" in a state dept. of justice.

Anyway.......whatever his intent, he has achieved the effect of influencing me to "watch what I say", and I think that you know how I feel about that.

Post your thoughts if you think that my disclosed background disqualifies me from initiating a discussion about when the right time might be to decide whether the federal executive branch "fixed" it's election, and if it did, what the average citizen should do in response. Shouldn't the Bush administration be held to the same standard that it held the Ukranians to, last December? Should we demand nothing less than the type of investigation that Powell demanded of the Ukraine, and if the Bush administration refuses, then what?

The challenge is the same one that the founding fathers faced. Now seems to be the time for massive, non-violent protests that demand a transparent, non-partisan investigation of last november's vote in Ohio and in Florida, as a start. Protests in the form of hunger strikes, boycotts of products and services of corporations that signifigantly supported Bush Cheney 2004, and a
media campaign to advertise the inconsistancy of the Bush admin. response to exit poll disparity in the Ukraine, vs. the non-response to the same phenomena in the U.S.

Our founding fathers intended government to be always intimidated by the citizenry, not as daswig seems to project, the other way around.

It seems to me that we must have this discussion to be credible, responsible, measured, patriots.

stevo · 07-13-2005, 06:32 AM

I'd like to answer with a yes or no, but I need to use more than three characters in a response.

roachboy · 07-13-2005, 08:57 AM

just in case the illusion was out there that the defenses of rove posted here involved any particular initiative on the part of the conservatives who posted them:

Quote:

GOP on Offense in Defense of Rove

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; A01

Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.

With a growing number of Democrats calling for Rove's resignation, the Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans sought to discredit Democratic critics and knock down allegations of possible criminal activity.

"The angry left is trying to smear" Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, a Rove protege, said in an interview.

A federal grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration unlawfully leaked the name of a CIA official, Valerie Plame, to the news media. Although the White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the episode, a recently disclosed internal Time magazine e-mail shows that Rove mentioned Plame, albeit not by name, to reporter Matthew Cooper before her name and affiliation became public in July 2003. The grand jury is scheduled to hear from Cooper today.

The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.

The White House said Bush retains full confidence in Rove, but for a second day officials would not answer a barrage of questions about Rove's role in the leak scandal on the grounds that the investigation is not complete. But the RNC -- effectively Bush's political arm -- weighed into the controversy in a major fashion.

Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday.

"Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court overtakes" events, said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

Rove has not been asked by senior White House officials whether he did anything illegal or potentially embarrassing to the president and he spent most of the day strategizing on Bush's Supreme Court nomination, aides said.

"No one has asked him what he told the grand jury. No one has deemed it appropriate," said a senior White House official, who would discuss the Rove case only on the condition of anonymity. "What you all need to figure out is, does this amount to a crime? That is a legitimate debate." Still, some aides said they were concerned about the unknown. "Is it a communications challenge? Sure," the official said.

Privately, even Rove's staunchest supporters said the situation could explode if federal prosecutors accuse Rove or any other high-level official of committing a crime. William Kristol, a conservative commentator with close White House ties, said it would be hard to imagine a prosecutor conducting an investigation that has landed one reporter in jail and challenged the constitutional rights of the journalism profession without indicting someone. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald "is the problem for the White House, and we have no idea what he knows," Kristol said.

Bush has said if any White House officials were involved, they would be fired. The president yesterday twice refused to answer questions on whether Rove should be dismissed.

The controversy involves former U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy nuclear material. Wilson subsequently became a critic of administration policy in Iraq and after the invasion in March 2003 questioned whether Bush had exaggerated the threat from Hussein.

After Wilson went public with his concerns, columnist Robert D. Novak reported that he had been told by two administration officials that the Niger trip had been suggested by Wilson's wife, Plame. It is a federal felony to knowingly identify an active undercover CIA officer, but legal experts said such a crime is very difficult to prove.

Whatever the legal considerations in the case, the emerging record suggests that the administration was involved in an effort to discredit Wilson after he went public with his criticism.

According to the Time magazine e-mail, the conversation between Cooper and Rove took place a few days before Novak's column appeared in July 2003. Cooper says Rove raised questions about Wilson's credibility, offering a "big warning" not to "get out too far on Wilson," Newsweek has reported.

The e-mail comports with a previously reported conversation between a Washington Post reporter and an administration official two days before the Novak column ran. The administration official, who has not been identified, described the Wilson trip as a boondoggle that was set up by his wife and was not being taken seriously by the White House.

Rove has maintained he neither knew Plame's name nor leaked it to anyone. In an interview yesterday, Wilson said his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would be clear who Rove was talking about, and noted how Rove attends the same church as the Wilson family. Wilson said Rove was part of a "smear campaign" designed to discredit him and others who undercut Bush's justification for war.

Wilson was a chief target of the new GOP offensive designed to take some pressure off Rove. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the White House did not have to discredit Wilson. "Nobody had to do that," he said, adding that "he discredited his own report" by including unfounded allegations. The RNC talking point memo included a list of anti-Wilson lines.

"In all honesty, the facts thus far -- and the e-mail involved -- indicate to me that there is not a problem here," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "I have always thought this is a tempest in a teapot."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071200093.html

stonewall, ridicule, dodge, hide and wait for the supreme court nomination process to push this off page 1...there you have it folk, the strategy of the o so moral right, the cadre that is o so deeply committed to the ethos of personal responsibility, when it comes to the (servile) defense of one of their own.

=====
stevo: you might consider noting the thread that those quotes you bit came from--they were about that lovely bit of rovethought of a couple weeks ago attacking his favorite hallucination "liberals" in his usual fact-free manner. you obviously went looking in that thread for "confirmation" of the claim, handed you by the right apparatus, of "vendetta" on the part of the "angry left"---as among the folk who feel it their duty to act as though the official rightwing line is in fact a product of their own thinking, it seems about par for the course that you would do that.

ganon · 07-13-2005, 10:04 AM

the discourse here sounds like the same old thing. trying to obviate an election. rights did it to clinton, lefts try to do it with bush. i wish we'd spend more energy on getting congress cleaned up.

boatin · 07-13-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I'd like to answer with a yes or no, but I need to use more than three characters in a response.

Please, feel free. I don't mean to be limiting. But so far all anyone will do is dodge.

What my preference would be is to see something that starts with a yes or no. I'd LOVE to have more information than that.

It just seems like if we could get everyone saying "yes, that's fucked up", no matter who does it, we could have some of that unity that Pan is talking about on other threads. I'd sure love to see it...

Or if we get a mix of yes and no, we could discuss why that is, without getting into the who did game. But maybe my personal fantasies are too challanging

tecoyah · 07-13-2005, 03:13 PM

I will rarely offer my opinion in here....but, this is some serious shit.

The man is guilty as far as I am concerned......Bush is not.

All evidence I have been able to gather shows Rove did exactly what he is good at.....manipulated the system to create a desired effect. In my opinion....this time....he has gone too far.

Elphaba · 07-13-2005, 04:50 PM

Tecoyah, it is my best guess based upon his lawyers public comments that Rove will not pass the threshhold of the law where "intent and knowing" is necessary to convict him. Who will witness against him other than Novak? His testimony to the grand jury is yet unknown. Guilty of manipulating journalists? Certainly. Did Bush know he was doing this? Possibly in a very broad sense in terms of supporting Rove's strategic moves in partisan gamesmanship.

My considered opinion is that Rove will get off legally, and Bush never drops a friend politically, so he may get by there as well. I also believe that Rove is capable of anything, is a snake, and that this is one of the least of his machinations that should have been brought before the court. But that's just me.

pan6467 · 07-13-2005, 04:56 PM

What's sad is Papa Bush was head of the CIA and even in politics Papa Bush should be ashamed of someone in his son's admin. turning over an agent publicly.

Elphaba · 07-13-2005, 05:08 PM

Agreed, Pan. But we aren't going to know the whole of it until we hear Novak's testimony. There is the smoking gun, if any are to be found.

07-12-2005, 08:32 AM	#101 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Wow, its amazing how much shorter that post would have been if McClellan would have just said "I don't know" on most of those questions instead of breaking off into a 3 hour essay about how he didn't know. I also love how most of the questions aren't even close to being answered directly in any way. __________________ We Must Dissent.

07-13-2005, 06:32 AM	#113 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I'd like to answer with a yes or no, but I need to use more than three characters in a response. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-13-2005, 10:04 AM	#115 (permalink)
ganon Insane Location: in my head	the discourse here sounds like the same old thing. trying to obviate an election. rights did it to clinton, lefts try to do it with bush. i wish we'd spend more energy on getting congress cleaned up. __________________ "My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks

07-13-2005, 03:13 PM	#117 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I will rarely offer my opinion in here....but, this is some serious shit. The man is guilty as far as I am concerned......Bush is not. All evidence I have been able to gather shows Rove did exactly what he is good at.....manipulated the system to create a desired effect. In my opinion....this time....he has gone too far. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

07-13-2005, 04:56 PM	#119 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What's sad is Papa Bush was head of the CIA and even in politics Papa Bush should be ashamed of someone in his son's admin. turning over an agent publicly. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-11-2005, 06:43 PM	#90 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Why argue semantics, Mr. Mephisto? This is nothing more than a clumsy, botched, bald-faced political vendetta. It's abundantly clear by now they've got nothing on the guy, but this nonsense continues. Why? How many more people are they going to senselessly throw in jail to get to Rove? The way I see it, this is all Rove's doing to begin with anyway.

07-11-2005, 07:30 PM	#91 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Powerclown, If someone told a reporter that the wife of Wilson was a covert CIA operative (thereby skirting the legal law of "naming", did that person do something morally wrong? Notice that is an "if" question. I believe the only non-dodging way to answer that is with a "yes", or a "no". Care to try? If not, why not?

07-12-2005, 03:37 AM	#99 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	That's some power posting right there host! Mr Mephisto

07-12-2005, 09:04 AM	#102 (permalink)
trickyy ►	you should watch the video. it's even better live, as he was asked many more questions on the matter. the reporters kept trying to find some area where he would open up, but he refused to address the broadest of tangential questions. and then they'd try another angle. and then he'd refuse to answer, etc. http://www.cspan.org/

07-12-2005, 01:51 PM	#109 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	And how does a post like yours help the creation of a useful dialogue here in TFP? You don't want to raise our standards? Sorry if talking about right and wrong derails all the partisan bickering.

07-12-2005, 02:50 PM	#111 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	and what does that have to do with my comments? if you can't rise above what you don't like, why even be here? and how do you critique if you are doing the same thing? are you saying that because others say such things, concepts like right and wrong, moral and immoral have no place?? I don't understand. Any chance you'd care to answer the question I posed above with a yes/no?

07-13-2005, 04:50 PM	#118 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Tecoyah, it is my best guess based upon his lawyers public comments that Rove will not pass the threshhold of the law where "intent and knowing" is necessary to convict him. Who will witness against him other than Novak? His testimony to the grand jury is yet unknown. Guilty of manipulating journalists? Certainly. Did Bush know he was doing this? Possibly in a very broad sense in terms of supporting Rove's strategic moves in partisan gamesmanship. My considered opinion is that Rove will get off legally, and Bush never drops a friend politically, so he may get by there as well. I also believe that Rove is capable of anything, is a snake, and that this is one of the least of his machinations that should have been brought before the court. But that's just me.

07-13-2005, 05:08 PM	#120 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Agreed, Pan. But we aren't going to know the whole of it until we hear Novak's testimony. There is the smoking gun, if any are to be found.