Bush 'involved' in CIA leak case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7105001.stm)

Former White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, has said the US president was involved in misinforming the public over the leaking of a CIA agent's identity. In an excerpt from his book, Scott McClellan says George W Bush helped mislead the public over the role in the affair of two White House aides.


So? Is this impeachable yet? Surely even Republicans must agree that leaking the name of a CIA agent, active or not, is impeachable? Surely so?

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice-president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."


So - is Bush legally in shit creek or not?

Ms Plame said Mr McClellan's excerpt was "shocking". "I am outraged to learn that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps. Lewis Libby
Lewis Libby is the only person to have been charged "Even more shocking, McClellan confirms that not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice-President Cheney, presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card and President Bush also ordered McClellan to issue his misleading statement." Current White House press secretary Dana Perino said the meaning of the excerpt was unclear.


So when does the Ms Plame and Scott McClellan smear game start?

This part cracked me up: ""I am outraged to learn that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps."

Yeah, that never happens. Never. I'm shocked, too...

This part cracked me up: ""I am outraged to learn that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps."

Yeah, that never happens. Never. I'm shocked, too...

Heh - yeah! I'd be truly shocked to learn there was ever an instance that ANY press secretary was told to tell the full truth about anything.

Having worked with the ones who represent lesser politicians, there are generally two types: Those who slavishly push their boss's agenda and really believe in it (no matter what), and those who are professional PR types who are "just" doing a job and really don't want to know the truth. But there are some good ones. And many times, no matter what their type, they intentionally aren't told the truth.

Gee Whiz Scott, tells us something that we don't know. He's just as responsible as Bush. He knew what he was getting into before he took the job. Obviously he didn't learn from Ari Fleischers mistakes.

That's what will be lost in this shuffle: McClellan's role. If he knew he was being told to lie and he knew it and he lied anyway, then he should be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice, as I think the Feds were looking into the case at the time.

i swear australian CIB dunno if they the same as CIA but they think there in the movies
flashin there badges real quik like cartoon characters
we laugh at em

My point is IF GW Bush was personally involved wouldn't he be liable for not only impeachment but also jail???

Well?

Lets for the moment suppose this WH staff worker is telling the truth, would Republicans support impeachment against Bush? Why would we want a Civil servant who is blatantly breaking some of our most cherished laws?

Not just jail, but execution!

That's what will be lost in this shuffle: McClellan's role. If he knew he was being told to lie and he knew it and he lied anyway, then he should be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice, as I think the Feds were looking into the case at the time.

It's also worth raising the question aimed at George Tenet's recent memoir. Doesn't McClellan owe us the truth, on the record, for free before asking us to put money down for it?

So says me, at least.

Tenet has a lot to answer for, in my opinion. But I think his biggest fault was brown-nosing, which is very different from intentionally misleading people.

But I think his biggest fault was brown-nosing, which is very different from intentionally misleading people. Depends. Tenet's brwonnosing involved presenting deliberately distorted and carefully selected information for his boss to use in misleading people. Who did he not intentionally mislead, thereby ?

Maybe I'm missing something BUT if Bush and Cheney INTENTIALLY ordered McClellan to issue his misleading statement that led to the outing of a CIA Agent as part of a ploy to further their aims at leading this nation into war (aka WMD and "uranium" in Africa) that is a criminal offense isn't it?

Publisher Deflates Tantalizing Snippet on CIA Leak (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/ex-aides-book-may-clear-bush-in-cia-leak/?hp)

It seems McClellan remains loyal to his evil master after all...

Why is this Plame-gate story still in the news? Everyone knows who leaked the name to Novak. And everyone knows Bush and his admin were not involved. Case was closed a long time ago.

And everyone knows Bush and his admin were not involved.
Well if you believe that I've got 2 towers to sell you...

Why is this Plame-gate story still in the news? Everyone knows who leaked the name to Novak. And everyone knows that the prosecutor has not yet actually closed the investigation, that Rove - one of the two who handed the name to Novak, and possibility the originator of the ascription "fair game" as applied to someone currently working a covert operation aimed at Iranian nukes - had met with Cheney and W during the strategy sessions, and that Gonzalez - who has formed a legal defense team, in preparation for upcoming events - was quite possibly involved as well.

The person who leaked the name to Novak has admitted it, apologized for it, and explained why he didn't think Plame was a covert agent. Novak has confirmed the story. Fitzgerald knew it long before he indicted Libby. And clearly this person was not motivated by anything the Bush administrated wanted.

You guys can waste your time down this rabbit hole all you want. I suppose you believe 911 was an inside job too?

So why is McClellan lying now? As Senator Dodd has called on Attorney General Mukasey to open an investigatin, should McClellan be nailed for libeling the President and Vice President? As I wrote in an earlier topic on this same subject (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74152),

Mukasey is in a tough spot right now. If I was him, yes, I would open the investigation. But the one thing it can't do is lead nowhere. McClellan can't get away with libel, and the administration can't get away with lying about something like this. If there is a middle ground, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

(#1639648/4 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1639648&postcount=4))

The person who leaked the name to Novak has admitted it, apologized for it, and explained why he didn't think Plame was a covert agent. Two separate people leaked the name to Novak - one of them was Karl Rove, after consulting with Cheney and apparently W. That come out in court documents.

Agents of Rove also leaked the name to other reporters, although Novak was the better established conduit for this kind of crap.

The State Dept guy who came out first, apologised etc, is personally connected with Cheney as well, from past administrations. His exact connection with the administration hit squad that had decided to tell trusted and loyal "journalists" that Wilson's wife was "fair game" has never been formally established - the official story seems to be that the simultaneous outing was some kind of coincidence.

The idea that Rove did not know Plame was at least possibly running an important covert operation is not credible - Rove, for sure, had the necessary security clearance and the connections through Cheney and Tenet to find out anything he wanted to know, and had obviously been checking up on her role in the agency (the leak accused her of recommending her husband for that job).

None of these guys pressured Novak, or anyone they supplied, to avoid publicising the name, as one would expect conscientious officials with an interest even (let alone a duty) in not blowing CIA operations to do.

Armitage was a liberal who opposed the neocons in the administration. Armitage's connection with a "hit squad" has not been found because there isn't any. Any obscure connection with Cheney from the past is irrelevant. Armitage was not acting at the behest of the administration. Armitage leaked Plame's name not only to Novak but Bob Woodward a month earlier. Novak published her name based on Armitage's information. There was no second leak, even David Corn acknowledges this.

I suggest you add a few more layers to your tin foil hat because someone is brainwashing you. Go spend some time reading the Qu'ran; you might learn who the true enemies of America are.

I agree it's silly to posit Armitage as an agent of Rove. Per my understanding, the man hated Rove.

Armitage was a liberal who opposed the neocons in the administration.

LoL, Armitage is part of PNAC which is the whole neo-con group.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Been watchin' too much Fox News character assassinations?

- N

I'm not sure he is. It is my understanding Armitage has been around the State Department for awhile, which is hardly a bastion of neo-Conservatism. Plus, he's close to Powell, a man who definitely isn't a neo-Con. But even if Armitage is, I can't seem him going along with a Rove plot. It just doesn't fit.

I agree it's silly to posit Armitage as an agent of Rove. Per my understanding, the man hated Rove. It is not silly to point out that he is a long time assiciate of Cheney's and other inner circle figures, and someone personally acquainted with the people who decided to destroy Plame's career and blow the CIA operation she was managing in revenge on Joe Wilson.

Do you find his simultaneous and identically targetted leaking of the name, along with Rove et al whom we know to have been deliberately plotting the hit, to be plausibly coincidental ?
There was no second leak, even David Corn acknowledges this. Novak claimed he was given Plame to expose by two different people. According to court documents filed during Fitzgerald's prosecution of Libby, the second person was Rove.

Rove also outed Plame - as "Wilson's wife", again without the slightest pressure to withhold her identity from publication - to Mathew Cooper of Time magazine, who was beaten to publication by Novak. He is alleged to have outed Plame to other reporters as well - this was an organized hit on Wilson.

A whole bunch of former CIA agents and operations managers, retired, signed a letter requesting that Rove's security clearance be suspended for his outing of Plame. This request was ignored by the White House.

I have always wondered why a campaign strategist and domestic political operative like Rove had such a high level security clearance in the first place.

I did not know he knew Cheney, but that doesn't surprise me. And the coincidence is, as you suggest, highly suspicious. Still, an Under Sec. of State running errands for Rove? I don't know. Something about it just strikes me as odd.

It is not silly to point out that he is a long time assiciate of Cheney's and other inner circle figures, and someone personally acquainted with the people who decided to destroy Plame's career and blow the CIA operation she was managing in revenge on Joe Wilson.

What CIA operation was she running? and what operation was blown? Her post at that time was a annalist, at Langley, Virginia.

If any operation was blown it was when she seconded her husband to do the investigation in to wether there was any connection between Saddam and Niger to buy Yellow Cake, and as reported by Joe Wilson on his return there was cause to believe the Saddam was trying to buy Yellow Cake from Niger, and remember Poor Valley Girl, Vallery, committed perjury, and obstruction of justice, when she denied having anything to do with getting the assignment for her husband.

Hell, Novak called Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer, and asked if Vallery Plame worked at the CIA.. Harlow replied that she did work at the CIA, that is documented in the investigation.

Still, an Under Sec. of State running errands for Rove? I don't know. That is not necessary, or likely. How or from whom Armitrage got the idea of, apparently, defending his old colleagues at the State Dept by putting blame on the CIA, we don't know. A phone call from Karl is not at the top of that list.

Rove is very good at what he does, by all accounts. It is more sophisticated than merely sending people on errands. Taking advantage of a carefully encouraged and planted slip by a State Dept figure - one whose team is under fire from Cheney and the White House - would match what we know of his operational style perfectly.

And Cheney's whole career has been a triumph of bureaucratic infighting, the winning of interdepartmental battles for his own benefit.

How's this for a possibility: the departments of the CIA that had not cooperated in supporting the case for WMDs and emergency invasion were Cheney's target, and Plame's deep involvement in one of them made her a perfect representative to use as an example of the fate awaiting non-cooperators.

Wilson's PR disaster - Rove's area of expertise - would then be an opportunity, a two-fer. The blowing of the CIA operation would then have been negligence or indifference on Rove's side, and a positive benefit (even the main goal) for Cheney.

Offhand,then: When Novak published, Woodward and Novak had been informed by Armitage; Cooper and Miller and Novak and a few others by Rove@Co (inc Libby).

That's a lot of speculation, but it seems more cogent that your usual mix. We do, for example, know that Plame was assigned to proliferation of WMDs at the CIA, so her desk's failure to cooperate with intelligence may be a likely motive.

Something that bothers me, something that often gets overlooked, is the fact Plame sent her husband to Niger. I mean, was there really know one else? Sending her husband doesn't excuse the personal attacks and other political mischief, but I question why she wasn't savvy enough to figure that such a move invited political blowback of that sort.

The notion that Plame sent her husband to Niger is disputed.

On March 16, 2007, Valerie Plame addressed this question in sworn testimony to Congress: "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority.... It's been borne out in the testimony during the Libby trial, and I can tell you that it just doesn't square with the facts." [wikipedia] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair)

Well, I saw the 60 Minutes interview with Plame where she said it was someone else's idea, but she went along with it, because he had gone on missions for the CIA before (which amazes me). I think it was stupid on her part.

He was an obvious choice, given his background, and in fact did a good job in a fairly difficult assignment.

I can see where any intelligence agency employee who failed to take into account the utter dishonesty and amorality of the W administration from the very beginning, the overriding importance of political considerations in everything and the essential requirement of watching one's back in all matters,

and instead actually tried to do their job as best they could, pretending that (for example) the question of whether Niger was supplying Iraq with yellowcake was an honest one as well as an important one, and that somebody wanted the right answer to it,

could in retrospect appear naive to the point of stupidity.

But it was early on in the W debacle, and the Big Lie strategy always has the element of surprise in its favor - it takes a while for most people to believe what they are seeing.

The notion that Plame sent her husband to Niger is disputed.

On March 16, 2007, Valerie Plame addressed this question in sworn testimony to Congress: "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority.... It's been borne out in the testimony during the Libby trial, and I can tell you that it just doesn't square with the facts." [wikipedia] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair)

But her E-Mail show that she did just that.

Byron York on CIA-Leak Case & Congress on National Review Online
Westmoreland also asked for the “full text of Ms. Plame’s February 12, 2002 email/memo to her boss regarding sending her husband, Joseph Wilson, to Niger.” ...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDk5ZWZiNGEwOGZmNjkyY2VkNWUzYThkMWJlOGRiYzQ=

Byron York describes the contents of the "Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash" document at The Corner at National Review:


The memo seems to show that Mrs. Wilson did indeed suggest her husband for the Niger mission. And it sheds new light on why Mrs. Wilson was involved in the Niger uranium matter to begin with. The conventional wisdom has always been that she suggested her husband's name in response to an inquiry from Vice President Dick Cheney about the Iraq Niger uranium story. But her memo, written on February 12, seems to show that she suggested her husband's name before the vice president asked his question on February 13. In addition, committee investigators found a cable in which Mrs. Wilson wrote that "both State and DOD have requested additional clarification" on the Niger matter. She added that "indeed, the vice president's office just asked for background information on the Niger report." The cable was dated February 13 at 3:42 p.m. — the day after she suggested her husband for the Niger mission.

Well, It's disputed, you can't say it's a fact.