World Events
Topic: Scott McClellan's Book

#	Author	Message
41	DlandDug Fri 5/30/2008 12:03a	>>I am equally astonished that we keep hearing the same defense of the Bush White House over this issue.<< It's not a defense. It's the simple facts of the matter. >>Armitage was *one* of the leakers, that's true. But it's also been documented that there were others, including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.<< Documented? Really? By whom? These individuals discussed what was already known, because it had already been leaked by Richard Armitage. >>It infuriates me that people who call themselves Americans insist this issue is over. It's not, or at least it shouldn't be.<< Wishful thinking by others doesn't infuriate me. Nor should a simple statement of the facts by anyone, American or not, infuriate others. >>And yet, the Bush Administration and his supporters are incensed by it [McClellan's book]. Of course, as Gadzuux pointed out, they can't exactly say he was lying, so they've all stuck to the same story. They're "puzzled," "saddened," and they say that "this isn't the Scott McClellan we knew."<< Mm, yeah. "Puzzled" and "saddened" are exactly the sort of comments that "incensed" people make. >>It's not really telling at all, unless of course someone needs to assign bad motives to Scott McClellan because they don't like what he has to say.<< Based on the man's actions, one doesn't have to care one way or another about what he has to say to assign bad motives. >>But this administration has a long list of those who have been all-too willing to tell us what they've been up to. Other administration's always have the book deals, but not like this.<< These kind of books go back at least to the Carter administration. The only thing that's new is the number of publishers who are willing and eager to publish. >>...if it'd happened under the Clinton White House, you can bet people like Dug would be screaming bloody murder.<< Again, thanks for turning this into yet another thread that's all about... me! But please, please don't try and draw a psychic conclusion. I suggest you instead find the actual instance in which I've been "screaming bloody murder" about anything the Clinton White House may or may not have done.
42	DlandDug Fri 5/30/2008 12:49a	>>Back to the Plame Affair...<< Oh yes, yes, please. Let's go back! >>...to use one of Dug's favorite phrases, don't take my word for it.<< Hmm. Didn't know this was a favorite phrase of mine. Regardless, DON'T take my word for it. Rather, let's go to the thoughtfully provided link to that paragon of internet information, the Wikipedia... >>After his identification by Corn and Isikoff in advance word of their book, Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, acknowledged that he was the initial and primary source for Novak's column of July 14, 2003, that disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative".<< >>In "The CIA Leak," published on October 1, 2003, Novak describes how he had obtained the information for his July 14, 2003, column "Mission to Niger": During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.<< >>In their book Hubris Isikoff and Corn reveal - as both Armitage and syndicated columnist Robert Novak acknowledged publicly later - that Armitage was Novak's "initial" and "primary source" for Novak's July 2003 column that revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative and that after Novak revealed his "primary source" (Novak's phrase) was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger," Armitage phoned Colin Powell that morning and was "in deep distress." Reportedly, Armitage told Powell: "I'm sure [Novak is] talking about me."<< >>According to Isikoff, as based on his sources, Armitage told Bob Woodward Plame's identity three weeks before talking to Novak, and Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged because Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.<< >>On August 30, 2006, the New York Times reports that the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage confirmed he was Novak's "initial and primary source" for Plame's identity. The New York Times also reports "Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife's computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said... Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.... He resigned in November 2004, but remained a subject of the inquiry until [February 2006] when the prosecutor advised him in a letter that he would not be charged." In an interview with CBS News first broadcast on September 7, 2006, Armitage admits that he was Novak's "initial" and "primary source" (Novak's words). In the interview he describes his conversation with Novak: "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, "Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?" I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency, adding it was "just an offhand question.... I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had."<< >>On November 11, 2007, Armitage appeared on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer and was asked to respond to Valerie Wilson's assertion that Armitage "did a very foolish thing" in revealing her identity to Novak. Armitage and Blitzer had the following exchange: ARMITAGE: They're not words on which I disagree. I think it was extraordinarily foolish of me. There was no ill-intent on my part and I had never seen ever, in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative's name in a memo. The only reason I knew a "Mrs. Wilson," not "Mrs. Plame," worked at the agency was because I saw it in a memo. But I don't disagree with her words to a large measure. BLITZER: Normally in memos they don't name covert operatives? ARMITAGE: I have never seen one named. BLITZER: And so you assumed she was, what, just an analyst over at the CIA? ARMITAGE: Not only assumed it, that's what the message said, that she was publicly chairing a meeting. BLITZER: So, when you told Robert Novak that Joe Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador's wife, worked at the CIA, and she was involved somehow in getting him this trip to Africa to look for the enriched uranium, if there were enriched uranium going to Iraq, you simply assumed that she was not a clandestine officer of the CIA. ARMITAGE: Well, even Mr. Novak has said that he used the word "operative" and misused it. No one ever said "operative." And I not only assumed it, as I say, I've never seen a covered agent's name in a memo. However, that doesn't take away from what Mrs. Plame said, it was foolish, yeah. Sure it was. BLITZER: So you agree with her on that. ARMITAGE: Yeah. Absolutely.<< Now about Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer (I can't believe we're still hashing over this)... Rove: >>In his grand jury testimony, Karl Rove testified he learned of Plame's CIA affiliation from journalists and not from government officials. Rove testified that Novak called him in July 2003 to discuss a story unrelated to Plame or Wilson. Eventually, according to Rove, Novak told him he planned to report in an upcoming column that Plame worked for the CIA. Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he had already learned of Plame from other reporters, but that he could not recall which reporters had told him. When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony for the Associated Press. Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and, in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations, informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name. Rove also testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. Rove testified that Libby told him that he heard the information from journalists... On July 2, 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove spoke to Time reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak... Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published... Initially, Rove failed to tell the grand jury about his conversations with Cooper. According to Rove, he only remembered he had spoken to Cooper after discovering a July 11, 2003, White House e-mail that Rove had written to then-deputy National Security advisor Stephen J. Hadley in which Rove said he had spoken to Cooper about the Niger controversy. Luskin also testified before the grand jury. He told prosecutors that Time reporter Viveca Novak had told him prior to Rove's first grand jury appearance that she had heard from colleagues at Time that Rove was one of the sources for Cooper's story about Plame. Luskin in turn said that he told Rove about this, though Rove still did not disclose to the grand jury that he had ever spoken to Cooper about Plame. Viveca Novak testified she couldn't recall when she spoke to Luskin. Rove testified a total of five times before the federal grand jury investigating the leak. After Rove's last appearance, Luskin released a statement that read in part: "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges." On July 11, 2006, Robert Novak confirmed that Rove was his second source for his article that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, the source who confirmed what Armitage had told him. On February 12, 2007, Novak testified in Libby's trial. As Michael J. Sniffen of the Associated Press reports: "Novak testified he got confirmation from White House political adviser Karl Rove, who replied to him: 'Oh, you've heard that, too.' " Shortly after the publication of Novak's article, Rove also reportedly called Chris Matthews and told him off the record that "Wilson's wife is fair game." On August 19, 2007, Rove was asked by David Gregory on Meet the Press about whether Rove considered Plame to be "fair game." Rove replied "No. And you know what? Fair game, that wasn't my phrase. That's a phrase of a journalist. In fact, a colleague of yours." Rove has not denied he had a conversation with Matthews. Newsweek reported in October 2003 that a source familiar with Rove's side of the conversation told Newsweek that Rove told Matthews it was "reasonable to discuss who sent [Joe] Wilson to Niger."<< Fleischer: >>In January 2007, during the first week of Scooter Libby's trial, it was revealed in court proceedings that former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was granted immunity from prosecution by Patrick Fitzgerald in February 2004. Fleischer reportedly acknowledged discussing Valerie Plame with reporters, but promised to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation only if granted immunity. Once the deal was struck, Fleischer told Fitzgerald that he had discussed Plame with David Gregory of NBC News and John Dickerson of Time in July 2003, days before leaving his job at the White House... According to Fleischer, neither Gregory nor Dickerson showed much interest in the information. Dickerson has denied Fleischer's account. Gregory has declined to comment on the matter.<< >>It's simply disingenuous to portray this as "gee, it was Armitage - that rascal! Whadda ya gonna do!"<< It would indeed be just that, if that is what anyone here was saying. But the fact is that Armitage is the source of the leak. That's all. Oh... here's some Wikipedia readin' right back 'atcha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...Armitage
43	ecdc Fri 5/30/2008 12:51a	>>It's not a defense. It's the simple facts of the matter.<< It's facts that leave out certain details that make Bush administration officials like Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, and the President himself look bad. It's not unreasonable to conclude if certain details are left out, that they're left out for the reason of painting an inaccurate picture. The only reason I can conclude someone would do that is to defend the administration. >>Documented? Really? By whom? These individuals discussed what was already known, because it had already been leaked by Richard Armitage.<< By Robert Novak, Chris Matthews, Matt Cooper, Bob Woodward, and documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Of course, Karl Rove says that he didn't know a thing until he heard about it from an unnamed reporter. Numerous people, including those intimate with the Grand Jury proceedings, have said Rove and Fleischer were involved. Fleischer admitted this himself and Novak confirmed Rove was his second source. But perhaps they're all lying and it's Rove that's telling the truth. Now that really would be wishful thinking. >>Wishful thinking by others doesn't infuriate me. Nor should a simple statement of the facts by anyone, American or not, infuriate others.<< See above. It was a statement of very limited facts that left details out. This painted a very incomplete picture that was certainly intended to lead to a false conclusion: that Armitage was the only leaker, case closed. >>Mm, yeah. "Puzzled" and "saddened" are exactly the sort of comments that "incensed" people make.<< How about calling it "crap?" Yes, it's easier to nitpick over my choice of adjective rather than address the substance of what was said. >>These kind of books go back at least to the Carter administration. The only thing that's new is the number of publishers who are willing and eager to publish.<< Yikes, talk about your logical fallacies. The fact that books from former administration officials "go back...to Carter" does not make them the same, no matter how much some would like to portray them that way.
44	DlandDug Fri 5/30/2008 12:59a	>>But perhaps they're all lying and it's Rove that's telling the truth. Now that really would be wishful thinking.<< And maybe, just maybe, they're all telling the truth. Rove testified five times before the Grand Jury. My guess (just a guess) is that in those five trips there were plenty of opportunities to catch him in the lie that would have sent him, rather than an underling like Scooter Libby, on that perp walk that so many were hugging themselves with anticipation over. Rather, Rove's "story" fits right in with what the rest have said: Novak had the story from Armitage, and called around to get some confirmation. You can't really "leak" something that's already been spilled.
45	ecdc Fri 5/30/2008 1:08a	>>Oh yes, yes, please. Let's go back!<< Goody. More smarminess. Then there's this: >>I can't believe we're still hashing over this...<< And yet here we are. Aside from just being plain rude, these kinds of statements only attempt to diminish the other perspective by implying, through mockery, that it's just SO DAMN OBVIOUS, why are we even discussing it! If only people got it, just like I did! It's of course, another common fallacy. As for your lengthy copy and paste, it doesn't refute what I've already posted in the least. It largely reaffirms that Armitage was part of the leak, which I never disputed. It continues to take Karl Rove's word for it that he learned it from a still-unnamed reporter and conveniently ignores the statements and timelines provided by others, including Chris Matthews, who reported the "fair game" statement by Rove. Your Fleischer copy and paste isn't even trying. It notes that he requested immunity (again, why do that if you're innocent) and that he did so before Novak's column came out.
46	ecdc Fri 5/30/2008 1:13a	>>And maybe, just maybe, they're all telling the truth. Rove testified five times before the Grand Jury. My guess (just a guess) is that in those five trips there were plenty of opportunities to catch him in the lie that would have sent him, rather than an underling like Scooter Libby, on that perp walk that so many were hugging themselves with anticipation over.<< And yet, not even Armitage was found guilty of anything. So it's yet another fallacy to argue that since Rove wasn't charged with anything, he must be telling the truth. Armitage was certainly guilty, but also hasn't been charged. And if Rove is telling the truth, it certainly makes Chris Matthew's claim that he said Plame was "fair game" problematic.
47	DlandDug Fri 5/30/2008 1:17a	>>Armitage was certainly guilty...<< Yes, yes he was. On that we are in agreement.
48	Dabob2 Fri 5/30/2008 7:39a	Armitage was Novak's original source. He was not the original source for Cooper or anyone else. There were essentially multiple leaks going on at the same time, with Novak eventually biting and publishing the name. The MOST charitable reading of all this says that Armitage made a blunder by leaking the name to Novak, and then Rove and Libby and Fleischer simply confirmed to various reporters. But why should they have done so? She was a covert agent. They should have issued a "no comment" or a "can neither confirm nor deny" to Novak and anyone else asking, UNLESS they were only too happy to have her name leak out. And that's the most charitable reading of their actions.
49	Dabob2 Fri 5/30/2008 7:42a	<So are liberals in a quandary because he was a big fat liar when he was Bush's mouthpiece, but now he speaks truth? Noted.> What should be noted is that this is not a quandary at all. Any press secretary's job is, at minimum, to spin stories a certain way. Where spin crosses the line into lie can be tricky, not to mention passing on lies you don't even realize are lies, as apparently McClellan did (i.e. Rove and Libby telling him they weren't involved in the Plame matter at all). But at best a press secretary spins and stretches the truth and makes his boss look as good as possible always - that's his job. So it's not a quandary at all to think that there may be something closer to the truth coming from someone who no longer holds that position.
50	Kar2oonMan Fri 5/30/2008 9:25a	>>But at best a press secretary spins and stretches the truth and makes his boss look as good as possible always - that's his job.<< But should that be the job description? There's something un-American about that (even though it may have always been this way.) I don't like the idea that there is a whole lot of government going on in secret and manufacturing deception and spin. We pride ourselves on transparency. We talk about "of the people, by the people, for the people" until we're blue in the face. And then you have a government post that exists to essentially send out propaganda for the administration in charge? Keep in mind, too, that this White House planted a ringer amongst the press corps. So their concern with truth is suspect at best.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-52

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week on the LPP - Disney's 2008 Thea awards, Disney's Imax and 3D announcements, Bolt walkarounds and the crew's favorite Animal Kingdom attractions plus reader mail, Brent's Corner, the Captain's Challenge, Stump the Crew and 50 words or less on the new Bond.

What's on
The Latest
LP Guide to Bolt updated
Bolt Across America Cross-Country Journey Culminates at Red Carpet Premiere of "Bolt" 16 week tour visits 32 cities, raising awareness for the movie and for the ASPCA
Beauty and the Beast to be released in 3D in 2010
Disney's New Five-Picture Deal With IMAX to Begin With 'A Christmas Carol'
Buffalo International Film Festival presents a film benefit celebrating Mickey's 80th birthday December 13th
Disney's Hawai'i Project Begins with Ground Blessing
The Lion King to perform as part of 2008 Royal Variety Performance and BBC Radio 2's Friday Night is Music Night
Walt Disney Imagineering Earns Four Thea Awards
Travel Industry Honors Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Jay Rasulo
The Walt Disney Company Grants $1.5 Million to Reforest Fire-Ravaged Areas in Southern California

Click here for The Latest