I guess the decision to have Scotty zip it could be read one of two ways — either as a sign the crew is freaking out because they finally realize Fitzgerald isn’t just going through the motions, or because, like Nixon, they think they’ve got the case on ice.
Back to Main
July 11, 2005
WB: The Old Stonewall
Comments
I think Fitz is going to roll up the whole rotten crew. They’re stunned right now. It’s just starting to sink in how fucked they are. This is the tool that the honest members of the intelligence community are using for pay-back. It’s a bitch.
Posted by: SW | Jul 11 2005 20:29 utc | 1
The White House Press Corp finally woke up today. They smell blood and there is no Jeff Gannon for distraction. Today’s briefing (the last question is the best of all):
MR. McCLELLAN: 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.
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.” 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 —
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?
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.
Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?
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.
[Goyal ask dumb question on another issue – gets dumb answer]
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.
Q So you’re not going to respond as to whether or not the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff?
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.
Go ahead. Sarah, go ahead.
[Sarah ask dumb question on another issue – gets dumb answer]
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.
[David asks some question on another issue – gets dumb answer]
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.
Go ahead, Connie.
[Connie asks some question on another issue – gets dumb answer]
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
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?
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.
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
[Someone asks some question on another issue – gets dumb answer]
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Alexis.
Q When the leak investigation is concluded, does the President believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what the — what transpired inside the White House at the time?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor. Again, this is an ongoing matter; I’m just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time. At the appropriate time, when it’s complete, then I’ll be glad to talk about it at that point.
Q Have you in the White House considered whether that would be optimum to release as much information and make it as open a process —
MR. McCLELLAN: It’s the same type of question. You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and I’m not going to do that.
Q I’m actually talking about the communication strategy, which is a little different.
MR. McCLELLAN: Understood. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And that’s what he expects people in the White House to do.
Q And he would like to that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with —
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.
Go ahead.
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 —
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.
Go ahead.
[Someone asks some question on another issue – gets dumb answer]
MR. McCLELLAN: Bob, go ahead.
Q Yes, in your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?
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.
Go ahead.
[Someone asks some question on another issue – gets dumb answer – press conference is over]
Squeeezzzzzeee those balls.
Two thoughts: (1) Fitzpatrick won’t make his call before mid-October–if I read the calendar correctly. How can we put up with our own ignorance and uncertainty for another three months? (2) Fitzpatrick hasn’t leaked a word, and Starr did nothing but leak. Does this mean that Starr would have kept mum, like Fitzpatrick, if he’d thought he had a case? Inquiring minds want to know….
Posted by: alabama | Jul 11 2005 20:59 utc | 4
it can still get a whole lot darker before we actually see any light at the end of this long crimewave, but i’ll root for fitzgerald if he can pull back a few lids on this vampire gang. how will they go as they get caught in a golden ray of light? like every formula horror flick though, there’s gonna be some false endings & more blood spilled before anyone can even think about sending in the kids w/ the mops. at a minimum, this gang has expanded the permissable level of tolerance for downright evil bloodsucking political corruptness & what they don’t end up finishing, some other mutant winger will inevitably feast upon. the vine says oliver stone is doing a flick on this 911, but i think george romero would be more capable.
Posted by: b real | Jul 11 2005 21:00 utc | 5
My only concern is Cooper’s legal team, led by Theodore B. Olsen. Isn’t that our former SG, and also Bush v Gore Olsen, I lost my talk show host wife on 9-11 Olsen?
How could he possibly be running any case that would ultimately hurt the administration? Somebody tell me otherwise.
Posted by: f’in idoit | Jul 11 2005 21:07 utc | 6
Still wide open questions:
How did Rove know that Plame was a CIA operative?
Thesis: John Bolton asked the NSA to reveal to him the names of the people who communicated on WMD matters in several cases. Plame was communicating in one or several of those cases and Bolton took this up to Cheney who arranged for Rove to leak.
Who forged the Niger documents:
Thesis: Michael Ledeen did initiate this and used his Ghorbanifar/SISMI connection to get them played back to the US.
There ARE links between these stories and we still are only scratching on the very top.
Crooks and Liars has video of Press Corp grilling Scotty
It’s so refreshing to see these people getting slapped for a change, beware that you might have to wait, as the servers seem to be getting slammed. I guess as everybody wants to see scotty sqwirm. 😉
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 11 2005 21:18 utc | 9
There are lots of crimes in this administration’s woodwork – corruption, perjury, war crimes. If it ever looks like a backlash before the judiciary are subverted there will be a whole lotta shredding goin’ on.
I keep flashing back to Watergate and the handing out of pardons all around. Can this be done pre-emptively?
And then the Dodo said everybody had won, and everybody must have prizes!
Posted by: PeeDee | Jul 11 2005 21:49 utc | 10
i wonder if billmon is aware old stonewall is double posted??
Posted by: annie | Jul 11 2005 21:56 utc | 11
If it ever looks like a backlash before the judiciary are subverted there will be a whole lotta shredding goin’ on.
more of dad’s friends lining up to help…
Confessed Iran-Contra Figure Lands Sensitive Pentagon Post
In 1987, Robert L. Earl told a grand jury that he had destroyed and stolen national security documents while working for Lt. Col. Oliver L. North during the Iran-Contra scandal.
Now, he sits in one of the most coveted offices in the Pentagon as chief of staff to Gordon R. England, acting deputy secretary of Defense. Earl has clearance to review the kinds of classified documents he once destroyed.
…
President Bush nominated England to replace Paul D. Wolfowitz, who left the deputy secretary’s post this spring to head the World Bank.
England’s chief of staff is the latest figure from the Iran-Contra scandal to play a role in the Bush administration.
…
A report to Congress by independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh stated: “Earl attempted to conceal evidence regarding the arms sales to Iran and the diversion of profits…. He destroyed [National Security Council] documents, assisted North in the destruction of documents … and made false statements to the FBI.”
He was granted immunity for his testimony in the Reagan administration’s most damaging scandal and was never prosecuted.
Posted by: b real | Jul 11 2005 21:59 utc | 12
This entire administration is populated with crooks and liars. Nobody has made a dent in their facade yet, and I’m not holding my breath over the Plame affair now. They’re teflon, nothing sticks.
Posted by: VetinLA | Jul 11 2005 22:08 utc | 13
The most likely scenario is that Scotty is not talking on advice of legal counsel. The first words from any self respecting lawyer to any client is to shut the f up. Particularly since Rove got burned by his own counsel blabbing in the WSJ. If you read today’s NYT story the same way others have, it seems that his statement “Matt Cooper is not going to jail because of Rove” created the opening that obsolved Cooper of his commitment to Rove and has potentially landed Rove in increased legal troubles and perhaps an indictment as a result. It could be the basis of a legal malpractice claim by Rove against Luskin. I doubt Scotty is in any legal jeapardy, however to prevent that from happenning, it is better for him to say nothing at all and his silence also serves to protect anyone else in potential legal jeapardy.
Two questions I have:
1. Did Scotty testify to the grand jury regarding his conversations with Abrams, Libby and Rove that he made public in the previous briefing?
2. What is the potential impact of the change in Rove’s job status from Political Advisor to the President to Deputy White House Chief of Staff?
I hope someone can really answer the second question for me, because I think there are potentially some interesting revelations to be had there.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 11 2005 22:45 utc | 14
I doubt Scotty is in any legal jeapardy, however to prevent that from happenning, it is better for him to say nothing at all.
That is pretty much what he did today.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 11 2005 22:54 utc | 15
The relevant statute here is Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources?
Sounds like the Boland-like Loophole bs all over again. Also, the change of Rove’s official occupation pointed to above always seemed to me fishy–perhaps a move to shield him under some executive privilege?
I dunno. these crackers are smart, and rove is king of the crackers.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 11 2005 23:19 utc | 16
Probably wishful thinking but this could be the beginning of the end of the BushCo machine. If you look at the UK, the Alister Campbell ‘sexing up’ WMD data scandal effectively ended Bliar’s credibility with the public. Yes he went on to get re-elected but with a much reduced majority and many said they “held their nose” as they voted.
The similarity is that both administrations made a number of blunders in an attempt to protect their chief spinner. These blunders were caused, I reckon, by the incredible dependance both BushCo and Bliar have on their paid liars-in-chief. These low-lifes create the space for the killers to do their work so that the titular boss feels that without a good attack team he won’t be able to keep up the front. Hence they over-expose themselves when they try to defend them.
The serfs will be flung to the wolves first of course. That means that Scott McClelland must be feeling very vulnerable.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 11 2005 23:34 utc | 18
“the president wants to get to the bottom of this…”– scotty
They always say this, of course. But, one thing the Myth of Bush does not have going for it is the “leader-fights-against-all-temptation” claim–a claim which held together the slow-spinning vortex of the Myth of Reagan. Bush sorta fucks up by cultivating the west texas loyalty image. that might hurt him in the end.
“might,” you know.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 11 2005 23:49 utc | 19
Billmon,
Just curious. Do you really think W will jettison Rove if things do get hotter and Fitzgerald has a solid case? I would think even if Rove feels the heat, he has to know he has W over a barrel. He may think “Cut me loose and I’ll sing like a canary to the press and everyone else about the dirty deeds I did to get you the presidency, and I’ll let everyone know the truth about Iraq and 9/11”. We know Rove knows where “All the bodies are buried”, since he did the bulk of the gravedigging. I don’t think if criminal charges are filed against Rove, he would do the “dutiful soldier” thing and fall on his sword for W.
Posted by: mmack | Jul 12 2005 0:28 utc | 20
shoulda finished my thought there: the Leader with A Pure Heart schtick like Reagan’s Myth requires, when things get dicey, the leader to throw whoever to the wolves. and Bush isn’t like that.
Posted by: slothrop | Jul 12 2005 0:39 utc | 21
lets not forget scooter and the boss cheney in all this. would rove fall on the sword for cheney. remember bush is just a pawn. i’d really like to know cheneys role. maybe outing plame didn’t originate w/rove. i want to see them all fall, naturally.
Posted by: annie | Jul 12 2005 0:42 utc | 22
It’s been noted (by someone… I can’t find the original observation) that in light of Fitzgerald not rolling over like a good lapdog on this issue, the imminent publishing of more Abu Ghraib photos by the ACLU in the next ten days, floundering in Iraq and dwindling poll numbers that something needs to be done (viz. more conveniently timed “terrorism”) to distract the American people from this scandal and pump up the approval ratings. it was further asked (or indirectly implied) that this was what the recent London bombing was designed to do.
That the killing of Londoners is not distracting to Americans should come as no surprise. It’s not in our character to care all that terribly much about anyone else’s problems (well… problems that we are able to pawn off on someone else, anyway). To wit:
I am only 36 years old… I was five in 1974 when Nixon resigned in disgrace, so most of my observations of that period have been distilled from historical essays, but one fact about that period always struck me as curious. It was not the secret and illegal bombings of Cambodia that sunk his administration; it was the far lesser crime of breaking into the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. The majority of Americans simply didn’t care about the homocide of innocents as long as they were foriegners.
Later, and in my own personal recollection, William Jefferson Clinton was impeached over perjuring himself about a consensual impropriety but not a peep was uttered by way of legal rebuke over the bombing of “terrorist” aspirin factories in Sudan or the excessive two-month-long carpet bombing of Kosovo. At least the disregard for the lives of foreigners and the Puritan ethic seems to be a bipartisan attitude.
Now, the MSM is outraged that Scott McClellan lied about Rove’s spiteful “outing” of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Rove’s actions were illegal, certainly… but so is going to war on the manipulative and demonstrably false premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Why do prosecuters on both sides of the political spectrum only have teeth when no dead foriegners are involved in the equation? Simply, and obviously, the majority of Americans do not get worked up over the deaths of foreigners… no matter how brutal, illegal or unecessary those deaths are.
Now I am not suggesting that Karl Rove (or Nixon… or even Clinton) should be absolved of the crimes that are being attached to them. When it comes to political corruption, my attitude is to get those bastards with anything that will stick to their rotten hides. My thesis is only that we can clearly see a correlation between the types of crimes that will “stick” and those that roll off the backs of special prosecuters and the MSM. Any unscrupulous up-and-coming politician who wishes to ignite WWWIII would do well to make a note that they can easily get away with it… but they had better damned well stay away from any mail-fraud schemes. At least in their own backyard.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 12 2005 0:54 utc | 23
curious
“A fair-minded reading of Cooper’s e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife.”
i find this very weird. we are hearing very little of the earlier allegations that the idea of wilson going to niger originated in cheney’s office. not only are we not seeing any attention on his pivotal role but rove’s lawyer is implying rove called cooper to “discourage’ Time from ‘false allegations about cheney’ when i hardly read that into the email. this could spell impeachment for cheney, and that is why miller is mum. possibly. something bigger is going on than just rove if the press is unleashing. i smell fish. it’s now at the top of google news, that doesn’t happen just because it’s a big story.imho
Posted by: annie | Jul 12 2005 1:12 utc | 24
I got a laugh out of this:
“[Update, 2:24 p.m.: At today’s White House briefing, McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove outing Plame because they were related to “an ongoing criminal investigation.” For example:
Q: Does the President continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?
A: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you’ve heard my response on this.
Q: So you’re not going to respond as to whether or not the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff?
A: 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 —
A: — investigation.
From this, I gather that Rove is on shaky ground, but that his firing or resignation is not imminent. Traditionally, when a high-ranking White House aide is just about to get canned, the White House spokesman signals this by saying, “The president stands behind [name here] 100 percent.”]”
slate
Posted by: correlator | Jul 12 2005 1:31 utc | 25
Monolycus said, in part: “It was not the secret and illegal bombings of Cambodia that sunk his administration; it was the far lesser crime of breaking into the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel.”
I would suggest that the breakin was the cover story that everyone agreed would cause the least public outcry. Just about everybody involved there had something to hide. Illegal bombings was part of it but so was Kennedy’s assassination. None of this could be allowed to blow out into public view; this was the main reason Nixon stepped down instead of fighting, as was his wont. He had no choice, and the main players knew it.
Look for similar dynamics in the present case. Now as then, the brokers have decided that the president has to go. Then it was because Nixon had decided to make a legacy for himself and go for peace; this time it is because Bush II has proven to be too incompetent to play his assigned role.
This is speculation of course, but I am looking forward to see how it plays out. Am I right or wrong? We will see. I figure the decision-makers are way above Bush or Cheney or any of the other visible players, like Blair or even Sharon. The game strayed too close to exposure and so it is time to send in the relief. Has worked before.
Posted by: rapt | Jul 12 2005 1:51 utc | 26
Not to be a wet blanket at the party – I want to see Rove,Cheney, and Bush nailed as much as everyone else here. But this is too remniscent of the way I was feeling back when the Iran-Contra affair first started breaking open. I was certain that Reagan was dead meat and the public would finally wake up.
We all know how it really turned out.
Posted by: maxcrat | Jul 12 2005 1:54 utc | 27
The stakes are much higher this time maxcrat. True, the public may be no smarter this time around, but at least they have all those suddenly angry reporters who’ve finally decided Scotty (and his boss)is full of shit. Counts for something…watching and waiting.
Posted by: rapt | Jul 12 2005 2:04 utc | 28
the PTB had no problem tying cheney in w/ the original “push” for an investigation. it makes no sense for rove to be using him for a trump card. not to beat a dead horse or anything.
The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2003
Early 2002: Spurred by Vice President Cheney’s office, intelligence officials gather to discuss reports that Iraq is trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. CIA officer Valerie Plame recommends her husband, former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, for a mission to investigate the claim. (!!!!)
The investigation was given a big push in early 2002 after Vice President Dick Cheney asked his CIA briefer for an assessment of the reports. According to Mr. Cheney’s spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, the CIA reported back quickly that it was possible Iraq had made attempts to purchase yellowcake, but the agency couldn’t be sure because it said the information “was fragmentary and lacked detail.”
How Mr. Cheney first learned about the yellowcake reports isn’t clear. Ms. Martin said he had heard of them independently of his regular CIA briefing. Once he received the agency’s response,she says, he made no further inquiries about the information
why say that? he made no further inquiries? that’s stupid. obviously he’s not going to go from a push to nada. and why o why isn’t it ‘clear’ how he first heard about the yellowcake? does that mean he doesn’t remember? somehow cheney’s role in this has diminished, except of course as an excuse for rove to be calling the reporters, to steer them AWAY from cheney. listen to what they don’t say.
Posted by: annie | Jul 12 2005 2:04 utc | 29
I think alabama’s on to something with how Fitzgerald has put the clampdown on info leaks while Starr leaked like a sieve.
Starr knew he had nothing … and had to get damaging crap out there somehow.
Fitz has got the goods. And he’s keeping it in lockdown.
At least that’s my take.
Posted by: SusanG | Jul 12 2005 2:22 utc | 30
SusanG, there’s another silent party–or absentee, if you will–whose lack of motion continues to interest me. This would be Karen Hughes, re-hired by Bush some months ago to do missionary work in the vineyard of alienated muslims (or so we’ve been led to believe). For family reasons–she wanted to be with a son, who was completing some stage of his education in faraway Texas–Ms. Hughes deferred her return to the Red Hot Center. But surely the school year in Texas is over by now, and yet no Karen Hughes!…. It’s a matter of common knowledge, to be sure, that Ms. Hughes doesn’t get along very well with Mr. Rove, but since this antipathy hasn’t kept her from performing her patriotic activities in the past, I’m bound to suppose that she knows the smell of trouble, and stays away from trouble whenever she sniffs it. Ms. Hughes is one of those tough, Southern real-estate broads who knows all the gossip in the neighborhoods, and whom, and whom not, to walk through a house that’s up for sale. And snce I can’t believe that her passion for Damaged W. Goods has cooled in any way, I rather suspect she’s waiting the odor of for trouble to go away. We’ll just have to wait and see….
Posted by: alabama | Jul 12 2005 3:34 utc | 31
Yes, Ms. Hughes has been mysteriously … absent. I wonder if she’s even left Texas yet and has relocated to DC?
I think you’re right … I think she’s waiting until the smoke clears, then she’ll come in and put a nice, maternal face on the Bush presidency.
Posted by: SusanG | Jul 12 2005 4:09 utc | 33
rapt: Like to think you’re right. Time will tell, but it all depends what the REAL power behind the throne decides.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 12 2005 5:33 utc | 34
And then there’s Judith F. Miller. As I see it, she’s sitting in prison not to protect a source from Fitzgerald–he knows all the sources anyway–but to avoid answering questions on other things, perhaps because she believes, and quite correctly, that Fitzgerald not only knows what questions to ask, but knows their answers as well. If she lies, then he gets her on perjury, and if she doesn’t lie, then she’ll have to admit to any number of misdeeds, felonies, misdemeanors, and embarassments. She might even find herself telling him things she thinks he may not know….Meanwhile the Times, whose credibility has been irremediably compromised by this woman, protects itself by attacking the credibility of the White House (see tomorrow’s lead story). I’d call this a “passing move”: it buys some time for the Times, which is twisting (like everyone else) in the wind of Fitzgerald’s deliberative silence, and can’t even pretend to explore “the news that’s fit to print”.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 12 2005 5:34 utc | 35
Oh, and one other thing about Judith F. Miller. If you’re one of those folks who feels rather badly about her being stuck in jail for a period of time–freedom of the press and all that–then I suggest you send her the vibrator of your choice at her prison address. A sudden supply of 10,000 free vibrators should cheer her up enormously, not to mention her prison guards (it’s more likely a job for MoveOn.Org, I suppose, but those folks are busy right now, unloading their T-shirt supply). If a vibrator is too expensive, then a simple dildo should do; just try to make sure it’s a really dull instrument–fitting alike to the jailers and their lady fair.
Posted by: alabama | Jul 12 2005 6:33 utc | 36
Those concerned about the Fitzgerald investigation ending up in a damp squib like Iran/Contra need to wind up a few postings and consider the dead americans issue.
That is Raygun didn’t get hammered even after his “my heart tells me this the facts tell me that” spiel because there weren’t any dead americans in Nicuragua. Quite the reverse in fact; ronnie saved americans in Iran AND protected US business interests and all it cost was a few dead or raped ‘spics’ (quickly pointing out I find that term hateful but it was being used by raygun rubes contemporaneous to Iran/Contra).
At that time even dead African Americans in the ghettoes of urban US was considered preferable to dead ‘real’ americans in the Tehran embassy.(the whole crack bizzo altho a lot more markers were called in to keep that quiet than were for the guns/money/hostages part of the deal).
Not to harp on too long but this is one of the reasons BushCo isn’t going run too hard with the accusations about the new Iranian president. No-one wants to open the door too wide to that closet! Someone might ask the question that was never asked at the time. Namely did republican actions prior to the election actually prolong the hostages ordeal?
So the allegations will be left to fester in the background and not only because they can’t be substantiated. I mean when has that mattered before?
it is critical that Rove be taken out of the game right now though. At any other time it would have been a drag for them to lose their spinmeister but they coulda brought someone off the bench to run basic interference while the rest of the team got on with it. Not at the moment tho. Everything BushCo touches turns in to the proverbial… They really need Karl in place and at the top of his game…awww it’s not to be..aint it grand to see Murphy’s Law IS egalitarian…even the great repug machine is vulnerable to bad irish luck.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 12 2005 7:44 utc | 37
Ok Rapt and Debs, I feel ever so slightly less pessimistic now. Its true that in terms of dead Americans Bush is worse, but Reagan and crew clearly broke a repeated commitment (“We will not cut a deal for the return of the hostages”) and a law (the so-called Boland amendment), and most of them not only lived to tell the tale but profited handsomely or have been reinstalled in government offices. Blech. Anyway, I’m with everyone else hoping that Fitzgerald comes through with the goods.
Posted by: maxcrat | Jul 12 2005 11:21 utc | 38
Rapt, I agree that the power brokers have decided this administration must have it’s wings clipped. However, I don’t think Bush will go. If these guys worry the elites, why would they take out Bush and leave Cheney? Bush is the weak link in the administration so he will stay for 3 more years, albeit emasculated and unable to initiate anything. That may be good enough for the elites who like a lot of what this administration has done for them.
If anyone leaves, my guess is it is Rove, Cheney or Libby. I would be surprised if more than one goes down. Taking out Libby is less dramatic (to the public) and serves as a warning shot to the rest of them. If this gets to Cheney, it is a body blow to neocon influence and the network they have created in this administration. (Rove is damaged in any case.) Since the neocon foreign policy is the issue the elites have the most reservations about, why wouldn’t they get one of it’s principle architects and most powerfully placed player if they could reach him? Rove might do just as well though since Bush would be weakened through his loss so neocons would not be able to further their agenda through Bush. (A neutered Bush, possibly brainless; wouldn’t that be fun to watch?) Thoughtful people would wonder: How could Bush’s Brain commit a crime and Bush not know? Fortunately for the elites, they are in a minority in the US and the corporate media will keep the rest distracted.
All this is entertaining speculation. Still, I believe there is more going on behind the scenes rather than less. Rove is quiet and Scotty is dodging and weaving. For people who prefer the offense, this is uncharacteristic. Something is up and the primary players are not sure they will win this time.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Jul 12 2005 16:22 utc | 39
A couple of comments in reply to Monolycus:
I don’t think Kosovo and Khartoum are comparable to Cambodia. Clinton didn’t construct a parallel command structure to bomb Kosovo.
With Watergate, it wasn’t the crime, it was the coverup. I doubt very much Nixon approved of or even knew about the break-in before it happened. But within days, he was conspire to obstruct the investigation. I just re-read All the President’s Men, and what seemed to really break it open was the burglars’ trial. When the Cubans plead guilty (as Billmon said, they were paid off) and the DOJ’s passive prosecution, Judge Sirica smelled something more.
The other dynamic that existed in 1974, that doesn’t now, is the makeup of Congress. The Democrats had solid majorities in both houses. Nixon only resigned because enough Republican senators flipped that removal from office was unavoidable.
Posted by: Jeff R. | Jul 12 2005 16:56 utc | 40
LonesomeG, see my post on “Silent Running” thread…Grrr…too many threads circling around same issues.. Things are converging so rapidly in the wrong direction that I don’t think there are the luxuries there were in ’74. Maybe they keep Bu$h around, being run by McCain, but he’s so identified w/the now obsolete & positively destructive “war on terra” & the Theos, that I think this one trick pony would be difficult to keep around, even under new management…all the moreso as he prides himself on not changing direction…Plus the world has to be reassured right now that Management of America is in competent Hands. While I’m not sold on him going, I don’t see how they can keep him around. What can they do w/him? And how will the world trust anything coming out of America if he’s still around?
Posted by: jj | Jul 12 2005 19:38 utc | 41
jj:
World leaders are wired in as well, both those up front and behind the scenes. If Rove and/or someone else in the administration goes, these people will know what it means and that things have changed. I just don’t think they will take out Bush for 2 reasons:
1) Cheney becomes president, which is agruably worse – for everyone including the elites. I can’t see both Bush and Cheney going – too threatening a move.
2) Bush is still very popular with 40+% of the public who would bitterly resent this liberal “stab in the back” over what they see as nothing. If the elites are really managing this, they are better off leaving the Christian right’s darling in place to placate his admirers and go after one or more of the real players in the administration.
As for pride in not changing direction, Bush has changed direction several times (see Homeland Security Dept) and acted like it was his idea all along. They can pull it off again, maybe this time with Karen Hughes instead of Rove. After all, Bush’s one trick was taught to him by Rove; maybe Hughes will be able to show him another one. Bush is malleable, an empty vessel to be filled up, as Perle said; Cheney is not. Bush is shallow and infuriating; Cheney is downright scary.
One other point. Per Kevin Phillips, the intelligence community is a part of the Bush power base, but not Cheney’s. They were the ones “wronged” by stovepiped intelligence and by the Plame outing and they want a scalp. Cheney’s pressure on the CIA to produce evidence to justify the Iraq invasion and their subsequent designation as fall guy for the bad info is not forgotten. So, I see no way Cheney can wind up as president when this is all over even if he is not caught up in Fitzgerald’s investigation. In addition, the financial elites would not be reassured by a Cheney (“deficits don’t matter”) presidency either.
Again, it’s all just speculation, but I believe that Bush will remain president even if others do fall.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Jul 12 2005 22:55 utc | 42