Scottie Doesn’t Deny Bush Authorized the Plame Leak

/68 Comments/in /by

Okay, I went out and bought the damn book (sadly, I even have an extra one coming from Amazon). And I take something I said yesterday back. I said, speaking of my title that "Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity," that "Scottie McC doesn’t know it yet."

I was wrong. While Scottie doesn’t confirm that he knows that Bush authorized the leak of Valerie’s identity, he sure as hell doesn’t deny it either. Here’s how he addresses claims that Bush also authorized the leak of Valerie’s identity.

Questions were also raised about whether the president’s action had set in motion the unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity. Although we could not comment publicly, we did our best to distance him from this suggestion by pointing to the comments of Libby’s lawyer that Bush had only authorized Cheney to "get the information out." He hadn’t told him how to do it or what kinds of tactics to use. In other words, Bush hadn’t explicitly talked about leaking. It was a narrow and ultimately tenuous thread.

Do you see where Scottie McC says anything about what content Bush authorized Scooter and Shooter to leak? Me neither.

Scottie McC’s denial–which is not one, not by a long shot–only addresses the method of the leak, the fact that Scooter and Shooter leaked via the old A1 cut-out using Judy Judy Judy. After raising the question of whether or not Bush had authorized the content that Valerie was covert … Scottie McC said nothing.

image_print
68 replies
  1. KenMuldrew says:

    His evasion on Olberman wasn’t very convincing either, “…I do not believe that the President was in any way involved, directly involved in the leaking of her identity…” [my emphasis]

    Of course we already know who was “directly” involved (Rove, Libby, Ari, Armi).

  2. bmaz says:

    In fairness, I would probably not say much more than that if I were mcClellen either. Going further gets into pretty touch territory legally.

  3. Ishmael says:

    A very interesting question for Scottie if he is called before Congress –

    Did the President order the Code Red?
    You’re goddamned right he did!!

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    I’m pretty confident that McClellan doesn’t have a clue as to whether Bush was involved or not. They deliberately kept him out of the loop.

    • Loo Hoo. says:

      Bring ‘em on, huh? Let’s discuss torture, including Bush, Cheney, Rice etc. parcing exactly what to permit and for how long, renditions, all of it. Right before the election.

  6. Citizen92 says:

    Wexler and Conyers are sniffing around to get McClellan to testify. Today, Dana Perino apparently asserted that the White House could prevent Scott from doing so.

    Assuming Scott is the firebrand that he’s being hyped up as – how exactly could the White House prevent him from testifying if he was determined to do so?

    And what could be the possible legal sanctions that the White House could take against Scott if he did testirfy? With “executive privilege” being an ill-defined concept and not a law are any sanctions possible?

    Would Bush have to personally bring a civil case against McLellan because the harm would be to the individual?

    I get that the WH and the government could retaliate other ways, but, legally speaking, where does Scott stand?

    • JimWhite says:

      Believe it or not, the Wexler demand for testimony is now the lead story on CNN.com (where they state flat out that Bush authorized leaking Plame’s identity).

  7. Ishmael says:

    Nor does the replacement of the Khadr judge who was not seen as sufficiently motivated to get convictions….

  8. emptywheel says:

    I would have thought that.

    But I honestly think Pig Missile knows, given her response yesterday (that is, she was prepared to say that wasn’t what Scottie said in the book, but didn’t deny it outright). And I think that Tom Davis knew, and maybe even Byron York.

    If they knew, Scottie knew.

  9. emptywheel says:

    I was just going to say–they took some stuff out of his book bc of executive privilege. If they took out the confirmation that Bush leaked, then it would explain how they ”could” refuse to let him testify.

    All premised on the bullshit assumption that the President’s deliberations to leak the identity of a CIA agent are protected.

  11. wavpeac says:

    Oh finally!!! leaving out the details goes in our favor. Thank you god. Let ’em say it. In the end, it’s pretty much the same thing and their will be lots of folks who will now ”believe” because they said it on t.v. Nobody seems to really care about accuracy…just like folks who eat fast food don’t care so much about nutrition.

  12. R.H. Green says:

    The phrase we’ve heard,”this information”, reminds me of another phrase: ”the program the president has described”. We keep being stiff-armed by rhetorical tricks consisting of euphemisms and generic phrases that talk about events without actually admitting they occurred.

  13. BayStateLibrul says:

    Bush obstructed justice when he commuted Libby’s sentence.
    If he makes Scotty not testify through “executive privelege”
    bullshit, it is the second count of obstruction, and Congress should
    immediately proceed to impeach…

  14. perris says:

    Okay, I went out and bought the damn book (sadly, I even have an extra one coming from Amazon).

    I hate to say it but I think we should support this book, the longer it is on number one the better we stand to expose this president

    we really should be helping scotty out here

  17. Albatross says:

    I think the revelations in McClellan’s book ought to be used to justify a new series of investigations leading to impeachment for the executive branch officers, and imprisonment for Karl Rove.

  18. JimWhite says:

    Dangit. My format was okay till I did a hard refresh.

    Will there be a good garbage (I mean news) dump today to run under the Scotty noise?

  19. skdadl says:

    I’m not sure who I’m replying to, but @ 13, make sure to include in that list ”other intelligence activities,” which was sort of truthyish.

    Did Goldsmith have to run his book past the White House? I have a vague memory of his admitting something like that to Bill Moyers.

  21. cbl2 says:

    perris –
    I’m with you . Buy the book. Buy through the FDL Amazon link !

    Lil Snotty is Shiva …who knew ?!?!

  24. NorskeFlamethrower says:

    1,858 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

    Citizen BayStateLibrul and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

    Of course the whole bunch of the bastards could’ve been impeached a long time ago but certainly now that the Dems would only need 17 fascist Senate votes…but of course it won’t happen ’cuz it would interfere with all the important work Nancy and Rahm hafta do this summer…and not to say expose Nancy’s family and her husband’s bankin’ folks connections ta war profits.

    KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, IN WITH THE NEW AND OUT WITH THE OLD IF THE NEW STUFF WORKS!!

    • Citizen92 says:

      So the US “forced” Pakistan to put the screws Khan to lie about the program? To what end?

      To take the pressure of of BushCo’s inability to come up with answers on how the North Koreans, Libyans and Iranians got their nukes? Well, surely having the CIA think that problem was nipped certainly set us back.

      Or maybe it was to get the CIA off the case so the Bushies could act clandestinely with the DPRK or the other axis members? I’m sure the nonproliferation team refocused efforts elsewhere when Khan was found to be “the culprit?”

  26. barbara says:

    Whoa! Totally FU’d format again. Urgh. EW, where’d you get the book? I’m told B&N warehouses have been gutted of its supplies and won’t be good to go until a week to three.

      • bmaz says:

        At least on KO, that is not what he said. From last night’s thread:

        “…I do not believe that the President was in any way involved, directly involved in the leaking of her identity…” but he does think there may be an indirect link that flowed from the NIE declassification decision. SMcC again saying that the President admitted he OK’d leak of “this information,” not specifically mentioning the VPM identity.

        This is in the “McClellan on the run-up to the Iraq war” clip, starting after 8:00.

  28. perris says:

    I’ll tell you what I am amazed with;

    why did the cia allow this book to get published?

    that does NOT make any sense

  31. JimWhite says:

    Thanks, cbl2, the Khan story is very interesting and important. That could poke another very big hole in Cheney’s cloak of invisibility. You can bet he orchestrated Mushie getting Khan to confess in exchange for a pardon. If any evidence can be obtained on that one, Wexler could have a field day and just might have enough leverage on Conyers and Pelosi.

  32. emptywheel says:

    Saw it. I’ve been totally swamped today with this and with the RBC meeting tomorrow, which I will attend (against all my better judgment).

    I’ll get to it, I hope.

  33. cbl2 says:

    hey firedogs – anyone out there with a good format –

    could you post the Amazon link from the Book Salon thread – thx

    barbara – fdl benefits from our ordering Amazon stuff through the link –

  34. cbl2 says:

    perris – never mind the CIA – how in the hell did it ever get past Addington ?

    kinda rhetorical ’cause I love the idea of his Scotty induced agita

    looks like a new post . . .

  35. perris says:

    selise

    I guess they get to vette everyone that had a security clearance

    in any event, I read the book was vetted and I don’t see how the administration could allow it published

  36. Frank33 says:

    how exactly could the White House prevent him from testifying if he was determined to do so?

    There is always assassination by the neo-cons’ Mercenary Army, Blackwater. Blackwater hires snipers. Remember David Kelly, Pat Tillman, Benazir Bhutto and many more.

    http://www.motherjones.com/moj….._impl.html

  37. phred says:

    Agreed — if Scottie is really ready to tell the truth, then I’m all for it. And if keeping the book at #1 is what it takes to focus the attention of the MSM, then that works for me too.

  38. phred says:

    Huh, that comment above is in reply to perris (I think, kinda hard to tell at the moment).

  39. barbara says:

    I’m lookin’ at my tinfoil hat, but haven’t put it on. Yet. Anyone getting the creepies thinking what it would be like if BushCo or ??? decided to interfere with net communications stat? If an unknown hacker could infiltrate Comcast’s administrator sanctum . . . so, like, is there a failsafe strategery for being cut off? I started out being smarty in this comment, but now I’m not feeling so smarty. Scared myself. Wooooooo!!!

  41. Ann in AZ says:

    I just read an article at TPM that the Gitmo judge was removed. How does this tie in?

  42. Hugh says:

    OT Lourdes Garcia Navarro on Not Press Related (NPR) just was reporting on opposition to the Status of Forces agreement Bush is trying to negotiate with the Iraqis before leaving office so that he can tie the next President into his disastrous Iraq policy. She mentioned groups in Iraq that rejected or had problems with the agreement. She did not say word one about Democratic opposition to it in this country. She did not mention that such an SOF was inherently different from others we have because it is the only one where combat operations are ongoing. Finally, she said nothing about the fact that Bush was effectively negotiating a treaty without Congressional approval and in violation of the Constitution. Public media as bad as commercial but more vapid.

  43. NorskeFlamethrower says:

    1,858 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

    OK Firepups, this shit is gettin’ old…are the computer spooks out lookin’ fer the problem with the format?? What the fuck is up??!!

    KEEP THE FAITH BUT VERIFY!!!

  44. SouthernDragon says:

    Marcy, you can get your extra copy signed by the prosecutors and judges at The Hague. And the witnesses for the prosecution. Then you can donate it to Shrub’s fantasy library. Or give it to mummy dearest.

  45. IrishJIm says:

    Something is wrong with the FDL servers. My problem is when I visit any of the other sub-domains within FDL. Like Emptywheel.firedoglake.com or cliffschecter.firedoglake.com. All of the formating is gone. The headers do not load. Hmmmm. The main Firedoglake page works and looks fine. I am running IE on Windows XP. FYI.

  46. SouthernDragon says:

    I know the techies are scurrying so I’m not going to add to their Friday From Hell.

  47. perris says:

    holy crow, they are running around with their heads exploding, they are now trying to say scotty is “harming the soldiers”

    oh mah fuhkihng gawd;

    BARTLETT: He knew better than most that all this would be doing is pouring gas on a political fire in which, you’re right, some of the victims of all this political uproar are the very people out here in America who are supporting our troops, those who have loved ones in harms way.

    they are really pulling out every stop they can think of

    SCOTTY HIT THEM BETWEEN THE LEGS AND THEY ARE REELING!

    quote from think progress by the way

  48. Ann in AZ says:

    Surprises me that the WH allowed the book to be published; moreover, it is surprising that they are now feigning surprise about the contents, since they were the ones that had to approve the book prior to publication!

  49. perris says:

    Surprises me that the WH allowed the book to be published; moreover, it is surprising that they are now feigning surprise about the contents, since they were the ones that had to approve the book prior to publication!

    they had it for a month and ”they are shocked and disspointed”

    how inept is THAT

  51. austintex says:

    CNN sez that McCain’s BFF Cheney is speaking for him (McCain) at a fundraiser.

    Darth Cheney is the kiss of death.

    Gotta love it!

  52. Hmmm says:

    OT and FWIW — In Safari I find the formatting problems disappear when I close the window and open EW.FDL.com in a new one.

  53. TomR says:

    Citizen92 said:

    —-
    So the US “forced” Pakistan to put the screws Khan to lie about the program? To what end?

    To take the pressure of of BushCo’s inability to come up with answers on how the North Koreans, Libyans and Iranians got their nukes? Well, surely having the CIA think that problem was nipped certainly set us back.

    Or maybe it was to get the CIA off the case so the Bushies could act clandestinely with the DPRK or the other axis members? I’m sure the nonproliferation team refocused efforts elsewhere when Khan was found to be “the culprit?”
    —-

    Maybe the answer has something to do with what Sibel Edmonds revealed:

    http://www.theyoungturks.com/s…..l-Edmonds-

    – Tom

  55. Hmmm says:

    Ad hominem attacks are always a sure sign that the other side is totally confident they’re in the right, aren’t they? Yeah, I’m pretty sure I learned that in Rhetoric 101. Y’know, back in school. At Regent. /s

  56. Bluetoe2 says:

    OT, but what in the world is Rachel Maddow, a bright articulate voice of reason, doing on a program with David Gregory? He’s nothing more than a news fluffer that has the same function as a fluffer on a porno set. Do what is necessary to insure the politicians in power perform for the audience. Why isn’t she challenging him at every turn. Why does E.J. Dionne allow David Brooks to get away with the crap he spews? Oh, that’s right, they are buddies and regulars on the cocktail weenie circuit in D.C. and NY.

  57. Adie says:

    Hi guys. Can someone please tell me what I should know re status of site.

    I’m a lil’ scared-i-cat. I miss my friends at the Lake, but had a rough afternoon trying to connect, much less converse…

    ASAP would be great. I can wait, but checking back endlessly doesn’t help me or you, depending on circumstances.

    Thanks much.

    for some considerable time today: pc XP firefox (tho even iexplor. didn’t work any better)

    Still pretty much flying blind w/o normal set-up appearing on screen.

    No hurry, unless someone has a magic wand that i didn’t know about. thanks.

  58. Adie says:

    suspicion of an old lady:

    goober thinks throwing a wrench in FDL gears will stop the world from twirling.

    *sigh*

  60. Mauimom says:

    Here’s what RawStory says. This is what I remember from Scottie on KO:

    White House doesn’t deny McClellan’s Bush-to-Libby leak allegation
    Eric Brewer
    Published: Friday May 30, 2008

    In Scott McClellan’s recent statements to the press regarding his apostasy, he says that one of the things that pushed him over the edge was the revelation on April 6, 2006, that President Bush had secretly authorized the selective release to reporters of classified information, something that both the president and his then-spokesman McClellan had been vigorously condemning in their public statements about the Valerie Plame leak case.

    “I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the president trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the [Libby] legal proceedings,” McClellan told the Today Show’s Meredith Viera on Thursday morning. “The revelation was that it was the president who had authorized, or enabled, Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the president that that’s what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, were the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said, ‘Yeah, I did.’ And I was kinda taken aback.”

    So “taken aback” evidently that he announced his resignation thirteen days later.

  61. freepatriot says:

    scottie doesn’t deny a lot of shit

    in fact, scottie admits a lot of shit

    but I ask ya;

    have you ever seen a less credible witness ???

    ooops, I forgot, you saw scooter’s character witnesses, didn’t you

    never mind …

Comments are closed.