Scottie

As several folks have pointed out to me, Scottie McC is getting chatty:

The most powerful leader in the world hadcalled upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility helost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So Istood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare ofthe klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publiclyexonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Roveand Scooter Libby.

There was one problem.  It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of thehighest ranking officials in the administration were involved in mydoing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief ofstaff, and the president himself. -from What Happened

I’m not really going to hold my breath that this contains any new revelations. But I am intrigued by one thing: the mention of Andy Card, Bush’s Chief of Staff. We’ve known that Bush, Cheney, Libby, and Rove were intimately involved in this gig. But if we can pull Andy Card in–something Ted Wells alluded to during the trial–it might get interesting.

And, just as a reminder, Card and Scottie left the White House within a week of each other–both happening just before Turdblossom’s final grand jury appearance.

Again–not holding my breath. Just saying.

image_print
  1. Pfunk says:

    empytwheel
    shut up. seriously. just shut the f up. I am sick and tired of reading that you think you know or have a handle on every single thing that comes out of washington.

    you aren’t a reporter. you don’t call anyone to try and chase down leads. you don’t deserve a press credential. that’s why you were denied. you want to have the luxury of reaping all the benefits of a journalist without doing any of the work.

    you’re annoying.

  2. Jeff says:

    I am going to be predictable, but I guess I find the mention of Bush more intriguing than Card, who Libby in his grand jury testimony told us rebuffed his efforts to get himself cleared by McClellan. Obviously, it’s possible there’s some other dimension to Card’s role. But we didn’t really know that Bush was intimately involved in the fall 2003 process of pubilcly clearing first Rove and then Libby, except that one of the most intriguing tidbits at Libby’s trial was one of the defense lawywer’s contention (outside the presence of the jury) that Bush was a part of the chain of actors involved in the public clearing process in fall 2003. This appeared to be news to Fitzgerald, which made it extra-interesting. Beyond that, what do we know?

    I also have to say I think in retrospect what I believe I guessed at the time of Card’s departure, that it signaled that the White House had gotten a strong indication from the special prosecutor that Rove was likely off the hook; and I am sort of inclined to think that that was the expectation in bringing in Rove that last time before the grand jury.

  3. Jeff says:

    Hey Pfunk, did you ever hear the story about how Robert Novak’s old partner Rowly Evans got punked during Iran-contra and ended up publishing information that some really prominent figure either had been or was about to be indicted, when that was in fact not the case? I’m totally serious. It’s really remarkable. You can look it up in Walsh’s old book, I think, Firewall. Or else it’s in Draper’s book. But I’m completely serious, that’s what happened. It’s remarkable.

  4. Frank Probst says:

    What a cute little new troll!

    As for Scottie, I’ll file this under ”NOW you tell us.” Still, I’m curious. I wonder if anyone on Scottie’s list will bother responding to the fact that their former White House spokesman just called them big fat liars.

  5. Rayne says:

    They must have fired Jodi and brought out another kind of minder this time, yes? Or a disgruntled former member of the media who’s lost their press pass to the Prettyman…

    Refresh my memory about 1×2×6, I don’t have your holographic capacity, EW…does this provide additional validation of the 1×2×6’s composition? (seems like there were so many combinations and permutations at one point that I gave up keeping them straight.)

    And yes, the bit about POTUS is intriguing; why the hell would Scotty drop that one now? shouldn’t he still be propping up that gauzy veil of plausible deniability?

  6. Anonymous says:

    The vacuum of empty space abounds in the universe; apparently a mind containing a healthy quotient of it has randomly dropped by for a visit. How fortunate…

  7. Dismayed says:

    Pfunk – a perfect argument for universal health care. Somewhere a prescription went unfilled – or unwritten. Hello, hotel california, we need one more bed.

  8. JGabriel says:

    Actually, Marcy, we’ve all known the president was involved in the Plame coverup, but I think this is the first time anyone on the White House staff, in a position to know, has implicated Bush directly.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong – but if I’m right, that’s pretty big news. Or should be, anyway.

  9. sona says:

    Somewhat OT but did anybody watch Amy Goodman’s interview with Adrian Levy on Democracy Now (Mon 19 Nov)? Pretty explosive stuff. http://www.democracynow.org/streampage.pl

    I had picked up bits and pieces of what Levy had to say from other sources but didn’t realise the extent of US complicity in nuclear proliferation. Do watch it if you can. A rerun of Valerie Plame Wilson at an earlier time by the same players – Cheney, Addington, Libby, etc. Only that time the CIA protected its own from a vicious smear campaign.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Jeff the ”guesser” wrote: …ended up publishing information that some really prominent figure either had been or was about to be indicted, when that was in fact not the case…

    Nice! If I’m following you correctly here, I think that’s a pretty good guess.

    —————

    Scotty’s ghost writer wrote: I had unknowingly passed along false information.

    As opposed to all those other times.

  11. Rayne says:

    &y — agreed, a good guess by Jeff. I can’t think of any other ”angry ghost” with as much motivation.

    Very much in need of exorcism, too.

  12. JohnJ says:

    It looks like that post at FDL yesterday about the State Department sending out new trolls was more domestic than promised. That just confirms two things: The only enemies that the Bush Mafia cares about are domestic; and the intellectual level of this troll matches the typical level of competency of this cabal’s hires and supporters.

  13. sojourner says:

    I am really intrigued that someone has directly implicated the POTUS in the coverup now. And, maybe McClellan is stating the obvious, but it sounds like he is trying to cover his own rear end. Perhaps he is applying for a new job, or had figured out that once you are involved with these people that the slime and stench does not wash off.

    Judging from the comments of the new resident troll, it sounds like something must really be hitting close to home. You can almost judge that by the amount of vehemence they exude…

  14. BlueStateRedhead says:

    Is it OT to ask how is everyone preparing for the biggest eating/traveling/ and especially family political discussing days of the year?
    I am in NYC, so Rudy is no problem. All I have to say is ”more days at Yankee Stadium than at Ground Zero,” and ”you can look it up”* in the Village Voice, and the band stops playing.
    I also need some good anti-anti-Hillary on the basis of character answers to get me through my eating/family discussing. Basis of positions, I can handle.
    * Yogi Berra, ergo Yankee, ergo true in my NYC family.
    Suggestions?

  15. emptypockets says:

    re: ”No new revelations”: But to hear it like this from McLellan will make it a new revelation for many audiences, no?

  16. BlueStateRedhead says:

    While talking about feeding, how about not feeding the troll? Must admit, he is so good at it it makes me miss Jodi’s efforts at argument. But as there is none here, no reason to argue.

    Bye bye pfunk.

  17. freepatriot says:

    if that’s the shit stain’s replacement, the repuglitards must be recruiting their new members on the playground during recess

    but ya gotta give the guy credit. must have been hard to learn to read with such a low IQ

    I thing the repuglictards are really scraping the bottom of the barrel where these trolls are concerned

    I was popping off on-liners at the freepi on kkkarl’s newsweek article, and some putz was so distraught that he tried to insult my mother

    the mouth breathers are being reduced to the most insane extreemes to disrupt the growing wave of revulsion that is overwhelming the repuglitard party, and their efforts just swell the wave

    disaster accomplished

    bye bye repuglitard party

  18. radiofreewill says:

    I’ll bet Karl cinched-up Scottie’s astronaut diapers before every press conference and gave him a pep-talk about who to believe and what to say.

    Then, after each press conference, Karen Hughes changed his astronaut diapers, powdered his bottom, and put Scottie back down in the crib room of the West Wing.

    ”What Happened” shouldn’t be a long book, but once it’s clear just how ’out of the loop’ Scottie was, it ought to be re-titled to ”What Happened While I was Sucking My Thumb?” with a Sub-title of ”Someone Please Tell Me – I was Only the Press Secretary.”

  19. katie Jensen says:

    My greatest interest in the Plame affair all along was the president’s involvement because he lawyered up at the very beginning of the Plame affair, just as Fitz came into the picture. He lawyered up with a criminal lawyer. Which from what I understood per reports at the time, is not common. Also, at the time were swirling rumors that at least one person was killed. Of course those reports could not be confirmed or denied due to classification issues. I imagine that information would be a long time out in coming to the surface.

    Also, from listening and reading every interview I could of Valerie Plame, without her saying it directly, it seems clear to me that major damage and perhaps even death occurred as result of her outting. If the american people can pin any of that on or near the president, it is high treason. And she repeatedly and strongly affirms in each interview that it was treason and that they suspected that the president knew.

    If there is a death linked…the picture changes, but it’s state secret. Someday it won’t be, but I don’t think there is any statute of limitation on murderous treason is there?

    And to the quessing god…these are just guesses, theories, unproven ideas to consider in hopes of fleshing out the truth. I know this and it’s my god given, constitution given, right to discuss them.

    I still pray for the day that the citizens of the United States of America are vindicated and that this administration is held accountable for it’s treason, dangerous, behavior.

  20. KLynn says:

    It’s interesting in human nature…When someone is so frustrated by another’s intelligence, insight and success, the ”crab syndrome” comes on bold… If you have been to a crab bake you know what I am speaking of.

    EW, my Mom always said, ”Left handed compliments (insults) are the most genuine of compliments. Just smile and nod with confidence!”

    We should all smile and nod…

  21. MayBee says:

    I am going to be predictable, but I guess I find the mention of Bush more intriguing than Card

    We knew from the trial that Cheney planned on talking to Bush about clearing Libby’s name along with Rove’s. We know Scotty made that statement, which would lead us to the logical conclusion that Bush asked him to. Thus, Bush had a hand in Scotty making the statement; of course that doesn’t mean Bush knew the information was false.

    I can certainly understand McClellan being upset by that, and I’m sure he wants to redeem his good name. He started to try to do that in the press just before Rove was cleared. The problem for him is that he was really bad at his job, and all the finger pointing in the world won’t change that.

  22. katie Jensen says:

    I agree that there are no facts that link the president directly. But there are enough circumstantial facts that at least beg the question.

  23. Cheryl says:

    EW,

    I always find this site informative and thoughtful. I’m thinking that you should probably be flattered that you have so many trolls on today — although I don’t see Jake D here with Jodi and PFunk. I wonder how much they are getting paid to monitor your site. Anyway, keep up the good work and while I find these trolls annoying and disruptive I try to remind myself that free speech is a good thing. They so rarely have anything constructive to bring to the conversation and the sharing of ideas.

  24. JohnLopresti says:

    The administration has painted state secret on a lot of issues, some which McClellan defended in the early stages of the noWMD retrospective argument against that specific causus belli, though mostly some reckless preternatural irrascibility seemed the likeliest justification; and perhaps McClellan had first person opportunity to take direction from the originator of this TX presidency. I wonder if Fitzgerald has documented all his early paperwork redundantly. In the AZ case abut which bmaz had written a few times, the local county government seems to have lost all record of the clerk’s having registered the subpoenas which shut a newspaper and jailed its owners, demanding a copy of the cookies files of all readers on their website. Surely, some of the best practitioners of the law are in WA-DC, and recordkeeping or records loss would be less problematic areas than in the hustings of AZ.

  25. Jeff says:

    We knew from the trial that Cheney planned on talking to Bush about clearing Libby’s name along with Rove’s.

    If you’re talking about something more than the defense lawyer’s contention, outside the presence of the jury, that Bush was involved (which I mentioned above), please share how we know that. I mean, I take it to be pretty clearly implied that Cheney was going to throw his weight around with Bush, but there was no explicit discussion of that that I can recall. And I would wager a large amount that if one were to assert that among righties, that it was clear that Cheney was going to prevail upon Bush himself to intervene, it would have been vehemently disputed.

    So please, tell us how we know from the trial that Cheney intended to intervene with Bush.

    In any case, the question becomes: what happened?