On the Serendipity of Mis-Readings

Rut roh. Some White House reporter didn’t read my post closely enough:

Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle

By Holden Caulfield

Put Impeachment Back On The Table

Q Dana, I wanted to ask you, I know you don’t want to go line-by-line with the whole book thing, the Scott McClellan book — but I’m thinking you may want to address this because there’s something out there. Not having the benefit of having the book in front of me, there’s an allegation apparently made by Scott in the book that a reporter shouted a question to the President, on a trip that Scott had been with him on, just as they were getting on Air Force One, and it was Valerie Plame-related. Basically, it prompted Scott to ask the President directly, "Were you the one who authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name?" And the President apparently told Scott, "Yes, I was."

MS. PERINO: I don’t know. Obviously I wasn’t there and — obviously I don’t know the context. I think the — it’s hard for me to say. I don’t have the book in front of me either and I don’t know.

But what I do know is that what we have said before, which is defending the President’s decision to go to war is something that we have done repeatedly, and the suggestion that the President had sent Joe Wilson to Africa was false. And so I don’t know if that was what it was in regards to or not, so I’m — I don’t know.

Q But I mean, if that’s an allegation that’s out there, that the President is supposedly responsible for the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, is that something you want to —

MS. PERINO: I don’t think that’s what Scott says in the book and I think that everyone should go back and look at it a little bit more carefully. I don’t think that’s what he says.

Q Can you comment more generally about whether the President has ever authorized the leaking of classified information?

MS. PERINO: I’m not aware of that, no. And I also know that President Bush would never ask anyone to knowingly go out and lie. But do we defend the President’s record vigorously? Yes, you bet we do. And I think — parts of the book that suggest that there was propaganda or — you know, I just don’t know how substantiated that is in the book. I would ask to — you know, where, when, how, specifically? What are you talking about, were there charts, were there et cetera that you thought were lies? And I don’t think that he’s saying that either. So I just question the accounts.

As I think I made clear in the post that appears to have precipitated this question, Scottie McC only explicitly said that Bush authorized the leak of the NIE:

During the interview, Scottie revealed the two things that really pissed him off with the Bush Administration. First, being set up to lie by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And second, learning that Bush had–himself–authorized the selective leaking of the NIE.

[snip]

But now we’ve got George Bush, confirming that he, the President of the United States, authorized the leaks of "this information." Now, though Scottie refers, obliquely, to "this information," he explicitly refers only to the NIE. [my emphasis]

The rest of the post, of course, showed that the NIE story is, at least in substantive part, a cover story for what an abundance of circumstantial evidence suggests was an order, on the part of Dick Cheney, to leak Valerie Wilson’s identity, too.

Of course, the odds that Dana "Pig Missile" Perino would ever give me the opportunity to ask the question, "McC says Bush authorized the NIE leak, but since the NIE leak is a cover story, does that mean he authorized the Plame leak?" are approximately nil. So I’ll take this mis-reading of my post as a surrogate.

Because, when you look at her answer, she refuses to deny that Bush authorized the leak of Plame’s identity.

Once she recovers from her initial shock of being asked if the President authorized the leak of CIA spy, Dana "Pig Missile" correctly states that Scottie McC didn’t say Bush authorized the leak of Plame’s identity.

I don’t think that’s what Scott says in the book and I think that everyone should go back and look at it a little bit more carefully. I don’t think that’s what he says.

Dana Pig Missile also correctly denies that Bush authorized leaking classified information.

Q Can you comment more generally about whether the President has ever authorized the leaking of classified information?

MS. PERINO: I’m not aware of that, no.

Remember, the idea here was that–as soon as the President authorized a leak–then the information was effectively declassified. (Sort of. It’s only declassified if you agree to say it came from a Former Hill Staffer.)

But, astoundingly, Dana Pig Missile’s first response, before retreating to the classic non-denial denial that the President didn’t send Joe to Niger (Jeebus, Pig Missile, no one ever said Bush sent Wilson! The idea was that Cheney had sent him!) is to refuse to say no.

I don’t know. Obviously I wasn’t there and — obviously I don’t know the context. I think the — it’s hard for me to say. I don’t have the book in front of me either and I don’t know.

But what I do know is that what we have said before, which is defending the President’s decision to go to war is something that we have done repeatedly, and the suggestion that the President had sent Joe Wilson to Africa was false. And so I don’t know if that was what it was in regards to or not, so I’m — I don’t know.

"I don’t know … I don’t know … it’s hard for me to say … I don’t know … I don’t know … I don’t know."

Dana Pig Missile may be a beautiful blond who doesn’t know the difference between the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. But she’s not stupid enough to get stuck in the same situation that got Scottie McC into the position of covering for the Administration’s lies in the first place. She’s not going to deny something–at least not something pertaining to the Plame investigation–when she doesn’t know whether it’s true or not.

I look forward to how she walks this back tomorrow.

image_print
73 replies
  1. phred says:

    Well, well, well, look what you have started — serendipitous indeed. However, I am curious… I know Pig Missile is the official spokesperson for the WH, but I find it hard to believe that when she took over for Snowjob, anyone would have sat down with her to lay out all the land mines laid by all her predecessors or given her a detailed list of times when Bush lied about stuff, so she better watch her p’s and q’s.

    I hope tomorrow that the WH reporter takes another tack, re-read President Bush’s quote about finding the leakers and insisting everyone in the WH cooperate with the investigation and ask Pig Missile to explain how Bush could have made such a statemnet knowing that he himself had approved the leak of the NIE. How much you wanna bet Pig Missile’s head will simply explode?

    • emptywheel says:

      I don’t have that much confidence in the White House Press Corps. You gotta trick them into asking a question by setting up a misreading of something.

      • phred says:

        LOL : )

        Right you are — well done then. Keep misleading the WH press horses to water, you’ll get ‘em to drink yet ; )

      • FormerFed says:

        EW, Amen to that! Helen and Gregory are about the only ones with any guts and Gregory is off doing his MSNBC schtick. The MSM is just as bad now as it was before the Iraq runup. Exhibit # 1 – the Rent a General silence from them.

  2. WilliamOckham says:

    I wish I could believe that the reporter was being really clever, but sadly, no, I believe he (or she) has reading comprehension problems. The phrasing of that question sounds a lot like David Gregory. He probably just overheard Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann talking about your post…

    • emptywheel says:

      I would buy that all around.

      Of course, Gregory–at least according to Ari–has personal knowledge that the leak was coming from those close to Bush…

      • Leen says:

        Yeah and all we are hearing from David Gregory and Chris Matthews is election election and more election. Who sets up the programming at MSNBC?

  3. Redshift says:

    When Perrino was on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart asked her about having to say things that she knows aren’t true, and she said she’d never had to do that. At the time, I just took it to mean that she’s a sociopath who is capable of believing whatever she says is true, but this incident makes me wonder if it’s more that she’s as good as Fleischer and Snow at “don’t tell me things I don’t want to know.” That is, she has no problem with saying things that any rational person could figure out are false, as long as she doesn’t know they’re lies. (Also perhaps useful for avoiding legal jeopardy.)

    • PetePierce says:

      Perino is a classic air head who doesn’t have a 6th grader’s competency in history and is so excited to be in that job she doesn’t give a damn what she is ordered to say. She doesn’t understand the signifcances of the lies that Gillespie orders her to get her ass out and tell and basically she doesn’t understand 75% of the questions put to her. That was obvious today.

      • Redshift says:

        No, she’s not just an airhead, she’s much more evil than that. An administration with this much to hide would never take the chance of putting out a front man who isn’t smart enough to understand what has to remain hidden.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          Agree that Dana (with help from Bolton) makes certain that she doesn’t know anything that would get her in a clear lie. But when I read this:

          And I also know that President Bush would never ask anyone to knowingly go out and lie…. What are you talking about, were there charts, were there et cetera that you thought were lies…

          I envisioned a flock of winged, squealing sows flying in circles over the WH howling, “Damn that little Pig Missile — what the hell does a Lying Et Cetera look like?!

          And no, she didn’t deny that GWBush leaked.

          Pig Missile’s got her work cut out for her now. How does she avoid facing the fact that Scotty provided the final puzzle piece?
          Scotty, of all people… the irony!

        • PetePierce says:

          You’re probably absolutely correct there. I was a little fast/and oversimplified because this whole administration’s chutzpah just drives me up a wall. Perino while not the brightest tool in the shed by any means probably knows the areas where she’s lying pretty well even if she’s ‘history Lipstick on the Bay of Pigs challenged’.

          If someone understands why Fitz doesn’t have complete control over all his case material, investigative, work product, etc. etc. and why Mukasey has any say so in a decision to release material please straighten me out. I remember some very involved arguments before Reggie Walton and also (I’d have to go back and pull them) some arguing by Fitz’s team and Libby’s appellate attorneys on Fitz’s authorization, duties, and legitimacy to say it very crudely as Special Counsel. The defense was trying to, if I’m reproducing this correctly, disqualify some of Fitz’s evidence based on his authorization to gather it. If I’ve misphrased this someone will hopefully correct me.

          Why in the hell isn’t it PatFitz who has complete sayso over what can be released.

          I also remember a comment from LHP yesterday, as to the fact that Hank Waxman had written letters for material but not actually issued a subpoena. LHP was indicating that the only route for him to get material was to issue a subpoena (probably cynically because she knew they don’t have a track record of responding to letters at all), and LHP said that PatFitz could go to court to say he has a subpoena (I suppose to get the court to order the AG to turnover/authorize PatFitz to release say interviews of Rove, Cheney, and Bush that he conducted.

          Why in the world doesn’t PatFitz as special counsel have complete autonomy over every interview he conducted, and all the FBI investigatory material that was done under the wing of his SC investigation–and I’m also referencing Christy’s post in January “Memo to Mukasey–Release the material” as well?

  4. skdadl says:

    (Jeebus, Pig Missile, no one ever said Bush sent Wilson! The idea was that Cheney had sent him!)

    Confused reporter is one thing. Seriously confused press secretary is quite another, especially when she’s making an unnecessary denial — isn’t that about the worst misstep she could make?

    I think of her as the WH kindergarten teacher, but then I’m a girl and not susceptible to those odd necklaces she wears. (I don’t get the whole Washington necklace number; I’m much better on the ties — could we please get past the tone-on-tones?) I often wonder why sane adults are willing to sit through sessions with her, or, by now, any WH press secretary. Honestly: what do the reporters think they’re going to get out of that?

      • klynn says:

        This comment should have come with a spew alert. Cleaning up Mr. Klynn’s new keyboard right now…He’s only restraining his frustration because after reading your comment, he said he would have spewed too!

  5. PetePierce says:

    You had commented on Fitz’s control on the previous thread with Bmaz. I am not clear why according to the special counsel statutes, Fitz would not have complete control of his material gathered and used in the Libby case by his staff. I remember Christy Hardin Smith’s post in January, and again at the time I remember being puzzled as to why Mukasey would have control of Fitz’s interview materials of Cheney, Rove, and Bush, particularly considering the arguments that Fitz made so vigorously during trial to Judge Reggie Walton, and those he made in the appellate briefing to the D.C. Circuit whose opinion sided with Fitz.

    Christy’s post is here:

    Jane’s post is here:

  6. PetePierce says:

    I had trouble linking in the last post.

    Christy’s post is here:

    Memo To Mukasey: Release The Transcripts

    Jane’s post is here: Office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald: Still Open For Business

    Matt Cooper who was almost sent to prison for contempt, said earlier on MSNBC that Samborn, Fitzie’s press spokesman and also an AUSA on Fitzie’s team have “No Comment.” That was the same response Jane got when she contacted them in March to see if they had vital signs. How many copies will be purchased by the US Attorneys Office for the Northern District of Illinois and are they going to do anything about this or leave it for the next administration to pick up and complete their unfinished investigation?

    They go into another week with no Rezko verdict, but marshalls are after Tony for alledgely not paying a gambling debt in Vegas. Apparently things aren’t staying in Vegas for Tony Rezko–they’re metastasizing to Chicago. Even if Rezko were acquited in Chicago or the jury hangs, he would be extradited to face some Vegas music that’s not Celine Dion apparently.

  7. pdaly says:

    Congrats, emptywheel, serendipity or not.

    Looks like the WH reports read just the headlines (”George Bush Authorized the Leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity”).

    Looks like you can use that to your advantage when writing any future post. Bullet points. They want bullet points.

  8. pdaly says:

    Maybe another of your post titles could be “NIE was the White House’s code word for Valerie Plame”

      • LS says:

        Yes, yes, and yes….Magic Man…Matrix…NIE…Turdblossom…Stretch….

        Go back and insert Valerie Plame everywhere they referred to the NIE…and see what fits.

        They give nicknames for everything and everybody…

  9. maryo2 says:

    Date of EO giving VP declassification authority: March 25, 2003

    Executive Order by President Bush, No. 13292, that amends President Clinton’s Executive Order on National Security Information. The Vice President’s “presence” in the Executive Order increased by 1000%. Instead of just one mention in the Executive Order, Cheney’s office is referred to eleven times.

  10. pinson says:

    Two other interesting points about Scotty’s Today Show interview.

    First, he seems to be referring to the NIE specifically, but more generally he says: “the revelation was that it was the president who had authorized or enabled Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information.” I’d say that Scotty’s not being coy here, or talking just about the NIE. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s deliberately saying that Bush gave Scooter the go ahead to out Valerie. Since he’ll be doing a lot more interviews over the next few days, I’m betting we’ll get to find out one way or another soon enough.

    Second, right after he makes the assertion about Bush admitting he had authorized the leak, Scotty says that that was the moment he realized he had to leave the administration.
    “I was kind of taken aback. And you know, that was for me, I came to this decision that at that point I needed to look for a way to move on.”

    It’s a pretty startling thing to say. Pretty much – it was then I realized I was working for some really despicable people and needed to get out. If it was just the NIE, would he have known all the particulars the consequences? I doubt it. He realized on the plane that Bush had just admitted to going along with screwing the Wilsons in order to keep selling the war. No wonder the reaction has been so out of control. They’re terrified.

    • emptywheel says:

      Agree on all counts. In just about every discussion of the NIE cover story, they use “the information”–even, to some degree, when Libby first told the story.

      • skdadl says:

        “The information” — this is beginning to remind me of “other intelligence activities,” which I suspect is probably one of the few lines AGAG ever spoke (repeatedly) that was not an outright lie, however much it was an evasion.

        And re pinson @ 21: Since we’re on a roll here with EW soundbites, how’s about an EW post titled “it was then I realized I was working for some really despicable people and needed to get out”? Followed by an open invitation to recovering Bushies to come here and join us in warm fellowship?

        • pinson says:

          Being a big fan of Marcy’s awesome reading skills, that would certainly make my day!

          And you gotta wonder if Scotty himself hasn’t happened by EW once or twice. Given his comments, he seems to be quite familiar with the ins and outs of the Plame saga.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Totally agree. Any bets on how long it’s going to be before JimmyJeffGuckertGannon starts dishing about Scotty McK? Generally, with the WH, there’s about a 36 hour period of hysteria, followed by vicious personal smears.

      FWIW, Scotty was robotic and often toneless at the WH — certainly his last year — which suggests that at some level he had doubts about the information he was giving; in today’s MSNBC interview, he appears to be more animated and lifelike.

      • Loo Hoo. says:

        Wouldn’t that be just as bad for the WH as for McClellan? Shooting yourself in the foot?

  11. wavpeac says:

    This is going to be several days of good reading. That and the torture tapes upstairs. Whew!! gold mine.

  12. pdaly says:

    I’m not sure what to make of Meredith Vieira’s comment “no problem” when Scottie thanks her at the beginning of the interview for having him on the Today show. No problem as in “Our pleasure. Glad you are here, Scottie” or no problem as in “I’m not afraid of what you have to say against our White House but your presence is annoying me just a little, not a lot.”

    I had trouble finding the video that starts at the beginning of the interview. After a little searching, found one here.

    She does thank him for coming first and then mutters no problem.

  13. Hmmm says:

    Ack, EPU’d:

    Huh. I wonder whether anyone will be able to dig up a video clip of the reporter — wonder who it was? — yelling the question to Scotty.

    For that matter, I wonder whether Air Force 1 has a recording system on board and whether the tapes from that date can be subpoenaed. …Nixon time loop!

  14. phred says:

    One other thing about the WH hysteria about Scotty… It occurs to me that BushCo feels safe from impeachment because Pelosi took it off the table. I remain convinced (albeit with no proof) that this is an act of self-preservation of some sort. She was probably briefed on some of BushCo’s more dubious (aka illegal) acts and perhaps she agreed (implicitly or explicitly) to something she would prefer us not to know. So impeachment based on spying on citizens or abusive treatment of detainees is out.

    But I think the Plame case is entirely different. That was a WH hit job that involved no Dems at all. If the Dems kept the impeachment proceedings narrowly focussed on outing Plame, there is no threat to anyone in the Dem leadership. I think this is why there appears to be widespread panic emanating from the WH on this, they know they are vulnerable.

  15. jnardo says:

    At the risk of clouded memory, there’s a substantive difference between Scotty and Tony/Dana. I always thought that McClellan, though being careful, had a relationship to the truth different from his replacements. I remember him coming out and saying he had asked Karl Rove if he was involved in the CIA leak and came back and reported the answer. Tony/Dana, as you point out, do the evasion dance – never get caught in a lie, never quite tell the truth.

    On another note, you might ought to put the question for the reporters to ask in bold at the top of your post – with simple words and elementary school syntax, no abstraction allowed. Did the President personally declassify of the NIE that was then leaked by Scooter Libby, the Vice President’s then Chief of Staff, to Judith Miller, then a New York Times reporter, in June 2003, as described by Scott McClellan in his recent book [What Happened…]?

    • FrankProbst says:

      Over at DKos they’re liveblogging Scotty on Olberman’s show, and multiple commenters claim he said explicitly that the disclosure that W authorized was not limited to the NIE, it specifically included VPW’s identity. Gotta wait for the YouTube to confirm.

      Awaiting link. If this is true, then…well, I’m waiting ’til I see it with my own eyes.

    • bmaz says:

      I thought I heard him say something to the effect of he didn’t think the President knew specifically about that

      • FrankProbst says:

        I thought I heard him say something to the effect of he didn’t think the President knew specifically about that

        I’m still waiting for the video, but the commenters at kos make it sound pretty damning.

  16. Pat2 says:

    Ms.Perino has a record of using subs for Friday press briefings —

    Here’s betting that Scott Stanzel fills in tomorrow and “would love to be able to answer your question but doesn’t know those details.”

    Then, by Monday, all will be forgotten with the press corps(e) and it’ll be on to the next topic to gloss over.

  17. Hmmm says:

    bmaz, you were right and the DKos commenters were not: “…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.

    Sorry sorry sorry all for the false alarm.

  18. skdadl says:

    O/T: Khadr trial: this is suspect:

    The military judge in the Omar Khadr trial in Guantanamo Bay has been relieved of his duties, a move that Mr. Khadr’s defence counsel claims is a direct result of the judge siding with the defence on a number of evidence disclosure issues in the controversial military tribunal case.

    In a brief e-mail message circulated Thursday afternoon, Military Commissions chief judge, Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, announced that Colonel Peter Brownback, who has served until now as the judge in the Khadr case, is to be replaced by another colonel, Patrick Parrish.

    Defence officials in Washington told The Globe and Mail that Col. Brownback had been planning to retire. However, it was not clear why the judge would retire in the middle of an ongoing military tribunal case.

    Mr. Khadr’s U.S. military defence lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Bill Kuebler, said the sudden change of judge comes after a recent commission hearing in which Col. Brownback “threatened to suspend proceedings in the case of Omar Khadr if prosecutors continued to withhold key evidence from Omar’s lawyers.”

    Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler added that Col. Brownback said at the time he had been “badgered and beaten and bruised by Major [Jeff] Groharing since the 7th of November, to set a trial date.”

    Brownback has not been a softie, either. He ruled that the trial could go ahead, over objections from Khadr’s attorneys about Khadr’s status as a child soldier at the time he was apprehended. But he also took a firm line with the prosecution very shortly afterwards, insisting that they produce interrogation logs that they apparently don’t want to produce. (I’ve got that reference somewhere.) And now, suddenly, he is “retiring,” according to the DoD.

    You should be very proud of your Lt-Cmdr Kuebler. He took Khadr’s case to the Supreme Court here, and he gave superb testimony to a Commons subcommittee. He is trying to stop Khadr from being the trial run for the big show trials, and he deserves all the support he can get.

    • bmaz says:

      This is bullshit. Judges, military or otherwise, do not start cases they know they are not going to be able to complete, and certainly don’t do so without advising the respective parties of the possibility. Now, in fairness, I don’t think the actual “trial” has started yet; but this does not detract from what I just said, at least in my opinion. Short of having the US government simply declare “they are witches, burn em”, I am not sure how much more they could do to taint and make a mockery of justice in these proceedings. Absolutely pitiful. And by the way, the Canadians should be screaming like holy hell over this and demanding that Khadr be turned over to them; at a minimum they should be interjecting formal protests and demands for regularity.

    • PetePierce says:

      I wonder if any of this is going to be impacted by the opinion that is going to release sometime probably next week since all the justices like to scatter for their European luxury assignments lecturing in Vienna or Florence, etc. and that would be Boumediene v. Bushie.

      • skdadl says:

        I’m quite worried about that, actually. I need one of the lawyers to explain the nuances, but as I understand it, Boumediene not only challenges the legality of Boumediene’s detention but asks the court to rule on the constitutionality of the MCA, and you guys and other American friends have me thinking that this court is not going to make us happy on that score.

        yonodeler @ 62, Lt-Cmdr Kuebler asserted categorically before the Commons subcommittee that Canada was Khadr’s only realistic chance (I don’t want to put words in his mouth until I can find the direct quote, but he was even more categorical about the process at GTMO than that), so bmaz @ 52 is right (as always).

        Also, the SCC judgement (asserting that Khadr’s rights had been violated, that the Charter still applies to actions of Canadian officials overseas, and requiring the GovCan to hand over documents to the defence) depended heavily on SCOTUS decisions (as one of the legal bright lights here noted a few threads back), so inevitably we are also watching your Supremes in all these cases.

  19. sojourner says:

    I just have to wonder if Scotty’s verification of what we knew all along will open the door for others to do the same thing. It is one thing to “know” something, and something else again to have it voiced by someone else.

    It also makes it easier for someone else to open their mouths and speak the truth. Maybe it is because there is safety in numbers or something. For whatever his reason for doing so, I am glad that he has opened his mouth finally. Perhaps we can all begin to feel sane again…

  20. bmaz says:

    Whoo Lawdy. Jumpin Jiminy, the fine folks at McClatchy that did get it right, at the time, and actually did do the real reporting and analysis, in the runup to the Iraq War literally filet open and eviscerate David Gregory, Russert, Williams, Gibson, and all the other self serving media shills (and McClellen too) that have been whinily spewing BS to cover and deny their complicity since the news of McClellen’s book broke two days ago. This is a first rate take down of the finest order. Go read it. Really. Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay; men among boys.

    That’s What Happened

    • bonjonno says:

      wow. that’s a great summary. thanks bmaz. when you see that all in one place as cold hard facts. Yes. Let’s have some more of that and less infotainment.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Yeowsa! That is riveting reading, indeed — every one of the links off that article are splendid. This link, in particular, is a wowser (partly because it was written the week of the Plame outing):

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/rep…..16313.html

      It’d be worth calculating the real cost of oil today: $4 at the pump, plus $7+ billion/month on the books for Iraq, plus whatever we pay for vet care, plus Homeland Security… probably easily amounts to $12+ gallon if the costs were accurately reflected at the pump.

      Our pricing information is poor, so we make poor economic decisions. And the costs of bad political and social information are also killing us. There’s a case to be made that the quality of information at that McClatchy link is worth its weight in gold.

      That is one hell of a link, bmaz.

  21. klynn says:

    Wow, THAT was quite a read…And they had every reason to write it. Thanks for the link…

    • skdadl says:

      Just to see, I tried reading Other Document #67. Sum readable total of four pages of text: “These techniques are … water-board …,” and then two pages later, “Water Board” (a heading).

  22. yonodeler says:

    Preparing a defense must be made harder by the realistic expectation that attorney-defendant conversations are being monitored and recorded.

  23. BayStateLibrul says:

    Back to square one.
    According to John Dean, impeachment is too late and Scotty’s revelations
    are not enough to tip the scales.
    I’ve been advocating all along that Fitzy must step forward.
    Fitzy “knew it all along”

    Fitzy knows that Libby is a lying sack of shit.
    Fitzy knows that Rove is a lying sack of shit.
    Fitzy knows that Cheney is a lying sack of shit.
    Fitzy knows that Bush is a lying sack of shit.

    McClellan said that he presented everything in the book to the Grand Jury.
    So from the git go, Rove and Libby lied, lied, lied to cover-up.

    It begs the question… why wasn’t Rove indicated for making false statements.

    Fitzy is the only person who knows the entire truth with documentation.
    He needs to pull a Elliot Richardson, resign, tell all, and lay it in Congress’s hands.

    As Archie Cox said: “Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people.”

    If Scotty can do it, Fitzy can do it.
    This letter puts things in perspective

    To the Editor:

    Re “I Knew It All Along” (editorial, May 29):

    I disagree that Scott McClellan has written a “self-serving” book. The position of press secretary to the president is self-serving from the start. Every individual who accepts this position knows that he or she must be the president’s mouthpiece, right or wrong.

    What Mr. McClellan has done with the publication of his book is courageous, knowing that he would face every moralizing repercussion conceivable in helping us understand how far this administration was willing to go in its self-serving treachery. It’s not so much “I knew it all along” as it is “we the people need to know.”

    Jack D. Spiro
    Richmond, Va., May 29, 2008

    • Leen says:

      Is this book by Scottie too little too late? Does this really have to do with Scottie’s conscience or $$$$$?

      Will the American public (the whole world is watching) be left with a system (a congress, justice system) that holds a President accountable for lying under oath about a bj, and then allows the Bush administration to get away with shoving a WMD intelligence snowjob down the throats of Americans via the MSM that has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of Americans and Iraqi people? Will our Justice system and congress allow the Bush administration to get away with declassifying and outing a NOC/Plame/Wilson?

      This is the system we are supposed to have respect for? Some of us are just peasants but we are watching and so are our children. What a perverted, twisted and dangerous message.

      • brendanx says:

        Does this really have to do with Scottie’s conscience or $$$$$?

        The two aren’t mutually exclusive. McClellan destroyed his livelihood in trying to cleanse his conscience; he had no choice but to make money off a book. You’re unwittingly echoing the “aha!” argument of the media and Republicans here.

        • bmaz says:

          I dunno. but after watching him the last couple of days, especially last night; I am inclined to believe it is genuine conscience. Also, according to Jonathan Alter, this publisher does not give out upfront advances above $100,000. Without selling a whole lot of books, I don’t think this is the windfall most people think it is. Time will tell, but McClellen may be what he professes to be; i.e. a man trying to make right with his conscience.

    • Leen says:

      Yeah what was that comment that Fitz made during his first press conference in regard to the Libby trial “Truth is the engine of our Judicial system”. I still want to believe this.

  24. nolo says:

    [brought up from EPU-land,
    in prior thread, on same topic:]

    i have been away for far too long,
    and i appear here, far too late — way
    way down in EPU-topia — but i’ve
    decided to help us all recall what
    george bush sr. — bush 41 — had
    to say to us (not long after his own
    son pardoned scooter libby, for some
    of the above crimes) about people
    like. . .

    his son, and dick cheney, apparently.

    take a look — a one minute video clip,
    from my own july 2007 archives. . .

    and, keep on keepin’ on!

    way to go, EW!

    745-plus diggs!

Comments are closed.