Playing along, if he said "i didn't know plame's status with the CIA", it could be true, if:
He didn't know that she had previously been an undercover agent.
Remember, the information Libby had from the CIA was that she was an analyst. But the investigation was specifically trying to find out if the white house leaked her undercover status. The initial white house refutations were that nobody did that, and that's because nobody there knew she had been undercover.
In that context the statement by McClellan about Libby and Rove "not being involved" makes sense, because neither of them leaked her "undercover" status -- they didn't think analyst status was her "undercover" status, and it is NOVAK who had to explain that he didn't mean "undercover" whan he said "operative".
But really, this is all just fun and games for us, I don't pretend to be smarter than the lawyers Libby has on his team, just like I don't pretend I'm better at political strategy than Carl Rove.
Off topic, but fascinating. I just talked to a friend at work who was at a wedding on Saturday. There was a guy there (he think's named bob but not sure) who worked at the CIA.
This guy yold my friend that he was responsible for the NIE report in October of 2002. He said he PERSONALLY and VERBALLY briefed JAY ROCKEFELLER about the NIE report, including pointing out the dissenting information.
On Sunday, Jay Rockefeller said they only got that report a couple of days before the vote, and that they had to READ it (implying that they didn't have time to do so). But if he got a verbal briefing, his excuse on Sunday is a lie.
I wish I had been at this wedding to talk to the guy.
By reading the commentary here, there are at least 10,000 freepers that are smarter than you. Just aks them.