Posted on 11/20/2007 12:20:12 PM PST by SubGeniusX
WASHINGTON — Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is lashing out at the Bush administration's handling of the CIA leak case in his new book over what he said was intentional misinformation given to him by the administration and claiming the president was "involved" in the media run-around.
The Politico reported Tuesday on its Web site that the publisher of "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington" released a three-paragraph excerpt of the book highlighting the contentious period.
[snip]
"I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby," McClellan wrote.
"There was one problem. It was not true."
McClellan also writes: "I had unknowingly passed along false information."
"And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself." At the time, the president's chief of staff was Andy Card.
McClellan also writes he felt his trust was breeched.
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Alas I stumbled upon Hardball and Chris Matthews thinks this the coup de gras against Bush and the Republican Party.
Scott McClellan is a boob.
Real men (read Cheney and Rumsfeld) would never write “kiss-and-tell” books. They aren’t worried about covering their arses or about their legacies.
Just wait, Colin Powell will be the next “insider” to spill the beans on the “corrupt” Bush administration in an effort to cover his behind and make a few bucks. Since learning that he knew all along that Armitage was the leaker, I have lost all respect for Powell. I get sick every time I think of the financial toll and the personal and professional destruction that has come to Mr. Libby in the wake of the Plame mess. I hope Bush fully pardons Scooter before leaving office in January of 2008.
I think being the son of Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn Sanford Jackson Taylor may have something to do with it.
“and where does Richard Armitage come in.
HE WAS THE LEAKER.
not Libby or Rove. anything they might have done, was after the leak....”
Hissy Matthews is going mental over this right now. And I’m sitting there saying, but what about Armitage? He was the original leaker and he was the one who let the cat out of the bag.
The White House was if anything trying to reveal the Plame game hypocrisy.
Of course the lamestreamers like Matthews who hate Bush are confident they can use the Big Lie technique to their advantage.
It’s working so why not do it again.
Looks like he tried a handful. ;-)
“I do expect more books in the next few years about the Bush administration. I must admit, Bill Clinton, for all the crap he did, he had some real loyal subjects.”
The Clintonite loyalty comes in two flavors: Arkancide and re-election for the Beast.
Being that most of them are of the power seeking variety (over others) the choice among them tends to be unanimous.
“A drunk DeeDee Myers was still worth 10 Scott McClellans.”
A drunk DeeDee driving the wrong way on a one way street is still worth at least 10 Scottys.
As of today he’s a MENSA genius.
Bush deserves this for hiring such a dope. imo
Good ol’ Texas loyalty.
The White House is guilty of nothing more then trying to defend against a load of crap..
If Scotty had a problem with this, it is because he is a sub-par idiot.
Now it appears he has bought the lib line on this crap and actually thinks there was a leak!
There was no leak!
The woman did not have protected status, and the following witch hunt fiasco was illegal, immoral, and down right stupid political theater.
There will be no books from Snot in my stocking....
You know, the Bush administration has an AWFUL track record with former employees...
I may be mistaken, but I don’t remember any other administration with so many turncoats.
So many of the President’s incompetent friends who have caused him grief in the second term—Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, Scott McClellan—have been from Texas. What’s the reason? Smart Texans refuse to leave Texas and go to Washington?
Yes...but only one.
son, you were given the job of “Official Spear Catcher”
Not a flame, just a minor correction.
Unless you can read his mind, you don't know whether he remembered the conversation or not.
All you can really say is that he said he couldn't remember.
A lot of D.C. players have similar memory lapses.
Not this s—t again..
I flipped past Chris myself and had to chuckle.
Q The Robert Novak column last week identified the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative who was working on WMD issues. Novak said that identification is based on information given to him by two administration sources. That column has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.
Q So you’re saying —
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m saying that that is not the way that this President or this White House operates, and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest there’s any truth to it.
Q Are you saying Novak was wrong in saying that it was two administration sources who were the source for —
MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea who “anonymous” is. I often wish —
Q It’s not anonymous. He says senior administration officials.
MR. McCLELLAN: That would be anonymous.
Q Well, that would be senior administration —
Q Like the guy who briefed us last week?
MR. McCLELLAN: Whether it’s anonymous senior administration officials or just anonymous sources, it’s still anonymous.
Q Is Novak lying? Do you think he’s making it up?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you our position. I’ll let the columnist speak for himself.
Q You’re saying, flatly, it did not happen, nobody —
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you, flatly, that that is not the way this White House operates. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that there’s any truth to that.
Q That’s different from saying it didn’t happen. Are you saying, absolutely, it did not happen?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m saying no one was certainly given any authority to do anything of that nature. And I’ve seen no evidence to suggest there’s any truth to it. I want to make it very clear, that is simply not the way this White House operates.
Q If it turns out that somebody in the administration did do that —
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not even going to speculate about it, because I have no knowledge of any truth to that report.
Q What’s the extent of your knowledge? Don’t you want to get some more facts? I mean, how do you know that no one in the administration — Robert Novak has been around for a long —
MR. McCLELLAN: If I could go find “anonymous,” Terry, I would.
Q Does the President support a criminal investigation —
MR. McCLELLAN: Did you have something?
Q Can I follow on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, Richard.
Q I’m not following.
MR. McCLELLAN: You answer his question and — (laughter.)
Q On Iraq, if I may. Do we have any evidence that Uday and Qusay actually had a role in the post-Saddam operations, the so-called, as some Pentagon officials have called it, the guerrilla warfare that’s going on?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that that’s best addressed to our military on the ground there in Iraq, any questions related to that.
Q And do you think that when you capture or even kill an enemy of this kind of stature, what role do you think that potentially plays in trying to damper down some of the violence that we’ve seen over there?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we’ve made statements on this. But you’re asking me now to assume that something has been confirmed. And I want to —
Q So there’s no connection?
MR. McCLELLAN: — wait until there are any updates or any additional information that we receive.
Q First a real quick question. The President is meeting with the Argentinean President tomorrow, correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: Correct.
Q Is there any — should we take that as any sort of an indication that the U.S. is satisfied with the way Argentina has turned it around since the last couple of years? I think the meeting has been moved up.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to let the meeting take place. We did put out a statement in terms of what they would be discussing. I’d refer you back to that statement. Let’s let the meeting take place, and then if there’s a readout from that, we will be — we will be glad to provide you an update at that point. But we did say that they would discuss the bilateral partnership between the United States and Argentina and ways to work together to advance economic growth and prosperity, as well as promoting peace, stability and freedom.
Q Second question. Several times you’ve said — you used the phrase, mountain of evidence, today. At least one of the things that came out of the briefing on Friday is some of that evidence was conflicted, at least in terms of what the various intelligence agencies here were saying, and that the President has not — had not read some of the dissent, most notably with respect to those 16 words that the State Department thought to be highly dubious.
My question — I don’t know if you’ve addressed this in the past, but is the President at all concerned in all of this talk about intelligence that some of his supporters and some of the people in this country may feel misled at all about the imminence of Saddam Hussein’s threat or — as opposed to whether or not the threat could be contained? Because that was really the debate, whether or not Saddam Hussein could be contained or whether he was an imminent threat. Some of the things that you’re talking about go straight to the argument about imminence. So does the President feel or is he concerned that Americans might feel misled?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President was very clear when he outlined the grave and gathering threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. The reason we acted was because it was real and because of the new threats that we faced in a post-September 11 world, the potential nexus between outlaw regimes and terrorists or terrorist organizations, where the damage would be far greater and far more tragic and horrific than anything we’ve imagined before, if that came to bear.
McClellan seems to be implying that ROve and Libby were resonsible for leaking the identity of a covert agent to the press. That is indeed a lie. It would be useful to know exactly what he is talking about but he’ll never see a dime of my money. What a punk.
What is Hillary's most common answer under oath? "I don't know." "I don't recall."
And when asked currently about something that happened back then or today that is a proven fact her reply is always "I didn't know."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.