Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Former WH press Sec. Scott McClellan


Lt_Ripley

Recommended Posts

Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

48 minutes ago

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "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."

Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.

The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field — and often duck — those types of questions.

Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information," she said.

McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.

Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats.

McClellan's book, "What Happened," isn't due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn't get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.

In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.

"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.

Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.

Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.

McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."

In a CNN interview earlier this year, McClellan made no suggestion that Bush knew either Libby or Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan said his statements to reporters were what he and the president "believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."

Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_mcclellan_11" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071121/ap_on_...ak_mcclellan_11</a>

He was the Bushco mouthpeice. Everyword from him processed via Bush , Cheney , staff. .........

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information," she said
lol a lie !!! Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Unlimited

    4

  • Lt_Ripley

    4

  • bathory

    3

  • Timon

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

so bush co's been caught in a few more lies ...lets see outing a CIA agent is treason...and they are all traitors to the flag...how do they get away with it?..I like to refer to them as the beltway gang...biggest crooks that ever rode into town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aside from obviously having a book to sell

he says this

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "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."

He unknowingly passed along false information?

Yet he now somehow knows that the other people knowingly passed on false information?

This guy is out to make a buck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is out to make a buck

he just gave himself up...they have the beltway gang for perjury now...this guy could be the witness...he's in deep whatever he's into..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

huh?

he clearly states that at the time he unknowingly passed on false information

nowhere does the article say how he knows those higher up (other than perhaps rove or libby) also passed on false information.

That he comes out with such vague arguments when launching a book makes things suspect

Why didn't he go to the press when he learned that they asked him to pass on false information (assuming they knew it was false)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aside from obviously having a book to sell

he says this

"There was one problem. It was not true,"

they fed him lies to tell...whats so confusing about that?...lies that endangered peoples lives for political gain...traitorous lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what so hard?

i dunno, maybe like, HOW DOES HE KNOW THEY FED HIM LIES WHEN THEY COULD HAVE BEEN IN EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS HIM?

All this suggests is that Libby and Rove weren't honest or things weren't discussed clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what so hard?

i dunno, maybe like, HOW DOES HE KNOW THEY FED HIM LIES WHEN THEY COULD HAVE BEEN IN EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS HIM?

All this suggests is that Libby and Rove weren't honest or things weren't discussed clearly.

I guess we'll have to read the book...it sounds like he found out later he had been decieved?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aside from obviously having a book to sell

he says this

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "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."

He unknowingly passed along false information?

Yet he now somehow knows that the other people knowingly passed on false information?

This guy is out to make a buck

Scotties Job was to pass on false info. He was a paid liar.

Was Tenet lying too in his book when he said "The United States did not go to war in Iraq solely because of WMD. I doubt it was even the principal cause. Yet it was the public face that was put on it."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDGEBOS9861.DTL

===============

Now, I agree, this group of criminals will say anything to make a buck. Things like Saddam has weapons, and tried to purchase yellowcake, and it could come in the form of a mushroom cloud etc etc...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aside from obviously having a book to sell

he says this

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "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."

He unknowingly passed along false information?

Yet he now somehow knows that the other people knowingly passed on false information?

This guy is out to make a buck

of course - he could be trying only to cover his ass legally as well. He knew full well what he was being fed was a lie. Now when do the hearings for treason begin for Bush ?

Tony Snowjob and he at the mic - you could always tell when a question got too close to the bone and they hadn't prepared for it --- they both would get a queasy look. Know the answer but have to stick to the lie -

Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, seems like we have to trace all the way back to the Clinton Administration why all the warnings about Saddam MWD. Who has been giving all those false info since????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, seems like we have to trace all the way back to the Clinton Administration why all the warnings about Saddam MWD. Who has been giving all those false info since????

Bush.

In July 2001 both by Powell and Rice , declared Saddam contained -- not a threat

Powell, 2001: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Rice, 2001: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsVKDY74C0g

Hello , McFly .......................... you don't make that kind of statements without Intel.. But 911 was a great lie of an excuse to attack Saddam.

Bush ushered out the inspectors before they could finalize their report where Hans Blix was to conclude they had no WMD - because that would stop Bush from going to war and Bush knew it ---- so he pulled them out early.

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1471932,00.html

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994

By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY

UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."

The Bush administration also pointedly declined U.N. offers to help in the postwar weapons hunt, preferring instead to use U.S. inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia.

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.

Demetrius Perricos, the acting executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, said in an interview that the failure to find banned weapons in Iraq since the war undercuts administration criticism of the U.N.'s search before the war.

"You cannot say that only the Americans or the British or the Australians currently inspecting in Iraq are the clever inspectors — and the Americans and the British and the Australians that we had were not," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm

so keep TRYING to blame the Clinton administration for your morons war -- it doesn't wash . Be a man and accept the facts already instead of lying to yourself. Hey , maybe if I said Clinton really didn't have sex with Monica enough times I might believe that too !!!!!! it's moronic.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Well, seems like we have to trace all the way back to the Clinton Administration why all the warnings about Saddam MWD. Who has been giving all those false info since????

At that time that intel was more speculative then anything else.

Bill Clinton was already impeached for lying, whats your point? Nothing good to say in regards to the topic so you just resort to blame shifting, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timing is more than a bit interesting. It seems that if his motives were so pure that he would have come out with this information long before his book hit the shelves...

...not saying it isnt true...just saying the timing is suspect...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timing is more than a bit interesting. It seems that if his motives were so pure that he would have come out with this information long before his book hit the shelves...

...not saying it isnt true...just saying the timing is suspect...

If there wasn't a book about it, then that would be strange. Plus were not talking about a book thats going to make harry potter money or anything, I think the book has little to do with the issue in and of itself and is more of a neccessary evil in terms of how media and newsworthy stories are handled in our soceity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timing is more than a bit interesting. It seems that if his motives were so pure that he would have come out with this information long before his book hit the shelves...

...not saying it isnt true...just saying the timing is suspect...

I have to admit --- in this day and age of the dollar rules - of course he wrote a book. why give away this info for free ? he may need it for legal fees as well. Does knowing people have committed treason but not saying anything make you an accomplice ? like with murder ? or robbery ? Of course he wasn't to my knowledge asked to testify before Fitzgerald.

He may have wanted to come out with it earlier. and then thought ' hey , might as well make some $$ off of this.' I would. And this is about the time it would have taken him to write and publish a book. It's a good thing he published one too ...... he can't take it back and say he didn't say it or the liberals are putting a spin on it. so it's a good thing.

But now we also know why Bush is so skittish about swearing to tell the truth on the bible. And will only allow those to give testimony while not under oath and in private ---

Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.