Saving Face test drive: 1. Nothing has been PROVEN. 2. Wilson was the one that outed his wife to bring heat on the administration because he disagreed about the war... afterall, why would the WH do such a reckless thing? 3. Anonymous sources don't mean anything. 4. Nobody's lying to the American people, we just have to wait and see what the investigation turns up... it's not like Clinton lying to the camera or anything. 5. Plame wasn't that important an asset anyway. 6. Novak made it up.
What is ironic is that Wilson was the former ambassador to Niger... that's why he was sent on that mission. He knew the principals in Niger who you would want to talk to and quickly confirm or refute information such as this. When he doesn't come up with what the Administration wants to hear and in fact embarrasses it, some people, apparently, decide to exact revenge. An act of high treason and incredible stupidity.
Highlights from today's press briefing... _____________ QUESTION: Scott, The Washington Post is reporting that the President is not going to ask his top aides about it, who did the leak. Is that true? And, if not, why not? McCLELLAN: Well, what did I just say? I think I just answered that question. I said that there has been nothing that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest that there was White House involvement. QUESTION: Is anyone going to, at least, you know, ask around? Say, what's the deal with -- McCLELLAN: And, secondly, the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to look into matters like this. QUESTION: If anybody did this, will they be fired? McCLELLAN: Mark, if -- one, no one was authorized to do this. That is simply not the way this White House operates. And if someone leaked classified information, it is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. You're jumping to a lot of assumptions now about the White House. We -- QUESTION: (Inaudible.) McCLELLAN: No, I mean, I think that's obvious -- it's obvious, that if someone leaked classified information of this nature, yes. QUESTION: Scott, what about the questions over the credibility of the administration investigating itself -- i.e., Justice doing the investigation rather than, as some Democrats have called for, an outside investigation? McCLELLAN: We believe the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to look into matters like this, as they would in any other matter of this nature. QUESTION: So you're rejecting the call -- QUESTION: Why is it not a conflict for a political appointee, the Attorney General, to be investigating -- McCLELLAN: Well, one, you're assuming certain things are happening. The Department of Justice, I believe, will tell you that there are procedures that they follow. You need to ask them, one, those questions: are they; who's involved. So you need to ask them those questions. QUESTION: You're suggesting -- you're suggesting that somehow a political appointee, such as the Attorney General, will be -- McCLELLAN: Well, you're assuming that he is involved in some sort of probe or looking into this. QUESTION: Are you saying that he was the -- McCLELLAN: Ask the Department of Justice. I don't know who would be involved and whether or not they -- where this stands, in terms of the Department of Justice looking into this. You're assuming certain things. QUESTION: Let's try to quantify what kind of investigation is going on. Has -- McCLELLAN: If there is one. QUESTION: Has the Department of Justice -- McCLELLAN: I mean, I saw the news reports where it said that the first step for the Department of Justice would be to look to see whether or not it warrants further looking into. QUESTION: Has the Department of Justice contacted the Counsel's Office here, or anyone else in the White House -- McCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: -- to start asking questions? McCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: No contact at all? McCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: Zero? You checked today? McCLELLAN: Yes. I mean, well, as of about an hour ago. So, no. But, obviously, we will cooperate in any way if there are requests. QUESTION: Does the President want to know whether or not there was a leak? McCLELLAN: The President -- I said at the beginning -- believes that leaking classified information is a serious matter and that it should be pursued to the fullest, and the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to do so. There is a lot of speculation in the media reports -- QUESTION: -- inquiries? McCLELLAN: -- let's let the appropriate agency look into it. QUESTION: What about an independent counsel? There are some senators who are ready to call for that. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think I answered that; someone asked that a minute ago. We believe the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to look into this matter. QUESTION: -- just flatly reject the idea -- McCLELLAN: I think the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency. QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he -- McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've -- and I've spoken clearly to this publicly that -- but it's -- yes, I've just said it's -- there's no truth to it. QUESTION: But I mean -- McCLELLAN: So I think it doesn't -- QUESTION: But is the President getting his information from you? Or did the President and Karl Rove talk, and were there assurances given that Rove was not involved? McCLELLAN: I've already provided those assurances to you publicly. QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this -- McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved. QUESTION: How does he know that? QUESTION: How does he know that? McCLELLAN: The President knows. QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know? QUESTION: You spoke specifically -- you spoke to Rove specifically about this matter, correct? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? QUESTION: You spoke to Rove specifically about this matter? You asked him whether or not he was the leaker, or -- McCLELLAN: I don't know what the relevance of getting into every private conversation, John -- is, John. I've made it very clear that it's simply not true. QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: What are you basing -- what are you -- McCLELLAN: Someone asked me if I had spoken with him, and I said, yes. QUESTION: And you spoke with him about this issue? QUESTION: Did you ask him, directly? McCLELLAN: I have spoken with him, yes. QUESTION: But the President hasn't spoken with him directly about this issue? You have and the President hasn't? McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Keith. QUESTION: Well, that was the question. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? QUESTION: You spoke directly with Rove about this? McCLELLAN: I have spoken -- I speak to him all the time, on a lot of things. QUESTION: He categorically denied to you -- McCLELLAN: I just told you, it's simply not true. QUESTION: Yes, but you refuse to say whether or not it was Rove who told you it's untrue. McCLELLAN: No, no, I spoke to Rove. I spoke to him about -- no, I spoke to him about these accusations, I've spoken to him. QUESTION: And Rove told you that they were not true -- McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling -- QUESTION: -- or is it just you -- McCLELLAN: That's why I would be telling you what I did. QUESTION: -- or is it just you who is telling us? McCLELLAN: No, I have spoken to him and been assured. And that's why I reported to you and reported to the media that it is simply not true. I like to check my sources, just like you do. (jump) QUESTION: Scott, what does the President think should be done to any officials who might have leaked this? Would he -- how would he want them dealt with? McCLELLAN: They should be pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice. That's what he believes. QUESTION: Would he want them working on his staff? McCLELLAN: I think I answered that question earlier, I said, no. The President expects his administration, everyone in his administration to adhere to the higher standards of conduct. And that would not be. QUESTION: Scott, the allegation is being made that by virtue -- McCLELLAN: But you're speculating about a lot of things at this point. QUESTION: The allegation is being made that by virtue of her position, Joe Wilson's wife was able to send him on a plum trip to Niger to investigate these allegations of Ira QUESTION: buying uranium. Does the White House consider an unpaid 10 day trip to Niger a boondoggle? McCLELLAN: John, I think that this issue was addressed back in July when Mr. Wilson was speaking about it. QUESTION: But would you characterize a 10 day trip -- McCLELLAN: No, I would characterize it the way we characterized it back in July. QUESTION: Scott, would the President cooperate with a congressional investigation into this Wilson matter? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any -- QUESTION: Does he think that -- McCLELLAN: I'm not -- I think I've said that he believes the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to look into it. They are the ones charged with it.
Wow. Thanks for keeping us informed. I missed the press conference. Nice signature rimrocker, by the way.
McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved. QUESTION: How does he know that? QUESTION: How does he know that? McCLELLAN: The President knows. QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know? QUESTION: You spoke specifically -- you spoke to Rove specifically about this matter, correct? McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? QUESTION: You spoke to Rove specifically about this matter? You asked him whether or not he was the leaker, or -- McCLELLAN: I don't know what the relevance of getting into every private conversation, John -- is, John. I've made it very clear that it's simply not true. QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: Based on what? QUESTION: What are you basing -- what are you -- McCLELLAN: Someone asked me if I had spoken with him, and I said, yes. QUESTION: And you spoke with him about this issue? QUESTION: Did you ask him, directly? McCLELLAN: I have spoken with him, yes. QUESTION: But the President hasn't spoken with him directly about this issue? You have and the President hasn't? And so the next chapter begins to unfold ---
why am I not suprised? Assmunch will kill this before it grows... ------------------------------------ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will cooperate with the Justice Department in its initial inquiry into who leaked the classified identity of a CIA operative, <b>but will not launch an internal probe and will not ask for an independent investigation</b>, a spokesman said Monday. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/wilson.cia/index.html
Rumor has it Novak will appear on a special edition of Crossfire this afternoon. If anyone can watch it and report back, it would be greatly appreciated.
Statement by Clark. _________________ General Wesley K. Clark Calls For An Independent Investigation Into Leak of CIA Agent's Identity Little Rock -- General Wesley K. Clark (Ret.), Democratic candidate for President, has called for an independent investigation into an alleged violation of federal law by Bush Administration officials. News reports say that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that Administration officials violated federal law by leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent. "The Administration should not play politics with this matter. This issue is too important for political gamesmanship or to be managed by the John Ashcroft Justice Department," General Wesley Clark said. "The investigation must be independent of the Justice Department - otherwise the investigation could be influenced by political considerations. That is why President Bush should immediately refer this entire matter to a completely independent body - a body with credibility both in our country and with our allies around the world."
For all those frothing at the mouth at another "Yes-we-got-Bush-this-time, he's screwed" Democratic talking point, I hate to pee on your parade but: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/29/143328.shtml I bet Bill would've liked to have invented that "spirit of the moment" excuse about his constant lying. I have to admit, that's a damned good one. I think that about knocks the legs out of that scandal. I think you can quickly cancel the calls for an silly independent prosecutor to investigate a leak to the press, which unfortunately happens in every single admin, Democrat or Republican.
One post and he already blames Clinton. How does this knock the legs out ? Somebody still did it. Duh. That was a weak response, even weaker than usual. Good call on number 4 rimrocker.
Lets see what Novak has to say hum? and I'd like to hear from the <i>other</i> five reporters that were contacted before we start "knocking the legs out of that scandal".
Wow, yeah, the CIA sure 'nough got fooled completely by one little speech in Seattle. Uh-huh. Er, uh, I think the CIA has more information if they recommend that the DOJ investigate the White House!
I think that about knocks the legs out of that scandal. I think you can quickly cancel the calls for an silly independent prosecutor to investigate a leak to the press, which unfortunately happens in every single admin, Democrat or Republican. Sorry, but this isn't a random leak. This is a leak of a CIA operative that put someone's life in danger - those kinds of leaks don't happen every day, and they don't get pushed under the rug. Those are security problems because it's not like every random staffer has access to that kind of information. I believe it's already been said by the papers themselves that senior administration officials were the ones who contacted them. The investigation will (or should) continue to find who it was.
My money is that some lower level flunkie takes the fall for it and is willing to lie under oath (he'll probably nver have to give sworn testimony as republicans in congress will quash it and he'll get a quick pleabargain from DOJ.) in order to save boy genius Karl, and then he gets a cushy job from the right wing think tank network or the mellon scaife when he either gets out of jail or gets done with his community service.
Gentlemen, I think that your tired attempts to pin anything on Bush are getting to be rather humorous. The desparation you exhibit is amazing, but so obvious. Joe Wilson Vowed Vengeance Against Karl Rove They refuse to confirm whether or not she was undercover, which I doubt because analysts usually do not go "downrange." You guys ask how do you know this? I know several guys who after leaving the Corps joined Christians in Action (our little pet name for the CIA), just like Mike Spann, a former Marine who was killed in Afghanistan. If her cover was blown, what was the big deal about revealing her identity anyway? It would be like fixing the barn door after all the cows had come home. Keep trying, folks. Maybe something will stick with the American public.
I know for a fact that your tired attempts to defend Bush at all costs have constantly been humorous!
Well, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Geez, I swear, it's like a gang rape in here on this guy, sans lube and the common courtesy of a reacharound! Even if I'm not going to vote for the guy (Harry Browne, libertarian candidate for me), someone at least needs to add a voice of dissention in this lockstep "Bush sucks" mantra. I dare to be an individual.
OK, in that post you just talked about: 1. gang rape sans lube 2. reacharound 3. Harry Bone 4. Bush sucking. while you're busy slamming stuff. Ummm, maybe you want to put down the the copy of Hustler for a second and take a cold shower.............YoYao? is that you?
