Shocking. By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago White House Still Silent on Rove Evidence WASHINGTON - The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer. President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove — in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond. For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove. Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA and that she had authorized her husband's trip to Africa to assess allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium for nuclear weapons, according to a July 11, 2003, e-mail by Cooper obtained by Newsweek magazine. The e-mail is now in the hands of federal prosecutors who are hunting down the leakers inside the Bush administration who revealed the name of Valerie Plame to the news media. The revelation about Rove prompted Democratic calls for President Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity, and triggered 61 questions during two press briefings Monday by McClellan. It was McClellan who provided the previous assurances about no role for Rove, but he refused to repeat those assurances Monday. "Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" a reporter asked McClellan. "This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," McClellan replied. McClellan gave the same answer when asked whether President Bush has confidence in Rove, the architect of the president's successful political campaigns. The investigation was ongoing in 2003 when McClellan assured the public Rove wasn't involved, a reporter pointed out, but the spokesman refused to elaborate. In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion" and "It's not true." Rove's own public denials at the time and since have been more narrowly worded: "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name," Rove said last year. Democrats pressed Bush to act. "The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security." Democratic consultant Paul Begala, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" Tuesday, said Rove has both a legal problem and a political problem. He said the legal issue should be resolved by the grand jury. Begala also said the White House has a political problem because "people are going to look at this crowd and say, Gee, we can't trust a thing they say after the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) controversy.' " New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame. Cooper had also planned to go to jail rather than talk, but at the last minute he agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes. One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported. It said "Wilson's wife" — not CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney — authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson's trip to Africa provided the basis for his criticism. Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa. "In the conversation, Karl is warning Cooper not to get too far out in front of the story," Luskin said. "There were false allegations out there that Vice President Cheney sent Wilson to Niger and that Wilson had reported back to Cheney about his trip to Niger. Neither was true." Luskin added, "A fair-minded reading of Cooper's e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050712...WRZJ_wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
The revelation about Rove prompted Democratic calls for President Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity, and triggered 61 questions during two press briefings Monday by McClellan. "The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security." GWB promised to fire the Plame leaker. Rove's lawyer has admitted that Rove leaked Plame name and employer, but implied that Rove did "know" Plame was deep cover. GWB has no choice but to fire Rove at this point.
Rove was caught for leaking to Novak in '92 and was fired by Bush Sr. Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source. Rove was the "only one with a motive to leak": Mosbacher says: "I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go." The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak's column stated: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher." Mosbacher still says Rove did it: Although Novak and Rove continue to deny Rove was the source of the leak, Mosbacher recently stated "I still believe he did it." (Sources: "Karl and Bob: a leaky history," Houston Chronicle, Nov. 7, 2003, ; "Genius," Texas Monthly, March 2003, p. 82; "Why Are These Men Laughing," Esquire, January 2003)
Are you kidding? Bush will just stonewall. He won't acknowlege he said that and the gutless so called liberal press will forget it after maybe raising it once more. If his loyal supporters can hang through the lies and deceptions on Iraq, do you think they care about what they will spin as changing your mind on a personnel matter? So he did it to help with his reelection? All politicians do that and besides he is a good Christian man who has God in his heart and always does the best he can.
Actually what will probably happen is that the admin will sit on the story until some senator or member of the MSM overreaches with some over the top comment and then pounce on it as the usual "liberal" attack to deflect the criticism from the main story. Hell we've already seen it here in this thread from some of the apologists. SOP
Oh man.....I just saw a live press conference w/ McClellan and some angry reporters on TV.....Scott just got, uhh how do some of you guys put it.....PWNED!
I don't know what "PWNED" means, but I hope the reporters stay angry and stay focused on this story like a laser beam. I don't share glynch's pessimism about Rove's ultimate undoing because of the Plame Affair. As a matter of fact, I think there is very real potential for Bush Jr. to have his second term go completely in the tank because of the fallout from this, as the story moves forward, and more of the truth comes out. The Bush/Rove apologists here will eventually regret their "blind eye" towards the shameless lies of this Administration. At the very least, Rove should already have been made to take a leave of absence from his position for "not telling his President the truth" about his leaking of Plame's identity in an attempt to defame her husband. That's going easy on Bush... frankly, he's dumb enough to not believe Rove had anything to do with it. Hell, he's dumb enough to believe that the proof that Rove did leak the knowledge to one or more reporters somehow doesn't fit his own pledge to kick out anyone who had knowledge of the affair and didn't divulge it. Bush has always had a knack for self delusion. The mid-term elections can't come soon enough. The Republicans are going to get a very bloody nose. If no one else has said it yet, then you heard it here first. Keep D&D Civil!!
Today's gaggle... Q Scott, some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance. Does the President see any need for that? MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think there's a lot of discussion that's going on in the context of an ongoing investigation. This is based on some news reports that came out recently. I think you heard me talk about the importance of helping this investigation move forward. I don't think it's helpful for me from this podium to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think it's most helpful for me to not comment while that investigation continues. And these are all issues that some are trying to raise in the context of news reports. I don't think we should be prejudging the outcome of any investigation at this point. Q But the issues of security clearance and criminal investigations are often on very separate tracks. So does the President see any reason, any necessity, at least in the interim, to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance? MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President -- first of all, let me back up -- some of you asked a couple of questions about does the President still have confidence in particular individuals, specifically Karl Rove. I don't want to get into commenting on things in the context of an ongoing investigation. So let me step back and point out that any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the President's confidence. And in terms of security clearances, there are a number of people at the White House that have various levels of security clearance. And I'm confident that those individuals have the appropriate security clearance. I haven't gone around looking at what those security clearances are. Q But, Scott, are you suggesting -- I think it's pretty clear to everybody at this point you don't want to comment on the investigation. But the President has also spoken about this when asked. So does the President -- MR. McCLELLAN: Spoken about? Q Well, he has spoken about these questions that have come up as part of a leak investigation. So does he retain confidence in Karl Rove, specifically? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence. That's why I stepped back from this and talked about it in the broader context. Now, these questions are coming up in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I stated long ago, you all will remember, that the investigation is continuing, I want to be helpful to the investigation, I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation, and that's why I made a decision and the White House made a decision quite some time ago that we weren't going to get into commenting on questions related to that investigation. Q But isn't the difficulty that you have said to the public, dating back to 2003, affirmatively, Karl Rove is not involved, and now we have evidence to the contrary? So how do you reconcile those two things? How does the President reconcile those two things? MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation. I'm not going to do that from this podium. You do point out some statements that were made. I remember well the comments that were made. After that point, I also remember going and testifying in this investigation. I remember well individuals who are involved overseeing this investigation expressing their preference personally to me that we not get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think that's the way to be most helpful as they move forward, and that's why I'm in the position that I am. I'm not going to get into jumping on every news report as the investigation continues and trying to comment on them, because I don't think that's helpful. So I think you have to step back from any individual news story or individual reports. Let's let the investigation take place. I look forward to talking about some of these matters once the investigation is complete. I welcome the opportunity to talk about some of these questions, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so at this time. Q Let's just -- just one final -- MR. McCLELLAN: And I think the American people can understand and appreciate that. Q Well, we'll see. But I just have one final question on this. The question of whether a law has been broken, a crime committed, is a separate matter. You're not going to resolve that; that's for a grand jury to decide. But we know what the facts are. We know that Karl Rove spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife, referring to the fact that she worked at the Agency. You've heard Democrats who say that -- say today that alone was inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish by having the conversation he did? And does the President think that it was fair of him to do that? Was it fair game? MR. McCLELLAN: Now, that's a question related to an ongoing investigation. The investigation continues, David. I think you know that very well. I've responded to that question. And if I were to start commenting on news reports or things related to the investigation, I'm getting into prejudging the outcome of that investigation. I don't want to do that from this podium. Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point. Q But, Scott, there's a difference between what's legal and what's right. Is what Karl Rove did right? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, you can state the obvious. I understand and appreciate that, and I appreciate you all. I know you all want to get to the bottom of this. I want to get to the bottom of it; the President has said no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does. We want to see it come to a successful conclusion. The best way to help the investigation come to a successful conclusion is for me not to get into discussing it from this podium. I don't think that -- Q Well, wait, wait, wait -- MR. McCLELLAN: Wait -- I don't think that helps advance the investigation. Q All right, you say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working, obviously, on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like, Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story. And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as, Cooper -- the Time reporter -- called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this. So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story? MR. McCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I'll let them speak to that. What I know is that the President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion, and that means not commenting on it from this podium. Q Well, if -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand your question. Q Well, Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They're getting that information from here, from Karl Rove. MR. McCLELLAN: And again, you're asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you've had my response on that. Q At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement -- MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll come back to you if I can. Q -- of September 29th, 2003, that it is simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identify of a CIA operative? Can you stand by that statement? MR. McCLELLAN: John, I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it's not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing. Q So should we take that as a yes or a no? MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Dick. Q Can you explain why -- Q Scott, this was a statement you made, on the record, 21-months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday. Go ahead, Dick. Q Can you explain why the President chose today to break with his usual practice of taking two questions from the American side at events with a foreign leader, and only taking one? MR. McCLELLAN: Just last Friday, I think, with Prime Minister Blair, or Thursday, they did the same thing. Q The practice in the Oval Office is to take two questions. I'm just curious why -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we did that last week with Prime Minister Blair, as well. You're going to have other opportunities to see him this week. Q If he had responded to a question today about Karl Rove, would he have gone beyond your stance here of just not commenting? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're going to have other opportunities to ask him questions. He takes questions on a fairly regular basis, Dick. Q Let me -- let me just do what you did a few moments ago and step back from the context of the investigation to the President's agenda. Does Karl Rove, with all the attention being paid to him now, become a liability to the President, an impediment to his pushing his agenda? MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're asking all these context in -- all these questions in the context of the news reports relating to an investigation -- Q I'm talking about it now in the larger sense of Rove being the Deputy Chief of Staff. MR. McCLELLAN: We're continuing to move forward on our agenda, and the -- we're on the verge of accomplishing some very big things when it comes to the agenda. And -- Q But is Karl Rove an impediment now, with all this attention distracting from that push on your agenda? MR. McCLELLAN: Everybody who is working here is helping us to advance the agenda, and that includes Karl in a very big way. Q Has he apologized to you for telling you he is not involved? MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to get into any private discussions. Q He put you on the spot. He put your credibility on the line. MR. McCLELLAN: And, Helen, I appreciate you all wanting to move forward and find the facts relating to this investigation. I want to know all the facts relating to the investigation. Q You people are on the record, one quote after another. MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants to get to the bottom of it. And it's just not appropriate. If you'll remember back two years ago, or almost two years ago, I did draw a line and I said, we're just not going to get into commenting on -- Q You also made comments in defending Mr. Rove. MR. McCLELLAN: We're just not going to get into commenting on an investigation that continues. And I think you've heard me explain why I'm not going to do that. I do want to talk about this -- Q Do you regret putting yourself out on a limb, Scott? MR. McCLELLAN: I do want to talk about this, and we will talk about it once the investigation is complete. Q Do you regret what you said in 2003? MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Q Do you regret putting yourself so far out on a limb when you don't know the facts? MR. McCLELLAN: David, you had your opportunity. I'll try to come back to you if I can, but I think I've responded to those questions. Q Well, you haven't responded to that. Do you think you went too far two years ago? MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Q Does the White House have a credibility problem? MR. McCLELLAN: Ed, these are all questions that you're bringing up in the context of an investigation that is ongoing -- Q I'm not asking about that. MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's clear that this is coming up in the context of news -- Q We could talk about WMDs, a whole range of issues. MR. McCLELLAN: -- in the context of news reports. And I appreciate those questions. And I think you're trying to get at the specific news reports and wanting me to comment on those specific news reports and -- Q But they're news reports that have been confirmed by Karl Rove's attorney, Scott. MR. McCLELLAN: John, you can keep jumping in, but I'm going to try to keep going to other people in this room, as well. And we can have constructive dialogue here, I think, but that's not the way to do it. Q It's not my job to have a constructive dialogue, Scott. Sorry. Q The two-year call-up for members of the Reserve and National Guard is nearing an end. Will the President issue another call-up? And if so, when, and for how many troops? MR. McCLELLAN: For the National Guard and Reserve? Well, I think the military has talked -- spoken to that recently, and they've talked about their tours of duty. And I don't really have anything to add beyond what the Pentagon has said on that more recently. Q One more question. MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. Q Secretary Rice says it is pointless to have talks with North Korea just to have talks. Is the President willing to negotiate with North Korea, or does he still demand that North Korea give up its nuclear weapons program without any conditions? MR. McCLELLAN: North Korea needs to make a strategic decision to abandon its nuclear ambitions. That's what important. All parties involved in the six-party talks have put a proposal on the table for North Korea. The six-party talks are going to be resuming here within the next couple of weeks, and it's important that North Korea come back prepared to talk in a serious way about how to move forward on that proposal. We still have not heard a response to the proposal that is on the table. We believe that proposal addresses the concerns of all parties, and that it's the way to move forward to resolve the nuclear issue. We all want to see a denuclearized Korean Peninsula; that's a goal we all share and that's what we're working toward. And it's important that we make progress in the next round of talks toward that goal. And the proposal -- discussing that proposal and how to move forward on it is the way to do so. Q Scott, the President is going to be speaking Thursday to the Indiana Black Expo. That's the same day that the NAACP is continuing its convention in Milwaukee. Is this a snub to the NAACP, and has he been invited to speak to the NAACP? MR. McCLELLAN: I think he may have been, but this event has been scheduled for quite some time. I'm not sure that we received any request prior to this event. I'd have to go back and check. But the President looks forward to making remarks at the Expo. He will be talking about the ownership society. Q The news that the G8 nations offered the Palestinian Authority $9 million inevitably recalls the 2003 International Monetary Fund report that Yasser Arafat diverted $900 million to a special bank account he controlled. And my question: Considering Mammoud Abbas's long association with Arafat, plus his refusal to dismantle any terrorist groups like Hamas, in accordance with the road map, how on earth did the President allow nearly a billion to Abbas without U.S. protest? MR. McCLELLAN: I think that we've spoken to that issue, and why we are trying to support the efforts on the disengagement plan and make sure that that's successful, and help the Palestinians put in place the institutions for a democracy to emerge and for a democratic state to emerge. I would point out that apparently there was a suicide bombing in Natanya at a shopping mall just a short time ago. We condemn in the strongest terms this vicious attack. There is no justification for the murder of innocent civilians -- men, women and children. We express our condolences to the Prime Minister of Israel and to the people of Israel. Those who have been injured are in our thoughts and prayers, and those who have been killed in this terrorist attack, we express our condolences to their families. Terrorists are seeking to derail the peace efforts in the Middle East, and all parties must step forward and combat terrorism. The Palestinian Authority needs to act to dismantle terrorist organizations and to stop attacks from happening in the first place. We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms. Q Does the President believe that it is outrageous for a Los Angeles advertising man to be conducting a campaign to persuade the town selectmen of Weare, New Hampshire, to approve the building of a hotel on the land where Justice Souter's house is located? Or does he regard this as an historic irony resulting from Souter's vote in the case of Kelo versus the City of New London -- MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen anything on it. Jim, go ahead. Q You didn't see anything on it? You'd like to evade this one, wouldn't you. MR. McCLELLAN: No, I haven't seen anything on it, Les. I like to see reports before I comment on it. Q No, it's the other ones he's trying to evade. Q -- on why you can't answer Ed's question about whether -- generally speaking, whether the administration has a credibility problem. I think a lot of people are tuning in, wondering, can we trust what this White House says, can we trust what Scott McClellan says. MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Q I'm not talking about the case. Can you just address -- do you feel like there's a credibility problem? MR. McCLELLAN: I think you all in this room know me very well. And you know the type of person that I am. You, and many others in this room, have dealt with me for quite some time. The President is a very straightforward and plainspoken person, and I'm someone who believes in dealing in a very straightforward way with you all, as well, and that's what I've worked to do. Go ahead, Carl. Q Back to SCOTUS for just a minute. The Democrats say to this point the consultation has made for a good start, but there's already some indication that they'd like to begin to hear the President actually talk about names as part of that consultation. Should we expect the President to actually consult over specific names with Democrats? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think there are some that maybe have suggested that they should have veto power over the President's selection. The President has a constitutional responsibility to nominate someone to the bench and I don't think any individual should have veto power over the President's constitutional responsibility. The President has made it clear that -- what he is looking for in a nominee and the type of person that he is looking for. He's looking at a diverse group of individuals, and he will appoint someone or nominate someone to the bench that we can all be proud of. We should all be working to move forward in a constructive way and to elevate the discourse. The President hasn't made a decision at this point. He is, at this point, looking at a group of individuals, and looking at their backgrounds, looking at key rulings that they have made, discussing it with members of his staff and his advisors. And he's also reaching out to members of the Senate, and the White House is reaching out to members of the Senate, to listen to what their views are. This is a process that is ongoing. It's been ongoing since the -- well, even before the vacancy occurred, even before Justice O'Connor announced her resignation. Q But should Democrats expect the President, specifically, to consult over an individual -- potential nominee by name? MR. McCLELLAN: By name? I think that people are welcome to express their views on who they might have in mind for a -- for the vacancy that exists on the Supreme Court. But it's the President's constitutional responsibility to make that selection, and I don't think any individual should have veto power over that selection process. But the President is going to continue to consult. He's going to continue to listen. He'll -- once he's made the nomination, he'll also continue to consult with members of the Senate. That's an important part of the process. But to suggest that you should have veto power I just think is unreasonable. Q Scott, on terrorism -- MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Q Did the United States coordinate with the British on their latest findings? And do you have any comment on what they unveiled in the last hour or so? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we are coordinating closely and working closely with British authorities. I think that it's best to leave this investigation for the British authorities to discuss publicly. They are the ones who have the lead on this. But we operate in a very transparent way with our British counterparts, and we share intelligence on a real-time basis with British authorities. They're moving forward on the investigation, and we're doing all we can to help those efforts. Q One more on Natanya. That's an area -- and it's a tragedy when anybody is killed, of course -- that's an area where a lot of Americans and foreigners live. I think there's an American consulate there. Do you know of any Americans who were involved in this? MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have any update beyond what you've seen in the media reports. Q Scott, how long has the President known that Karl Rove spoke in 2003 to at least one reporter about Joseph Wilson's wife? MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question relating to the investigation. You've had my response on those questions. Q Was it like a big surprise to him this week and when the story broke about it? MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's an ongoing, continuing investigation, and I think I've addressed why I'm not going to get into discussing it further at this time. Q So I understand your reluctance to talk. Now, Mr. Rove's attorney, Mr. Luskin, spoke to reporters a few days ago. Would you be willing to allow your attorney to speak to reporters about these matters? MR. McCLELLAN: Next question. I'm not going to get into discussing the investigation at this point. Q Scott, back on -- to turn it back, the President has confidence in everyone who works for him -- MR. McCLELLAN: You're making an assumption that I wouldn't make either. So -- go ahead. Q That you have an attorney? MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Q Scott, back on the situation of the President having confidence in everyone who works for him, does this confidence allow for everyone, to include Karl Rove, to conduct the same duties that they were conducting a couple of years ago, today and yesterday? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Q So Karl Rove is still -- MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know if the duties are the same, because the agenda has moved quite a ways since then. Q So nothing has changed in the way of his duties with the President. And what has his interaction been with the President in the last couple of days? MR. McCLELLAN: As I pointed out at the beginning, any individual that is working here at the White House and doing their job has the confidence of the President in the job that they are doing. They wouldn't be here if they didn't have the confidence of the President of the United States. And in terms of what we're doing here at the White House, we're trying to implement the President's agenda. We're going about working on helping him to make a decision to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that exists. We're moving forward on important pieces of legislation like the energy plan that the President outlined and that has been passed by both chambers, and that they're working to get passed. We're trying to move forward on passing the Central American Free Trade Agreement. There are a number of important priorities that we are focused on. And that's what everybody here at the White House is working on. There are -- anytime you have an investigation of this nature that is a criminal investigation, it's going to draw media attention. And there -- and anytime news reports come out about that investigation, obviously, it gets attention in the media. But we've got an important job to do on behalf of the American people. We're focused on moving forward on that agenda so people are going about doing their work here at the White House. Q All right, Scott, since it's drawn media attention, it's also drawn attention here at the White House. You've totally changed some of your statements, as you said yesterday, so, therefore, it's been bandied about at the White House. And knowing the President has been advised of the talking points, what has he said to Karl Rove in relation to the situation today and yesterday? MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking about the investigation -- Q I'm asking about the President's friendship and political advisement from Karl Rove -- MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate you asking this. It's in the context of the investigation, and you've had my response on that. Q I'm asking about the daily briefing -- MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just not going to go further on it. Q -- and the conversation between Karl Rove and the President. MR. McCLELLAN: Everybody is going about doing their business, as they should be. Q Scott, were you in on the meeting with the senators this morning? MR. McCLELLAN: No, it was a breakfast with the four senators, and the Vice President and Andy Card were in that meeting. Q Do you have any information on what length and depth they discussed the concept that Senators Specter and Leahy talked about at the stakeout concerning looking beyond the Circuit Courts for a nominee? MR. McCLELLAN: No. I think you heard from the senators in terms of what they expressed, and I think some senators -- some of the senators that were there are still maybe going to suggest some additional names for the President. The President was very much listening to the ideas that they had, and listening to any suggestions that they had for potential nominees. That's part of the consultative process. Senator Hatch, this weekend, pointed out that in his 29 years in the United States Senate he has not seen anything like this in terms of the level of consultation with the United States Senate from the White House. He called it unprecedented. And we intend to continue consulting with the Senate as we move forward. Q Do you know if the President shares the two Senators' concerns that picking judges from the Circuit Court makes for somewhat of an insular Supreme Court, and that there be some advantage in broadening it out? MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's getting into speculating. The President has made it clear what he's looking for in a nominee, and that he's considering a diverse group of individuals. And I don't think he wants us to get into speculating about potential names beyond what he has said at this point. Because I don't want to rule things in or out. I'll let him do that on his time frame. Q But, Scott, just as a matter of a commentary on the analysis that selections of Supreme Court justices from the appellate court could hem it in, is that a function -- MR. McCLELLAN: Could hem it in? Q Could hem in the Court, could limit the number of options in terms of going outside, or outside the appellate court. Is that something that has been discussed in the context of the selection process? MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has outlined the criteria that he's looking at. There are some that are trying to discuss the individuals that they -- type of individuals they would like to see appointed to the bench, and we welcome any suggestions that people have that are trying to work through this process in a constructive way. Q Scott, the President has said that invading Iraq has made the world safer. But the government's own terrorism statistics show a dramatic increase in the number of international terrorist attacks since the invasion. And the London bombings have demonstrated that the flypaper theory was just a theory. Can you explain the disconnect between the administration's rhetoric on this issue and the reality on the ground? MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, the terrorism incidents that you bring up -- last week there was a report released by the National Counterterrorism Center, and they explained how they have developed a new methodology to better track terrorist attacks across the world. So your characterization leaves the wrong impression for people who might be watching this briefing, and I would dispute that pretty strongly. Now, in terms of Iraq, terrorists have chosen to make Iraq a central front in the war on terrorism. And the President made a decision after September 11th that we were going to take the fight to the enemy; that we were going to wage a comprehensive war on terrorism that included not only taking the fight to the enemy, but also working to spread freedom and democracy, because that's the way you defeat the ideology that terrorists espouse. Terrorists have been carrying out attacks for years -- for a couple of decades at least. I mean, if you go back and look at the attack on the Marine barracks on Beirut; you can go back and look at the first attack on the World Trade Center; certainly the attacks on September 11th. Terrorists don't need an excuse, and there certainly is no justification for the taking and murder of innocent human life. They have no regard for human life. This is a battle of -- hang on -- this is a battle of ideologies. This is a struggle of ideologies. The President recognizes that this is not a limited war on terror, this is not just related to Afghanistan and the Taliban; this is about an ideological struggle, and that's the kind of battle that we are waging. But there's a lot history of attacks by terrorists that pre-date anything that occurred in Iraq. So that's just a misunderstanding of the nature of the enemy that we face in this war on terrorism. Q The Rand Corporation also keeps track of statistics on international terrorism, and their data also shows that 2004 had the highest rate of international attacks in 13 years. MR. McCLELLAN: The difference between 13 years ago and today is that we are on the offensive. We are taking the fight to the enemy. And the President has made it very clear that we are going to prevail, we are going to defeat the enemy. They are now on the defensive, and we're going to keep them on the defensive. We're going to continue to seek out those who seek to do us harm and bring them to justice, and try to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. We are fighting them abroad so that we don't have to fight them here at home. The best way to win the war on terrorism is to stay on the offensive, and the ultimate path to victory is spreading freedom, because freedom -- or free societies are peaceful societies. If you go back and look at World War II and the Cold War, we defeated ideologies with the power of freedom, and we're going to defeat the terrorist ideology by spreading the power of freedom, as well. And you may have a different view of the nature of the enemy we face and the war on terrorism, but the President knows that this is a struggle that is going to be a long struggle, it must be a sustained struggle, and we must wage it on multiple fronts. And that's what we're doing. Q Scott, back on the Rove question, you are continuously saying it's an ongoing investigation. But it's also an ongoing news story that has opened up what has been described as a credibility gap here. Do you not sense -- is there no sense here that perhaps you, the President and/or Karl, need to say something more about this situation to close that gap? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Bob, I think that if I started getting into questions relating to this investigation, I might be harming that investigation from moving forward. I don't want -- Q I'm asking about the sense here at the White House. MR. McCLELLAN: I know. I heard you question, and I appreciate your question, because I know you all have a genuine interest in seeing this investigation come to a conclusion and know what the facts are. And there are news reports that come out all the time in investigations. I'm not going to comment on news reports that come out in the middle of an investigation or during an investigation, because that could just prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We want to know what the facts are, and the way to do that is to let the investigators complete their work. As I said, they certainly expressed a preference to me and others that they would prefer that, from the White House, we not get into commenting about this in a public way. That's a preference that's been expressed to me personally, as well. And I want to be helpful to this investigation. I also would like to be able to talk more about it, but I don't think that's an appropriate thing to do while it is continuing. That's the reason why I'm not going further than I am. And I think if the American people hear that, they can understand and appreciate that. It has nothing to do with whether or not I want to comment on anything that was previously said. There will be an appropriate time to talk about all this. The time for that, though is not now. Thank you. Appreciate it.
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1062&catid=8 Karl Rove Comes Clean on Valerie Plame Affair During a recent interview with Unconfirmed Sources Publisher Kamal El-Din Karl Rove admitted to being the leaker of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Rove spoke candidly about his role in the Palme affair and confirmed that he was acting under the direction of the President and Vice President. Rove also discussed the ramifications of the jailing of Judith Miller and capitulation of Time, Inc. to Federal investigator Fitzgerald and the chilling affect this could have on the media. KE: Karl Thank you for coming to our studios today. A lot of people want to hear what you have to say about the Plame affair. Rove: Thanks Kamal, it is my pleasure to join you today and I look forward to coming clean on this whole business. KE: Coming clean? Rove: Yeah, I think its time people hear the story about what happened right from the horses mouth. I did it. I leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Bob Novak and others to get revenge on Plame's husband Joe Wilson. KE: Just like that? That's quite an admission Karl. Rove: Not really Kamal. Everybody in Washington already knows it and let's be real, I've done this before. Back when I worked for George Bush senior I got fired for leaking information to Bob Novak. The situation was different, but Bob and I cooperated and I did what needed to be done. KE: Aren't you afraid that you will get prosecuted for leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent? That's a felony, and some might call it treason. Rove: No. Not really. Kamal this is Washington and I work for the President. I've got nothing to worry about. Plausible deniability is the name of the game around here that will keep me out of trouble. KE: But you just admitted to being the leaker on national TV. You can't tell me you can deny being the leaker now? Rove: Sure I can. The media and the truth is one thing, but going before a friendly judge is another. Plausible deniability. Just remember that and you'll see, I'll come out smelling like a rose. KE: But what about everything the President said about tracking down the leaker and bringing him to justice? Don't those words mean anything? Rove: The President said all that stuff during the campaign, nothing said during an election year means anything. Later: KE: Does it bother you that people are going to jail to protect you? Rove: The whole Judith Miller thing, that is just an added bonus. We never really set out to discredit the media and chill free speech, but now that it is happening I can't say it bothers me much. KE: You think chilling free speech is ok? Rove: Sure it is. If the media is muzzled and the public doesn't know what the government is up to we can get on with the running of the country without a lot of needless interference. Look, the things this administration wants to do are not popular with the people, so why would we want the people to know what is going on? KE: But don't democracies need a good strong press to keep the government honest? Rove: Honest? We decide what is honest. We don't the media asking a lot of useless questions and making unsupported judgments about what the administration is doing. The people of this country voted Mr. Bush in twice, so they obviously like what he is doing, so why doesn't the media just get over it. Americans trust Bush and people like me to run things for them. KE: So, the fact that your leak to the press is going to make it less possible for others to leak is ok then? Denying other the right to speak out is just fine? Rove: That's about right, Kamal. But you leave out an important point. My leak was sanctioned by the President and Vice President. My leak had real political purpose and was not just to expose some supposed wrong doing. I'm a senior member of the administration so my speech in more important that of some lower level person or some non-governmental whistle blower. Later: KE: Karl, thanks again for coming on the program. Rove: Kamal, it was my pleasure and I hope that Americans rest a little easier knowing the truth about what happened in the Plame case. There was no treason, no skullduggery, I leaked to avenge a political attack and chill free speech that is critical of the government. It was nothing, really.
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/3833_0_3_0_C/ -- Why Judith Miller Should Stay In Jail By Cliff Kincaid | July 11, 2005 This doesn't make sense because her "source" provided a waiver, releasing Miller from any promise of confidentiality. Something doesn't add up about why Judith Miller went to jail. The New York Times reporter didn't write a story about the Valerie Plame case and had a waiver from her source in order to talk about it to the grand jury. But she insisted on going to jail anyway. Speculation is mounting that Miller is protecting herself─that Miller was herself a source of information about Plame that made it to several Bush administration officials and was then recycled to columnist Robert Novak. He, then, disclosed Plame's employment by the CIA and her role in arranging for her husband Joe Wilson's mission to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium link. This would help explain why Miller didn't write a story about the case. It would be difficult for Miller to write a story when she was so deeply involved in how it developed. Disclosure of her role then or now would be extremely embarrassing. Wilson had written a column for the Times bashing the administration's Iraq policy and it would have been natural for Miller to write something when Novak's column was published. But Miller didn't write anything. Why? Defenders of the Times have used this fact to allege that the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, is out of control and that free-press rights are in danger. But there could be another explanation of Miller's behavior and why Fitzgerald wants her testimony. She could be the key to exonerating Bush administration officials of possible violations of the law against knowingly disclosing the identities of covert intelligence agents. If they were simply passing along information from Miller or some other journalist about Joseph Wilson's wife, then they can't be accused of deliberately disclosing classified information about Plame's identity. The assumption all along has been that Miller is going to jail to protect a source. This doesn't make sense because her "source" provided a waiver, releasing Miller from any promise of confidentiality. These waivers have enabled several reporters to testify in the case. Why should Miller be any different, unless her relationship with her "source" is different? In other words, what if the "source" was an official who may have given some information to Miller but received some important information in return and then passed it on to others already questioned by Fitzgerald? This would explain why Miller, who didn't write a story, got dragged into the case. The more likely explanation is that Miller is protecting private discussions with administration officials, and that during those discussions she provided or confirmed information about Plame's identity. This would make sense. Both Miller and Plame covered the subject of weapons of mass destruction and it was likely that they knew one another, or at least were aware of each other's work in this field. This speculation may be unfair to Miller but it is fed by her silence and reports in the press. The Washington Post reported that "Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials─not the other way around─that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee." What's abundantly clear, at the very least, is that the Times is caught in a major case of hypocrisy. The paper editorialized on December 31, 2003, in favor of Fitzgerald's investigation, on the grounds that it was imperative to find out "who violated federal law by giving the name of the undercover intelligence operative to Novak for publication in his column." But what if the name was provided to Novak by an administration official who got it from Miller? In its editorial hailing the appointment of Fitzgerald, a "respected career prosecutor," the paper advocated that he exercise "true operational independence" and use the "full powers of a special counsel, including the ability to seek Congressional intervention if he finds his investigation blocked by a government official or agency." Now, however, Fitzgerald finds his investigation blocked by the Times. The Times' curious position is that the paper wanted a special counsel investigation but doesn't want to cooperate with it. This shows how the probe has boomeranged on the Times. Initially, the Times believed that an inquiry would reveal some plot involving administration officials using the Novak column to damage Wilson by going after his wife. This is what many on the liberal-left suspected, and that is why then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle called for a special-counsel investigation. Lately, however, the Times has been questioning whether there was a violation of the law in the first place. What explains this flip-flop on what seemed like such a clear-cut case? The explanation lies in the Times' acquired belief that Miller is deeply involved in this story, and not just in the sense of having gotten information from a source for a story she didn't write. When that editorial was published, the Times was obviously unaware of Miller's possible role in providing information about Plame to the administration. But when she refused to testify about a story she didn't write and about a source who granted her a waiver of confidentiality, the Times must have feared the worst. The possible truth about her role could backfire not only on her but on the Times itself. So now the Times is engaging in a cover-up under the banner of protecting the First Amendment. Turning the case upside down, Times executive editor Bill Keller insists, with a straight face, that, by going to jail, Miller is affirming the ability of the press to expose government cover-ups and wrongdoing. Keller charged that Miller's jailing is "likely to serve future cover-ups of information. Anybody who believes government should be aggressively watched feels a chill up their spine today." In fact, Miller is refusing to testify in a case that the Times said was about alleged criminal activity by government officials. By the Times own account, Miller is covering up for an official suspected of violating the law. This is why David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote, in a column entitled, "Bad Case for a Fight," that "This is a case in which the sources weren't disclosing wrongdoing by others but were allegedly doing wrong themselves by blowing the cover of a CIA officer." Still, Ignatius says he's "angry" that Miller is in jail. This reflects the "we are above the law" attitude taken by so many in the liberal press. The Times' sophisticated public relations campaign, which also includes biased coverage in favor of federal shield laws to protect other Judith Millers, has convinced liberal Republican Senator Arlen Specter to hold emergency hearings on July 20 in front of his Senate Judiciary Committee about the need for new legislation to protect the press. Before the Congress is stampeded into giving the press special rights and protections, our elected representatives need to know all the facts about the Valerie Plame case. If administration officials engaged in illegal behavior, they should be held accountable. But the press should not escape accountability either. The truth could very well be that Judith Miller is protecting a "source" all right─ Miller herself. She may have known the truth about Plame all along but didn't write a story because of that fact. So, instead, she passed that information on to the administration. Under ordinary circumstances there is nothing sinister in this. Conversations take place between journalists and officials all the time. This is how the business of journalism is conducted. But when the conversations involve alleged violations of the law, as defined by the Times itself, journalists have a legal obligation to provide evidence. The paper's defense of Miller is untenable. The paper isn't protecting a source; it is protecting its own reporter's curious conduct in a special-counsel investigation that the Times brought on itself. If this is what this case is ultimately all about, then the Times and its fellow Bush-bashers will have egg all over their faces, and they will owe the administration and the public a big apology. In any case, under no circumstances should the Congress give the press an exemption from revealing evidence in a federal proceeding. Federal media-shield laws should not be passed to reward or justify law breaking by the press. Let's hope that Fitzgerald stands his ground and gets to the bottom of this. Miller should remain in jail until she provides some answers. It's not too much to ask or demand from journalists who affirm the public's right to know.
Basso - Interesting speculation. It may even be true. But don't you think it is a little hypocritical to tout a "right to know" regarding Ms. Miller's involvement and not demand the same from Rove/Bush?
mc mark, thanks for giving us the transcript of today's press briefing. This brings back memories of, what, over 30 years ago now? Hard to believe. Keep them coming. And to the media, keep doing your job. The truth will set us free. Keep D&D Civil!!
no one is suggesting we shouldn't get the facts re Rove/Bush, we're just suggesting we wait until the investigation is finished so all the facts are in.
Well, as we all agreed earlier, vague "mounting speculation" is serious, serious business. I mean, mounting evidence that the Presidents top advisor was near the center - if not at the center - of a scandal in which an administration official compromised the security of a covert operative for political revenge, now that is not even worthy of discussion. Hey everyone, look at this article: 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 Cinton bombed the towers 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 Hilary is a lesbian 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 Obama = Osama 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/119/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11
oh how I hate being right! basso since we dealing in speculation, Miller might just be protecting her "other" source. Miller could take all of them down ... By Dan Wingfoot From putting together all of the pieces about the Plame affair that have appeared here in the past few days, it looks as if the initial information leaked from the State Department, from the file they keep on Joe Wilson. That probably means John Bolton, who had access to State Dept files, is the one who introduced the information about Plame to the White House staff. After the Wilson op ed piece in the NYTimes, Bolton, who also had access to CIA files about its operatives, probably told Rove and Libby about Plame and her possible connection to Joe Wilson and his trip, and it was Rove and libby who called Cooper, Novak, and the other reporters on strict background (double super secret, whatever that means; obviously much deeper cover than cross your heart and hope to die). In addition, Bush and Cheney were probably told about the Plame-Wilson by Rove and/or Libby, and that explains why they hired personal counsel outside the White House, so that they would be protected by client-attorney privileges, and to have counsel if they were required to testify about Rove or Libby. But, where does Miller fit in? Is she protecting Bolton? Is it possible that Bolton was really her source for all of that disinformation about WMDs in the runup to the Iraq War, and not Chalabi (as we were led to believe by a supposedly secret email that may have itself been leaked disinformation)? If the above is true, and if Miller testifies about how she got her information, she gives the evidence necessary for Fitzgerald to indict Bolton, Rove, and Libby, and eventually possibly Cheney and Bush if any of those three go to trial! http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/12/155834/147
