Originally Posted By gadzuux Oh what a tangled web we weave ... <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10017288/site/newsweek/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10 017288/site/newsweek/</a> Says Who? McClellan Reviews the Transcript Newsweek Nov. 21, 2005 issue - Embattled White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan fought a war of words last week. At a recent White House briefing, NBC News reporter David Gregory questioned McClellan's 2003 statement that White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby were not involved in the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. "We know in fact there was involvement," Gregory stated, citing reports that Rove and Libby talked to reporters about "somebody who [prosecutor] Patrick Fitzgerald says was a covert officer of the CIA." According to the official White House transcript, McClellan responded, "I don't think that's accurate." Yet McClellan's remarks were captured very differently by two news organizations that transcribe the daily briefing. Congressional Quarterly and Federal News Service reported McClellan's response as "That's accurate." When questioned about the discrepancy, White House officials asked the outlets to review their transcripts. But after analyzing audio recordings and a video of the briefing available on the White House Web site, both CQ and FNS stood by their transcripts. For days, the White House stuck with its version of McClellan's remarks while the debate lit up the blogosphere. On Friday, McClellan told NEWSWEEK that he had reviewed the video and requested White House stenographers to "take another look." "If there's something wrong, we'll correct it immediately," he said, denying the White House had intentionally altered the transcript. McClellan would not say if he misspoke, but told NEWSWEEK he "disagreed" with Gregory's statement that Fitzgerald had described Plame as a "covert officer." << So is there any doubt that mcclellan stood in front of the white house press corp and stated that rove and libby had "no involvement" in the outing of plame? And is there any doubt that it's a flat-out lie? Given this, the white house thinks that the problem can be solved by simply going back to the transcripts and changing "that's accurate" to "I don't think that's accurate". Did they really think this was going to work? Or are they just so accustomed to lying that it's come to be a knee-jerk reaction?
Originally Posted By SuperDry I don't have an opinion on this transcript discrepancy, but I did find this interesting: <<< McClellan would not say if he misspoke, but told NEWSWEEK he "disagreed" with Gregory's statement that Fitzgerald had described Plame as a "covert officer." >>> This is in complete agreement with the noise machine talking point (which has been written about extensively here) that Plame didn't meet the legal definition of a covert officer for the purposes of the classified leak statute.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So is there any doubt that mcclellan stood in front of the white house press corp and stated that rove and libby had "no involvement" in the outing of plame? And is there any doubt that it's a flat-out lie?> Yes, there is doubt. I don't think Ms Plame was outed, so I don't think Mr Rove or Mr Libby could have been involved in her outing. One has to be in before one can be outed.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Semantics. The "FACT" is that mcclellan did indeed state clearly and plainly that rove and libby had "no involvement". It's also a "FACT" that they testified that both of them seperately spoke with at least four reporters about plame within a three week period. Ergo, mcclellan either a) lied to the public, or b) was lied to by the white house and forced into a position of disseminating information known to be untrue. Either way, he should leave - because he lied, or out of protest for being placed in an untenable situation by the white house. Instead, their 'solution' is to simply alter the official white house transcripts so they read exactly opposite of what was said. Simple, no?
Originally Posted By gadzuux I don't get it. I did a google and it brought me to 'motorcycle.com' - must be a biker thang.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer 1984, gadzuux. It's newspeak, and "rectify" is what they did to "correct" records that were no longer in line with official positions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Ergo, mcclellan either a) lied to the public, or b) was lied to by the white house and forced into a position of disseminating information known to be untrue.> Or, both Rove and Libby told McClellan what they believed to be the truth, that they had no involvement in outing Plame because their memories were that everyone they talked to already knew it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Regardless of whether reporters knew it, it is still illegal to confirm classified information to people who don't have clearance and an official "need to know". It was illegal for Libby or whoever to confirm to any member of the press that she worked for the CIA.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Is it illegal to actually alter the text and intent of official white house documents and records about public statements to the press? It takes some doing to surprise me with this current bunch of coconuts, but if the story as stated is true, this just amazes me. How did they ever think this would work? And are there no depths to which they will not sink?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Regardless of whether reporters knew it, it is still illegal to confirm classified information to people who don't have clearance and an official "need to know".> Apparently, only if you know it's classified.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That's not a defense for the charge, actually. Besides, they knew she worked for the clandestine directorate of the CIA and not the analytical side.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's not a defense for the charge, actually.> Sure looks that way, since nobody ever seems to get charged with that crime. <Besides, they knew she worked for the clandestine directorate of the CIA and not the analytical side.> I'm not so sure about that. Somebody from the CIA confirmed Ms. Plame's employment to Robert Novak, but has not been charged with a crime.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Sure looks that way, since nobody ever seems to get charged with that crime.<< There are actually quite a few people who do - it just doesn't get into the newspapers because of the nature of the crime and of the people involved. You can repeat the lie that her identity wasn't classified as often as you want, but it's never going to be true. Her identity was classified.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I've never claimed her status wasn't classified. I've only said she wasn't covert.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan When I was a kid, and I would speak with authority on something that happened before I was born, my grandpa would say "Vas you dere, Charley?" I think it's from an old radio bit (maybe Charley McCarthy) but essentially it means, were you there to know first hand? I'll take obscure radio schtick mixed with I-guess-that-was-only-in-my-family references for $100, Alex.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh No, but I've read the definition of covert, and I've read the details of her employment with the CIA. At the time that Mr. Novak's column appeared, Ms. Plame was not covert.
Originally Posted By ElKay Dougie: "Or, both Rove and Libby told McClellan what they believed to be the truth, that they had no involvement in outing Plame because their memories were that everyone they talked to already knew it." That's just plain dumb argument. There are good indications that Cheney made inquiries about Joe Wilson's connections to the CIA and it doesn't take a genius to assume that since Cheney and Libby had a very close working relationship and a similar world viewpoint, that Cheney told Libby about Plane as connected in getting their critic the gig to go to Niger. That assumption, if Fitzgerld can get corroberating evidence from the CIA and by hauling Cheney before a federal jury would blow away Libby's lawyers smoke about Plame being common knowledge. There's another bit of evidence that places Powell on board Air Force Two with Cheney, Libby and other political types. Powell got a report on the Niger trip that names Plame as dicussing sending her husband with other CIA superviors. This report had Plame's name marked as classified or in other ways not to be discussed to people without the right security clearence. Again, if proved, it discounts the notion of wide knowledge of Plame's identity.
