Ah. The odds just reached 90% that the White House knows that Lewis Libby, Eliot Abrams, and Karl Rove are three of the N White House aides who tried to get reporters to print that Ambassador Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA operative.
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: October 05, 2003 - October 11, 2003 Archives:
Recently I told you that Scott McClellan's denial on behalf of Abrams, Libby and Rove might be a lot less airtight than a lot of reporters have been assuming.
The question is whether one or more of these three men was the source for Bob Novak's column disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as a clandestine employee of the CIA.
McClellan's 'denials' have hinged on a lawyerly and off-point claim that they were "not involved in leaking classified information."
Listen closely: He's not answering the question.
Why not press McClellan to answer the question straight-out?
Well, today at the briefing, someone did. And, as you might expect, it wasn't a reporter from one of the big prestige outlets.
Here's the exchange ...
QUESTION: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MCCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
QUESTION: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MCCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
QUESTION: They were not involved in what?
MCCLELLAN: The leaking of classified information.
QUESTION: Did you undertake that of your own volition, or were you
instructed to go to these --MCCLELLAN: I spoke to those individuals myself.
So, when McClellan was asked to be more clear, he opted for a meaninglessly vague statement and then fell back on the "leaking of classified information" dodge.
Can we all take note of this now? That denial wasn't what it seemed to be. In fact, I doubt it was a real denial at all.
There's more there. Why not find it?
Of course, as I am getting tired of pointing out, the important point is not that White House aide X or Y blew the cover of a CIA operative, but that nobody else inside the White House cares about it.
Posted by DeLong at October 10, 2003 03:02 PM | TrackBack
A logical follow up question: "Do you consider the indentification of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee to constitute the leaking of classified information?"
Posted by: Kosh on October 10, 2003 03:23 PMI think another ball folks seem to be dropping is the "it's immoral to ruin your political opponents' careers just because they bug you."
we're not talking about screwing someone's pet bill in committee or badmouthing a rival consultant to the party elite here; this administration did something singularly guaranteed to end a citizen's chosen career. why are so few people bothered by this?
Kosh: good, but close the noose tighter: "Is identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee a disclosure of classified information." Or "Did the persons who identified Valerie Plame as a CIA employee to Robert Novak, and perhaps others, disclose confidential information." Yes. Then the dodge is off the table. If no, then follow up: "The identity of a CIA employee is not classified information?" Then they will go into degrees as to whose identity as a CIA employee would be classified information. They are now on the slippery slope.
Posted by: Cal on October 10, 2003 03:44 PMBrad:
You are assuming McClennan is as sharp as Ari Fleischer. Now if the theory is that Rove was the leaker, I'm sure Ari - who was a master of disinformation - might utter the same words. But let's suppose for a moment a hypothesis (which I'm not inclined) in two parts: (a) the leaker is neither Rove nor known to Bush; and (b) McClennan is simply a blunderhead. Then his blunders might be due to (b). Then again - I'm being unfair to McClennan and he may be as sharp as Ari - and just acts like a blunderhead for the reasons you suspect. BTW - what qualifications was Bush looking for in a replacement for Mr. Fleischer?
Posted by: Hal McClure on October 10, 2003 04:47 PMCan someone explain how this is a lawyerly evasion? I'm sure that Mclellan has very specific instructions about what to say here (and, presumably, what not to say), but so far, I don't get it.
Posted by: Matt on October 10, 2003 04:52 PMMatt, read the exchange with McClellan again. Note how he leads the questioner in a circle, pretending that "they were not involved in this" is saying more than "they didn't leak classified information" -- when he's really just saying the same thing (as he's forced to admit).
The honest answer to the first question is, "No, I can't tell you." What McClellan did instead is a lawyerly evasion.
Incidentally, I'm glad that Joshua Marshall has brought this to the civilized world's attention, but in my somewhat less-traveled corner of the blogosphere, I've been on top of this developing defense since shortly after the first WaPo article broke the story -- http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/weblog.php?id=P486 -- and nailed it down as a firmly established strategy two days ago -- http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/weblog.php?id=P502 .
Posted by: Swopa on October 10, 2003 06:52 PMThe refusal to answer is bizarre, I agree.
But McClellan and the White House cannot possibly be standing on the view that Plame's status as an operative was not classified information? That cannot be. It just can't. . .
Can it?
I thought for a second that maybe they were relying on the play in another word McClennan used, "disclose." After all, one theory is that Rove did not actually leak Plame's status as an operative, but rather, confirmed Novak's understanding, or confirmed that Plame was "fair game." In that case, Rove arguably did not "disclose" the information.
But that is quite a stretch even for Rove; it can't be the defense for all three of these guys.
What the hell is going on???
Posted by: TedL on October 10, 2003 07:19 PMThey're stalling.
If they manage not to say anything incriminating, and if no further incriminating evidence comes to light -- and it's clear that "Justice" won't find anything that isn't stapled to John Ashcroft's forehead on live prime time TV -- then it will, eventually, stop being news, and stop being a scandal, and they will have had time to create -- by endless repetition -- a new picture in people's minds of what is really going on.
Which is all they want and need.
Posted by: Graydon on October 10, 2003 07:38 PMForget it. Dead issue. They're gonna get away clean. Watch.
Posted by: Chuck Nolan on October 10, 2003 10:49 PMDidn't Dana Milbank hint that if nothing was revealed via the investigation that the Post, which obviously has the ability, would push the story?
Actually, did a little googling before hitting send and from Atrios:
Dana Priest: I'm so sorry that I couldn't answer more questions, there are so many---most about the leak investigation. One thing is certain, the story will have changed by next week--so "see" you then. Best, Dana
It is not Milbank, but Priest, also involved in the Plame reporting, and the post at Atrios is dated 10/5 -- so next week? Tomorrow? As Atrios writes, "Predicting the obvious or a hint at what's to come..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/11/opinion/11KRIS.html
See Nicholas Kristof's editorial in today's NYTimes, which says in part:
quote:
the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.
...as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies...
...Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the C.I.A. and moved to State Department cover...
unquote
So maybe it was not classified info anymore?
Still, totally lame, and I hope the leakers get nailed for it. But for me, it's gone from a "sure thing" to an "I hope, I wish, oh hell nothing will happen"... It's sad, but maybe Chuck's right.
tjallen
Posted by: tjallen on October 11, 2003 05:45 AMKristof's argument in the NYT was ridiculous. If he is a liberal, he was presenting a classic example of 'the definition of a liberal is somebody who won't take their own side in an argument'.
He dismissed the idea of an independent investigator as a partisan ploy which would only cause damage. He devoted zero words to the obvious question of how impartial Ashcroft would be, in investigating a high-level administration scandal.
Even the argument that the Russians might know Plame's secret status was weak. Just because the Russians might know something doesn't mean that China, N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran or Al Qaida would. And the Russian government has a vested interest in controlling the proliferation of WMD's.
Thanks for the news Brad. I just want to mention a funny linguistic aspect of your post. You say the odds are 90% that the White House knows which White house aids blew Plame's cover. If the White house were one entity the odds would be 100% since the house-mind would include the leakers. I think you want to claim that George W. Bush Jr must know rather than accusing some amorphous poly-personal White House. However, it is harder to nail the president down than to nail his house
Posted by: Robert on October 12, 2003 06:55 AM