Isn’t it curious how the left constantly wailed about Scott McClellan allegedly lying during his press conferences, but now that he is saying something that smells like trash talk about Bush, he is suddenly a truth teller.
Funny, funny stuff.
Whats the trash talk? Well, he writes a tell-all book and wanting to ensure it will sell millions he releases a few sentences that he knew would get the left drooling in anticipation.
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recount the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby were “not involved” in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
“There was one problem. It was not true,” McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. “I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff and the president himself.”
And do they ever drool. Olbermann and Matthews almost orgasmed on camera.
But I have a question for Scott. Are you telling me that you lied last March?
KING: Scott, were you lied to?
MCCLELLAN: Well, Larry, I said what I believed to be true at the time. It was also what the president believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given.
Or are you just trying to sell books?
I’m betting the latter.
UPDATE
Jeff Gannon with some interesting facts:
Later in the same interview, McClellan responded to the allegation that the White House sought to gain from ‘outing’ Valerie Plame:
Well, Larry, remember that the person was the one who was the original or primary source for Robert Novak, the column that started this whole investigation really was Dick Armitage, who was the deputy secretary of State, not really a proponent of the Iraq war. And it was certainly not a partisan gun-slinger as Robert Novak said in his article or said later in an interview. In terms of any other involvement beyond that, what came out in this trial is what I learned for the first time. So I don’t know of any effort beyond what we have seen in this trial come out in the media that was going on. I think one of the questions that this gets to is, was the administration trying to discredit or retaliate against a critic? I would say that the administration was trying to set the record straight. Whether or not people were involved in leaking someone’s name and that name was classified, that’s a different matter. I don’t know anything about that.
McClellan indicated that his entire knowledge of the ‘outing’ of Valerie Plame from both his personal knowledge and the public record was complete at this point, yet did not make any claim that high-ranking officials sent him out to “pass false information” about it. McClellan’s meaning in the book excerpt is murky at best and does not necessarily contradict the definitive statements he made to Larry King.
UPDATE II
Just as we figured, it was all a ploy to sell more books:
Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity, according to McClellan’s publisher.
Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan’s book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, “Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him.”
Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what “he thought to be the case.” But, he says, McClellan believes, “the president didn’t know it was not true.”
Story continues below ↓advertisementOsnos says the quotes which appeared on the Public Affairs Books website were part of the roll out of the book catalogues for the spring printings. And he says McClellan had not finished the manuscript for the memoir yet and was working under deadline to have the book completed for the April publishing.
Olby and Chrissy are no doubt inconsolable now.
See author page
Why is it I can’t find the press release from the publisher or the excerpt from Monday? Who is the publisher… everyone seems to forget to post it, just that the book comes out in April.
Can you post it?
Why is it that when Scott McClennon (nice typo, btw) repeatedly, and obviously, lied to the press during his tenure, you refused to acknowledge it, but when he finally points the finger at your hero, all of the sudden he is a liar?
Re: “Why is it that when Scott McClennon (nice typo, btw) repeatedly, and obviously, lied to the press during his tenure, you refused to acknowledge it, but when he finally points the finger at your hero, all of the sudden he is a liar? ”
Because George W. Bush can do no wrong. Conservatives are required by Party Loyalty to always take whateve position is necessary that paints President Bush as the most saintly man to ever sit in the Oval Office. Even if that means flip-flopping on a daily basis.
So… is he lying now or was he lying then?
He was lying then, because it was in his job description. This isn’t actually hard to understand, friend.
He wouldn’t sell two books with the truth so he has to load it with lies to get the brain dead democrats to buy it. He simply misses his 15 minutes in the sun and is trying to relive it. Dumb enough to give him money, have at it.
Actually his statements in march and his statements in his book aren’t mutually exclusive. Look at what he said in his book:
“There was one problem. It was not true,” McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. “I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff and the president himself.”
He doesn’t actually say the President lied, just that he was involved. How much do you want to bet that within a couple of paragraphs McClellan says something on the order of:
“When I asked the President about this he was furious and said, “I’m sorry Scott I was assured that Libby and Rove weren’t involved.”
I’m kind of curious where this excerpt is from by the way as the book isn’t due for release until April 2008.
OK I kind of answered a bit of my own question the release was a teaser, but from the MSNBC article:
McClellan’s book, “What Happened,” isn’t due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn’t get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.
So essentially MSNBC is using an out of context quote to advance an old agenda, specifically “Bush Lied”.
a jury made it crystal clear that he lied. now it appears that he has come clean about it. the funniest thing so far about the whole ongoing episode is dana perino; “…the president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information…” that doesn’t even pass the giggle test.
there actually are two conclusions possible based upon the factual information out there today. either bush new and lied, or he didn’t know. if he didn’t know then there is an entire apparatus at work in the white house that he is ignorant about. so…liar? or ignorant?
Ahh, the old “you can’t trust what these guys say in a book because they are just trying to make money” line.
So why would one listen to W about the need for war when his father was on the board of the Carlyle Group, a war profiteer?
Thanks for helping me win a bet. I predicted that the first you would ever read about this in a right wing blog would be A: He’s either lying now or lying then which makes him, well, a liar. or B: He’s just trying to sell books. I didn’t expect that you would check both boxes with the same post.
chad…
so what you are saying is that the president is not in control of the white house, that his staff lies to him, and when confronted with that fact instead of living up to his promise to get rid of anyone involved he decided to commute the sentence of one of those who lied to him. what kind of leader does this make him? which leads to the following question; is he the commander in chief of these united states, or simply a patsy to cheney? because if my staff lies to me i fire them. this is a guy that talks about principles. this is not a very principled position.
First off Jay you are wrong the jury never found that the president lied. They found that Scooter Libby (who resigned after he was indicted) lied.
So I guess that makes you a liar, but let’s go beyond the fact that you are in fact both a liar and apparently a jackass and look at the rest of your contention.
The president never actually promised what you claim he promised. What he said was that anyone who was found guilty of leaking information would be fired. Later in an offhand remark leaving a press conference in response to a question he made the remark about “anyone involved”. That is hardly a promise and when taken in context of his other statements plainly means anyone found guilty. So again you are a liar.
As to the rest of your questions I don’t know what McClellan’s book says, so I can’t address that. But remember the Vice President is a separately elected official, he can’t be fired by the President. He can be impeached if there is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor but remember that all the evidence that Patrick Fitzgerald presented showed that except for Libby’s interviews with the FBI (which resulted in his perjury and obstruction convictions) the actions taken, which you might find distasteful, were legal.
Thanks for playing.
It looks like Scott has gone the way of Lee Atwater and David Brock, conservative water carriers who snapped under the weight of their own lies and dirty tricks. It must be hard to live without a conscience. Welcome back to humanity Mr Mclelland. I forgive you.
Ring the bell and the Pavlovian left starts drooling.
I have more important things to do , like watching a turkey thaw.
Thank you, floppingaces, for making my entire thanksgiving weekend. As idiotic as your original post is, the update from Jeff (James) Gannon (Guckert) is just too precious. Thanks again.
Why don’t you Republicans just own up to the truth – you don’t care if Bush lied because he is a Republican. This is a sympton of a larger problem for the Republican party – the majority of the country finally figured out you guys are frauds. You claim to have strong principles when it suits your cause, but you don’t hold your own kind to any standards so long as they are in power. Bush lies repeatedly (Iraq WMDs, scope of NSA surveillance program, CIA leak, etc.), but you find any and every excuse to cling to the idea that he couldn’t have lied even though you wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about his affair. You claim to be fiscally responsible, but when you controlled Congress and the White House for the first time in decades you spent money like a “teenager with a credit card”. You claim to have higher morals, only to find out that you are a party of pedophiles (Foley), sexual deviants (Vitter, Craig) and crooks (Cunningham, Stevens, etc.). You claim to be Christians, but you are pro-war, favor tax cuts for the well off, disfavor any government program that is intended to help the less fortunate, and are filled with hate and anomisity for anyone that doesn’t agree with you (i.e. “liberals”). Do you honestly think that if Jesus was back on earth he would be cheering on the Iraq war, advocating larger tax cuts for the wealthy, advocating cutting programs for the poor, and preaching hate and anomisity toward homosexuals? The cats out of the bag – the rest of the country knows you guys are hypocrits and fruads. So why don’t you stop using tortured logic to justify Bush’s lies and just admit that you don’t care if he lies so long as it helps keep the Republicans in power. At least I’ll respect you for telling the truth for once!
Gee, I don’t know, you F’ing retard. Maybe because we knew the Shitbag in CHief was responsible for the coverup from the beginning.
Update at MSNBC:
Sorry to disappont the Salon readers.
Happy Thanksgiving! Gobble, Gobble.
Thanks for clearing that up, wordsmith. So, according to this, Bush was not lying, but is such an incompetant leader that he has no idea what crimes are going on beneath him, makes no effort to get to the truth, and hold nobody accountable for their actions. I’m glad you settled that.
Accountability is for the poor and powerless only.
BTW, nice job conman. That’s called hitting the nail on the head.
Just be ready for the classic Republican retort: I know you are, but what am I?
Funny statement seeing as how Fitz didn’t find any crime had occurred.
BDS alert BDS alert!
Called it. Quote taken out of context to sell the Bush Lied point.
“Funny statement seeing as how Fitz didn’t find any crime had occurred.”
i’m assuming you understand what a conviction (pardoned or not) for obstruction of justice and perjury means. libby was convicted for lying and covering up a crime to keep it from going to prosecution.
and chad, you might want to re-read JKay’s post, this time go ahead and let your lips move if that will help you understand the words and their meanings.
Ha Ha. Good one Curt. I guess you missed the part where Fitz said that he couldn’t determine if a crime had occurred because of Libby’s criminal lying and obfuscation. Oh, I forgot, he has BDS too, right? You people are clowns, and your schtick would be pretty funny if the consequences weren’t so serious.
Oh give me a break. He couldn’t determine if a crime occurred because libby forgot a date?
Wow….you guys are a hoot!
Fitz was on a mission to get somebody, anybody, seeing as how the leak of a desk jockey’s name wasn’t a crime.
Even better summation:
Let the BDS go, you may live happier lives.
I am not quite sure what to make of it. Was the Emperor wearing clothes ? or not ?
In any case the days of the Bush presidency are numbered, and history (at least in my
lifetime) will not be kind to him.
But of course for the true believers Bush is perfection itself.
As for stopping BDS forget it at 67% of the population the epidemic stage gas long since been reached and it can’t be stopped. America hates him.
“history (at least in my lifetime) will not be kind to him.”
Bet you said the same thing about Reagan.
WRONG then, WRONG now!
Will you ever learn?
Answer: NO!
“Bush was not lying, but is such an incompetant leader that he has no idea what crimes are going on beneath him, makes no effort to get to the truth, and hold nobody accountable for their actions.”
Omigod! That is SO Reaganesque.
But of course for the true believers Bush is perfection itself.
I always get a kick out of this argument. I am a TRUE BELIEVER probably one of the few left and I amke no claims about the Presidents perfection, what I do claim is I prefer him warts and all to Al Gore or John Kerry.
As far as history being kind to him, who cares? He did what I wanted held the line on the war and broke Al-Qaeda’s back, despite a lack of support from the left. He may not be remembered kindly here but I guarantee if progress continues in Iraq like it has he will be thought of the same way there that Douglas MacArthur is in the Philippines and Japan.
Don’t you guys get tired of rubbing that lamp and wishing really really hard? God knows the majority of Americans sure as hell are.
Oh… and as for “breaking Al Qaeda’s back”…. thanks for the renewed terrorism, guys:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0501/p99s01-duts.html
*golf clap*
It’s all about the marketing!
Speaking of marketing…
Happy Thanksgiving to the Flopping Aces Posse!
Conservatives are required by Party Loyalty to always take whateve position is necessary that paints President Bush as the most saintly man to ever sit in the Oval Office
Speaking of rabid loyalty, how long was Susan MacDougal jailed? What is it about the clinton’s that have people serving prison sentences in their behalf??
philadelphiasteve – one of the reason why I don’t vote Dem in Philly any longer.
“There is nothing so stupid as a right-wing blogger. Nothing.”
Well, perhaps their readers who take it all, hook line and sinker?
Ho Ho Ho! I’m making my list… checking it twice… Gonna find some lefties who’ve been naughty and not nice!
Jugger: Last time I checked, people who make statements like yours and Sal Bando above are committing transference.
I recommend you seek therapy for those anger management issues.
Hate ain’t pretty!
Nice try MHubbard, ya might have mentioned that article is 6 months old. Try look at the recent piece in the pittsburgh post gazette which says in part:
We’re floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it’s too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we’re hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and The Toledo Blade (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).
No, I’m not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I’m channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe.
Good googly moogly, I just can’t figure this one out. Calling someone a liar for years and then, when that person says that he was lying, agreeing with him, dayum, there’s a head scratcher for you. How could that be? I’ll have to ask a local rentboy for his council on the matter.
Armitage outed Plame
Those interested in busting someone for outing a “spy” are silent on this fact, but instead point fingers at some imperial conspiracy theory that warms their political partisanship like a trashcan fire in a dark alley filled with sans proletariat and otherwise employment-challenged lower class masses who are ready to rise up against the Skull and Bones/Masonic bourgeoisie.
Anyone interested in the truth sees Armitage is the leak, blames him, and leaves it at that. Anyone else is just putting on a monical (sp intentional) and looking at the matter as if it were a hanging chad vs a dimpled one.
Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.
So did Rove.
So did Rove.
So did Rove.
So did Libby.
So did Libby.
So did Libby.
All at the behest of Cheney.
(x 3).
Scott Malensek,
Extra! Extra!
More than one person can commit a crime!
Get your news here!
More than one person can commit a crime!
(No, let’s not leave it at that. Let’s go after them hard, like we would if Bill Clinton’s Veep was behind an act of treason).
You boys just love you some rule of law…Sometimes!
Yeah, thats why Fitz spent all those years and all that money investigating the “crime” and came up with nada except for a memory lapse not related the “outing” of a desk-jockey.
Let the BDS go, come back to reality.
Scott Malensek,
Do you REALLY believe only one person can commit a crime?
If so, what about the 19 hijackers on 9/11? Don’t you mean 4 hijackers? There were only 4 planes hijacked.
Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.
Armitage outed Plame.
So did Rove.
So did Rove.
So did Rove.
So did Libby.
So did Libby.
So did Libby.
At the behest of Cheney.
At the behest of Cheney.
At the behest of Cheney.
Extra! Extra!
More than one person can commit a crime!
Get your news here!
More than one person can commit a crime!
(No, let’s not leave it at that. Let’s go after them hard, like we would if Bill Clinton’s Veep was behind an act of treason).
You boys just love you some rule of law…Sometimes
Proof please.
There is a liar in all this: Joe Wilson.
Once Plame was “outed”, that was it. It’s like breaking a vase. It’s broke. Her cover was broke. Armitage broke it. If anything, she and her hubby helped as much or more than anyone else. Sour grapes ain’t gonna make your pipedream fantasies of frogmarching Rove any more real.
As to the VP bit, are you referring to Vice President Gore’s illegal campaign fund raising (which Cheney’s opponents would have had him strung up for doing), or for VP Gore’s selling of satellite technology and ICBM guidance systems to the Chinese (again, something that VP Cheney’s opponents would have demanded his testicles for).
All this Rove, Libby, Bush bs is just more partisan BDS, and the proof is so simple to show. All one has to do is remove the names and replace with pronouns then see the response. For example:
If so-and-so reveals the name of a covert agent in a affidavit or transcribed investigation/interrogation, did they commit a crime; did the out an agent?
Rove didn’t do that
Libby didn’t do that
Bush didn’t do that
Armitage did
Sen Kerry did (hey BDS folk, did you vote for Sen Kerry?)
the list goes on.
If Vice President Cheney was caught using WH phones to get money from a Haliburton-like company in the UAE, would you be mad, cause, it seems yall are totally silent on Gore’s doing it with the Chinese.
BDS, pure and simple, and the ultimate proof is that you’ll whine about the war in Iraq, then pull the lever in the ballot booth for Hillary. That’s not patriotism or even honesty. It’s partisan loyalty akin to that of brown shirt socialists in the 30’s.
Robert:
No one was ever charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html
The only “crime” committed here was that Libby forgot what he had for breakfast two years before he was asked about by a grand jury.
Get over it!
The only CRIME here is your pathetic lefty attempt to twist the meaning of words to suit your purpose.
I guess you learned well from the master: “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Grow up! There’s a war on and our enemies want to kill YOU TOO!
Um, Scotty’s STILL lying. He’s lying that he didn’t know he was lying about who leaked Plame’s name. Unless you want to admit he’s a fucking idiot?
“Um, Scotty’s STILL lying.”
‘Scotty is still lying’
That would depend on the definition of the word IS
What useless banter.
Bush isn’t up for re-election
Bush isn’t going to be impeached
Cheney’s not going to be impeached
Pelosi’s not going to be President
and you’re gonna vote for Hillary despite her vow to continue the war in Iraq longer than Bush would.
What is the point of this Plame debate or of ranting about summaries of a book that hasn’t been printed? Pure partisan fuel rather than patriotic objective.
Re: “Why don’t you Republicans just own up to the truth – you don’t care if Bush lied because he is a Republican.”
Absolutely true.
I have said before, and still maintain, that Republicans are overwhelmingly more loyal to their political party than they are to their country. And republicans prove this, over and over again.
There is absolutely nothing that George W. Bush can be found to have done that Republicans will not fall obediently in line and make every effort to pretect him from accountability, not matter what.
That’s wonderful! A dozen bi-partisan, independent, international investigations into Iraq intel, all show bad intel, weak intel, and no lies-not even undo pressure or manipulation, but the very same people who will vote for Hillary….rant away that “Bush lied.”
I’m sure glad to know how Jeff Gannon, “Hot Military Stud” weighs in on the issue.
Saying Armitage outed Plame and no other blame can be assigned is like saying the only person guilty of a gang-rape is the first one in. They all spilled the beans BEFORE Novak’s article went to press.