Wash. Post cited no sources in exonerating McClellan of misleading media about Libby's involvement in CIA leak
Without citing any sources, anonymous or otherwise, a November 3 Washington Post article by staff writers Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig asserted that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, denied to White House press secretary Scott McClellan any involvement in the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. By making this unsourced assertion, the Post exonerated McClellan of any intention to mislead reporters in asserting at an October 7, 2003, press briefing that Libby was "not involved" in outing Plame.
In addition, VandeHei and Leonnig cited only unnamed "people familiar with the case" in reporting that White House senior adviser Karl Rove told McClellan that Rove "was not involved in the leak," and two paragraphs later reported that "McClellan relayed Rove's denial to reporters from the White House lectern" without noting that Rove's denial was also merely alleged and not an established fact.
While McClellan's "most logical defense," as a November 3 report by The New York Times put it, might be that he was misled by Rove and Libby and therefore gave a good-faith denial to the press, whether that defense is true is not publicly known. It may also be the case that McClellan knew of Rove and Libby's involvement at the time of his false statement to the press on October 7, 2003. VandeHei and Leonnig wrote as if they knew. But if they do know, rather than just assume, they didn't indicate how they know; their sourcing is nonexistent in Libby's case and thin in Rove's.
By accepting McClellan's innocence as fact, the Post: 1) provides support for the proposition that any wrongdoing by Libby or Rove was their own and did not extend further into the White House; and 2) allows McClellan and other White House officials cover to avoid answering questions about what they really knew and when they knew it.
By contrast, McClellan's role in the matter has been aggressively questioned elsewhere in the media. In an October 31 White House press briefing, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory pushed McClellan to admit he was "wrong" in saying in 2003 that Rove and Libby weren't involved, arguing that the credibility of McClellan and President Bush "is not on criminal trial. But it may very well be on trial with the American public." Gregory then accused McClellan of an "artful dodge" when he refused to answer the question. Similarly, ABC News chief White House correspondent Terry Moran warned McClellan: "There's been a wound to your credibility here. A falsehood wittingly or unwittingly was told from this podium." On the November 1 edition of CNN's American Morning, anchor Soledad O'Brien noted that "either Scott McClellan is lying or Karl Rove lied to Scott McClellan." She then pressed Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman: "Which is it?" He replied: "I don't know the answer to that question."
From the November 3 Washington Post report:
A swift resolution [to Rove's uncertain future in the Bush administration] is needed in part to ease staff tension, a number of people inside and out of the White House said. Many mid-level staffers inside have expressed frustration that press secretary Scott McClellan's credibility was undermined by Rove, who told the spokesman that he was not involved in the leak, according to people familiar with the case.
Some aides said Rove told Bush the same thing, though little is known about the precise nature of the president's conversations with his closest political adviser.
McClellan relayed Rove's denial to reporters from the White House lectern in 2003, and he has not yet offered a public explanation for his inaccurate statements. "That is affecting everybody," said a Republican who has discussed the issue with the White House. "Scott personally is really beaten down by this. Everybody I talked to talks about this."
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, will be arraigned today on five counts, involving three felony charges, in the leak probe. Libby also told McClellan two years ago he was not involved, a denial that was also relayed to the public.
I saw some moron chick from the Post on MSNBC this morning going on and on and on about how no crime was committed and that the indictment is just hogwash and she predicted it would all be dimissed soon.
She also went on about how Plame was NOT a covert agent and the fact that Fitzgerald NEVER called her covert just proves this is all a partisan witch hunt.
Are ALL the idiots that work at the Post this stupid? Wonder when journalistic ethics was deemed unAmerican and not worth adhering to?
The Post's article is troubling in so many ways, not the least of which is that it was written after the expiration of the grand jury . . . The point being that had such an assertion been written before the grand jury expired perhaps Fitzpatrick would have sought VandeHei and Leonnig's sources. Additionally, whether McClellan was told that Rove and Libby were blameless or whether he made it up; it was false. Nor is it the only false utterance McClellan has made. Furthermore, McClellan works for an administration whose business is spreading propaganda. The Bush administration either outright lies (makes assertions they know to be false, e.g., the new prescription drug plan will cost X, when they knew it would cost more) or dodges the truth ("I can't comment on that while there is an ongoing investigation") or propagates half truths to mislead the country (Bush's the British have intelligence that Sadam attempted to buy yellow cake in Niger or Cheney's "I never met Joe Wilson"). So even if we make an incredible assumption that McClellan honestly believed that neither Rove nor Libby were involved in the leak, he still has no honor, nor any integrity. If he did he would resign because he would realize, as all of us do, that he is a tool for Bush's propaganda machine. And no one with integrity would want to be associated with such an unworthy enterprise. So shame on the WP!
Talk about Media bias, Almost every major news organization joined together in a legal argument that Miller and Cooper could not be forced to divulge their sources because no crime had been committed. They argued that Plame had not been a covert operative for 5 years, therefore no crime had been committed and thus they could not be pressured to reveal sources. But a Lexis Nexis search results in hundreds of references to Plame as covert agent outed by Bush's crew, all published after these same organizations argued in court that no crime had been committed because Plame had not been covert for over 5 years. This is total media hypocrisy at its best. Demonize Rove and Libby as criminals in the press, but argue for the lack of any crime in court. If you doubt the facts, google "amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time".
More pre-emptive propaganda that has the greasy fingerprints of Rove smudged all over it. These guys are shameless. "Oh my God they've found out. What should we do?. "Relax, we'll just lie about it, and commit our next egregious act so they'll forget about the last one. And if all else fails we'll nominate Pat Robertson to the Supreme Court. That'll show em!"
On every single thread about this case the same posters come out to claim there is no proof she was covert. How much proof do you need? There are reasons for the CIA and others in the know not to say when she was or was not covert to the American public. Can you say National Security boys and girls? I knew you could. If you start telling when and where she was when she was covert, you give a clear trail to her contacts/missions. Do some of you really not get this? OK, so they will not say "Mrs. Wilson was covert at this time", so where is the proof she was? Simple, it is all over this investigation. Fitzgerald said in his press conference that classified information had been leaked. The CIA has stated classified info was leaked. Several judges who have heard parts of this case already to determine contempt of court charges have all found that the matter is about national security and thus too serious to allow reporters to be allowed to stand behind shield laws. How many different people in how many different ways have to say/write that this is about NATIONAL SECURITY before you listen. Well, I guess if Rush said it once you would take it as gospel.
They simply want the CIA to be more forthcoming about her assignments. What does the CIA have to hide, hmmm?