Ignoring Bush administration's past remarks on CIA leak investigation, O'Donnell falsely claimed Bush's "long-standing no-comment policy has held"
SUMMARY: Ignoring Bush administration officials' willingness to discuss the CIA leak investigation when it serves their purpose, NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell falsely claimed that "[e]ven days after the president became publicly entangled in the CIA leak case, his long-standing, no-comment policy has held."
Ignoring Bush administration officials' willingness to discuss the CIA leak investigation, involving the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, when it serves their purpose, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell falsely claimed, on the April 10 edition of NBC's Today, that "[e]ven days after the president became publicly entangled in the CIA leak case, his long-standing, no-comment policy has held." O'Donnell was referring to the disclosure by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified that he was told by Cheney that President Bush authorized the disclosure of portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to rebut former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's claim that the administration "twisted" the intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq.
O'Donnell's claim that Bush's "no-comment policy" on the CIA leak case "has held" overlooks several instances in which Bush -- or other administration officials -- have discussed the investigation. For example, Bush vowed, in September 2003, to fire anyone who "leak[ed] classified information." Further, as Media Matters for America has documented, Bush claimed, in October 2005, that he had "consistently said I'm not going to talk about the case." Yet, just a few months earlier, in July 2005, he had stated that he would "like this [investigation] end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." Additionally, as Think Progress pointed out, during an October 18, 2005, briefing, White House press secretary Scott McClellan explained that neither Bush nor Cheney had been asked to appear again before the special prosecutor, moments after dodging a question about Cheney's involvement in the leak by stating: "[O]ur policy is not to comment on an investigation while it's ongoing."
From the April 10 Edition of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: Good morning, [MSNBC anchor and correspondent] Natalie [Morales]. Today, the president talks about the current day's struggles about Iraq in a speech in Baltimore. But the CIA leak case brings about some of the original debate about the war, and now, a prominent Republican says the president owes more of an explanation. Even days after the president became publicly entangled in the CIA leak case, his long-standing, no-comment policy has held.
BUSH: I'm not going to talk about it until the investigation's complete.
...when Karl Rove cooked up the "declassification" excuse. Was it before or after Judith Miller went to jail? Of course it's another lie. If Bush had declassified the information beforehand, why didn't he just say so, instead of giving us that pathetic "who, me?" performance.
...why would the President allow Judith Miller to sit in jail to protect her source of information the President has the authority to declassify and supposedly now says he did declassify?
Ooops, gotta go. Time for the Two Minute Hate.
Bush's "sush!" policy was not unveiled till Fitzgerald pointed the guilty finger at the Bush White House. Before that you couldn't shut them up! Please, just take the "fif" and get it over with.
... you have the right to plead the 5th Amendment, and refuse to answer question.
However, it's not a SELECTIVE right. You either choose the 5th, or you relinquish that right. Most accused folks have a version of the story they wish to promote. They WANT to tell this "spin", in order to direct suspicion elsewhere. But this has been the downfall of many a plaintiff. See, if you decide you only want to give SOME information, you have waived your 5th Amendment rights. It's an all or nothing proposition.
Compare this to the White House, which is ever so eager to point their fingers in every other direction, or spin the story in ways to exonerate them from suspicion. They do this constantly, even (perhaps ESPECIALLY) when the issue involves information "under investigation."
But then, when FURTHER quizzed about the issues, they hide behind the "can't discuss" canard. This is just another lie and deception from an Administration which has trademarked the practice. In fact, lying, deception, and hypocricy is their ONLY "longstanding policy."
We commented, but we can't comment any more, unless we decide to comment again to smear someone, but never to shed light on contradictions.
THESE are the people running the country??
[link to www.vegsource.com]
Does anyone take this reporter seriously?
EXACTLY!!