Libby Trial Fun

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

Well… here’s one…

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/18/ip.01.html
[i]
First to you Suzanne. We heard a little bit of a different take from President Bush today on this.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Dana, that’s right. As a matter of fact, President Bush seemed to raise the bar a little bit when it comes to those in the White House leaking classified information. Now, the statement he made back in September of 2003 – essentially this was the reporters were reassured that Karl Rove had nothing to do with this leak investigation nothing to do with the leaking of CIA Agent Valerie Plame. President Bush making a very defiant statement; a defiant pledge…

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Listen, I know of nobody – I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it and we’ll take the appropriate action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, Dana, let’s listen to the language today of the president, of course. Now, this comes after at least two reporters revealed that Rove at least played some part; had some role in being a source for this leak investigation – for the CIA leak story. President Bush seemingly having a higher standard for that pledge that he made two years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, Dana, of course, the distinction that is important here: Whether or not they committed a crime, or whether or not they deliberately leaked classified information. One, of course, is illegal, the other is not at all; depends on the person’s intention. But also, of course, legal analysts says it not only gives Rove legal cover, but perhaps gives the president political cover as he faced those Democrats who are calling for him essentially to make good on that pledge two years ago – Dana?
[/i]

42

Um, your first one is from the press conference I linked above, and it is obviously qualified by his first statement - you know, the one where he says he would fire someone who committed a crime.

Not to mention, didja see the “classified” part?

Whoever put those clips together certainly wasn’t trying to mislead by omission [Sarcasm fully intended].

43

Boston,

The fact is the president was on television making the claim that he would deal with anyone involved.

This isn’t the one where he says “yes” to a reporters question… which is what your canned response sounds suited for.

44

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,

The fact is the president was on television making the claim that he would deal with anyone involved.

This isn’t the one where he says “yes” to a reporters question… which is what your canned response sounds suited for.[/quote]

vroom,

It’s a direct quote from the press conference I quoted above. Do you not think those two statements should be read together? Do you somehow think the “appropriate action” he referred to one minute after saying he would fire someone who broke the law wasn’t that he would fire someone who broke the law?

45

Boston,

It’d damned hard to find video chunks, so I’ll have to concede (for now)… :stuck_out_tongue:

However, for shits and giggles, or for a good summary of what Rove actually did, though apparently within the letter of the law, you can watch this video:

For a less professional but more widespread examination of leaks caused by the Bush administration (with some strange humor thrown in here and there):

Back to the ongoing topic, I do think this part of his speech deserves a highlight though:

But I want to tell you something – leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we’ve had them – there’s too much leaking in Washington. That’s just the way it is. And we’ve had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I’ve spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

Once he finds out who they were… it doesn’t matter because it was his staff that did it.

Seriously, there is no longer any question that they outed Valeria Plame [and others while founding other interesting ways to get their message out – see second video] or that it was done for political reasons.

46

For a good rundown of various (sort of unrelated) media malfeasance events:

[b]Still more leak investigation falsehoods[b]
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510260002

47

Okay, finally, a web page that deals with the original issue I was sent out to search for.
[i]
White House press secretary Scott McClellan explicitly stated in a September 29, 2003, press conference that Bush would fire anyone involved in outing an undercover CIA operative. McClellan did not hinge dismissal on criminal or intentional action:

Q: Scott, has anyone – has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that’s assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

[…]

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
[/i]
Funny, how as the spokesperson for the White House, it doesn’t actually matter what he says.

48

Heh, I like this line the best…

The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

I guess it’s a good thing nobody asks him for permission!!!

49

[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, finally, a web page that deals with the original issue I was sent out to search for.
[i]
White House press secretary Scott McClellan explicitly stated in a September 29, 2003, press conference that Bush would fire anyone involved in outing an undercover CIA operative. McClellan did not hinge dismissal on criminal or intentional action:

Q: Scott, has anyone – has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that’s assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

[…]

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
[/i]
Funny, how as the spokesperson for the White House, it doesn’t actually matter what he says.[/quote]

Two points.

First, the spokesperson for the White House isn’t the President. He can’t make policy, he can’t order generals to do anything on the battlefield, and he can’t fire anyone. To the extent he was speaking extemporaneously at a press conference and said something, it stands to reason that the President could clarify the position later – say, at a press conference the next day when the President himself was speaking.

And this is aside from the fact these aren’t prepared speeches or policy papers – these are off-the-cuff answers to press questions at conferences. To stretch an answer by the press secretary at a press conference into a promise by the administration to take some action or other is an incredible stretch. Especially when you never have the President saying something to the same effect.

Second, read the press conference in its entirety, and see if you think the response can be reasonably interpreted as a promise by the administration to fire anyone who the press accuses of “leaking,” irrespective of any other facts (facts like whether the information was classified or whether laws were broken, for example):

So, the point still stands. The President never backtracked, as he never promised to fire anyone accused of being a source for a story. Let alone fire anyone accused of being “a leaker” of non-classified information.

50

[quote]First, the spokesperson for the White House isn’t the President. He can’t make policy, he can’t order generals to do anything on the battlefield, and he can’t fire anyone. To the extent he was speaking extemporaneously at a press conference and said something, it stands to reason that the President could clarify the position later – say, at a press conference the next day when the President himself was speaking.

And this is aside from the fact these aren’t prepared speeches or policy papers – these are off-the-cuff answers to press questions at conferences. To stretch an answer by the press secretary at a press conference into a promise by the administration to take some action or other is an incredible stretch. Especially when you never have the President saying something to the same effect.
[/quote]

You are such a cheerleader. He is the official spokesperson for the White House, not just some guy talking to reporters for the hell of it.

If he misspoke, then there should have been an explicit correction. Of course, nobody issued a correction because there was need to be concerned until more facts came out.

Then, it was too late, so they just let subtle shift slide into their statements… and it worked well, because the president had already said it both ways.

If anybody misspoke, it would be the president who can’t speak worth a damn.

Again, let me reiterate, he was the OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON for the WHITE HOUSE, who was briefed on the messages he was to convey. It is HIS JOB to convey information and policy to the public.

How you can claim he’s just some guy and can’t be expected to actually speak on behalf of anyone is ludicrous.

He made an official statement, nobody ever claimed he had made a mistake when he said it… they just ignored it and changed their tone as they went down the road, because, as well all know, Bush sets the HIGHEST STANDARDS for ethical behavior for his team members.

Ahahahahahaha! Please. Let’s be serious for a change.

51

vroom,

Did you read the transcript of the press conference? Do you really think that there are administration officials dedicated to parsing each word of the answer of the press secretary so they can issue explicit corrections to every statement? Get real.

The President explicitly said his position himself, the very next day, in response to press questions.

Your wishful thinking is amusing. Talk about trying to spin the facts…

52

Actually, let’s lay forth your (and I’ll assume Brad’s) position in all its ridiculous glory.

On September 29, 2003, as an answer to a question in a press conference during which all the questions were premised on the idea that someone had leaked national-security information and broken at least the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Presidential Press Secretary Scott McCellan answers a question concerning whether the administration would fire a person who did in fact leak national security information with “that’s the least that would happen” (my paraphrase). Note, do you think he was promising the administration would have such a person horsewhipped too? Thrown in jail? Perhaps that might imply the answer was premised on the fact that said person actually broke a law, especially given the questions and the other answers concerning a Justice Department investigation…

But on to the next day. As part of a nefarious plot to mislead or misdirect and backtrack on such an explicit promise to fire whoever, under whatever circumstances, may have mentioned Plame’s name, directly or indirectly, to the press, the very next day, on September 30, 2003, after carefully reviewing and parsing the transcript of the press briefing the day before, the President comes out and, instead of explicitly correcting the “promise” McCellan made the day before, just states clearly that he would dismiss someone from his administration who broke the law.

And, in each subsequent statement since that statement on September 20, 2003, the President has clearly stated that he would fire someone from his administration who broke the law.

What obvious backtracking. What a weaselly administration. How could I have been so blind…

Seriously, how can someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself possibly believe that, or any approximation of that? Your distaste for the administration is spilling over and clouding your judgment.

53

Boston, the fact remains, the media and everyone else believed the original statements. Questions were asked of the president to clarify about those original statements.

Never was there any type of “modification” stated to clarify the message… it was just changed.

It’s great that members of the administration were smart enough to not actually state her name themselves, but neither does it change the nature of the act they took.

You can focus on issues such as whether the changed their story or not, as if that is truly the significant issue.

The issue is that the administration is known to have leaked information in order to discredit their critics. They are willing to sacrifice undercover assets (the Brewster group and past actions) for their own political gains.

There is no amount of nitpicking and whining about wording that changes that matter. All the whining and nitpicking merely damages the credibility of the president and republicans supporting him, as they skirt the real issues involved.

Seriously, give that concept a bit of thought.

54

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston, the fact remains, the media and everyone else believed the original statements. Questions were asked of the president to clarify about those original statements.[/quote]

No, the fact doesn’t remain. No one asked the President to clarify McCellan’s statement between the time it was made and the time the President made his statement one day later.

The President has never been ambiguous on the topic. In any later request for “clarification,” the President has simply restated the position that he would fire anyone who broke the law – how much more clear can he be?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Never was there any type of “modification” stated to clarify the message… it was just changed.[/quote]

There was nothing to modify, because there was no explicit statement otherwise. Read the actual statement of McCellan in context of the questions and his other answers. It was not at all unclear. Only when subsequently pulled out of context does it look unclear – and no one was doing that until much later, when it was already quite clear what the President’s position was – as stated by himself, clearly, one day later.

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s great that members of the administration were smart enough to not actually state her name themselves, but neither does it change the nature of the act they took.[/quote]

Yes, the nature of the act would be affedted by whether it was legal or illegal, whether it involved national security or not, whether she was undercover or not, whether a statement was made knowingly or not, etc.

And the nature of the postion is crystal clear: The President would fire someone who broke the law.

[quote]vroom wrote:
You can focus on issues such as whether the changed their story or not, as if that is truly the significant issue.[/quote]

You and Brad were focusing on this issue – I am only focusing on it because he was misrepresenting the facts, and then you decided to support his misrepresentation of the facts. His entire point was that Bush had backtracked – go tell him it’s unimportant. I rather agree – it just irks me when people attempt to state something so obviously wrong as a fact.

[quote]vroom wrote:
The issue is that the administration is known to have leaked information in order to discredit their critics. They are willing to sacrifice undercover assets (the Brewster group and past actions) for their own political gains.[/quote]

Whoa there fella. Look at some of those embedded assumptions. The only thing we know is that someone in the executive branch discussed Plame’s name with reporters. All the other stuff if speculation – and most of it is bad speculation, particularly the motive. It looks more and more as if the name, which was well known to Washington journalists, was discussed with reporters by someone from State (possibly Powell or Richard Armitage) in order to make a joke about how worthless the CIA “investigation” was.

So, you have that motivation for the act of discussing someone who had no active cover and did not fit under the legal definition of “undercover”.

Yep, sure sounds like what you wrote…

[quote]vroom wrote:
There is no amount of nitpicking and whining about wording that changes that matter. All the whining and nitpicking merely damages the credibility of the president and republicans supporting him, as they skirt the real issues involved.

Seriously, give that concept a bit of thought.[/quote]

I love it. Fact are nitpicking. The actual laws are whining. But wild speculation, now that is the real issue at hand. Dream on…

55

In the larger sense, the problem is that the Republicans were the ones up in arms about “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.”

And, everyone’s favorite, “It depends on how you define ‘sexual intercourse.’”
(I’m paraphrasing there.)

Yet, the Republicans are now parsing phrases and splitting hairs just like Bubba.

Ironic.

56

[quote]harris447 wrote:
In the larger sense, the problem is that the Republicans were the ones up in arms about “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.”

And, everyone’s favorite, “It depends on how you define ‘sexual intercourse.’”
(I’m paraphrasing there.)

Yet, the Republicans are now parsing phrases and splitting hairs just like Bubba.

Ironic.[/quote]

What part of “I will fire someone who violated the law” is hard to understand?

57

What part of, this is a Presidency of higher ethics (sic) that will hold staff to higher standards of ethics, do you not understand?

The fact is they have hurt national security multiple times with their habit of leaking important information – and that is more important that whether or not they mentioned “her name” explicitly which would have made it illegal.

You simply deflect and make the issue something you can defend, when there are important and significant issues under discussion.

Fine, I’ll grant they can’t convict anyone, and that certainly is a victory, but that doesn’t make the presidency true to it’s principles and neither does it mean they haven’t repeatedly damaged the national interest in their haste to exact political leverage.

I see your point, do you see mine?

58

[quote]vroom wrote:
What part of, this is a Presidency of higher ethics (sic) that will hold staff to higher standards of ethics, do you not understand?[/quote]

I understand that you are changing the subject. What is this, for the third time now?

[quote]vroom wrote:
The fact is they have hurt national security multiple times with their habit of leaking important information – and that is more important that whether or not they mentioned “her name” explicitly which would have made it illegal.[/quote]

This argument is about whether anyone hurt national security via the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name as an employee of the CIA – two parts: 1) whether it was “disclosure” if it was already known and 2) whether, if such disclosure occurred, it had any material negative effect on national security.

If you want to have a more general discussion, that’s fine, but that is not now, nor has it ever been, the point of any thread on this topic.

If we want to start talking about generally harming national security via leaks, I want to start with the disclosure of the NSA program and the “black” prisons.

[quote]vroom wrote:
You simply deflect and make the issue something you can defend, when there are important and significant issues under discussion.[/quote]

Hello Kettle, meet Pot.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Fine, I’ll grant they can’t convict anyone, and that certainly is a victory, but that doesn’t make the presidency true to it’s principles and neither does it mean they haven’t repeatedly damaged the national interest in their haste to exact political leverage.

I see your point, do you see mine?[/quote]

I see you want to make a general point. To do so would require a very different discussion - and a whole lot more proof on your part concerning motivation, political leverage, and causation for damage to national security.

59

Quit trying to change the subject… LOL.

Anyhow, no, it looks like you are not able to concede anything. I guess that shows how balanced your viewpoint is.

Anyway, regardless, Libby is on trial and the trial looks like it will bring things into the public eye that will reinforce the types of issues that I have been raising that you feel are not salient topics.

So, the Libby trial and the effects it will have, that is the subject.

60

I suppose we shall see. Given that Libby was never charged with anything related to national security, I kind of doubt it will come up a lot via the trial - lying under oath to a grand jury doesn’t really affect national security (again, irrespecitve of how bad a charge it is in its own right, it’s unrelated to national security). But then again, the press may well gin it up anyway - in fact, I guarantee it. Just look at the original story on this thread…