Scottie McC doesn't know it yet. But that's basically what he revealed this morning on the Today Show (h/t Rayne).
During the interview, Scottie revealed the two things that really pissed him off with the Bush Administration. First, being set up to lie by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And second, learning that Bush had--himself--authorized the selective leaking of the NIE.
Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.
Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?
Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.
Now, for the most part, this is not new. We have known (since I first reported it here) that Scooter Libby testified that, after Libby told Dick Cheney he couldn't leak the information Cheney had ordered him to leak to Judy Miller because it was classified, Cheney told Libby he had gotten the President to authorize the declassification of that information.
Thus far, though, we only had Dick Cheney's word that he had actually asked Bush to declassify this information. We didn't have Bush's confirmation that he had actually declassified the information. In fact, we've had Dick Cheney's claims that he--Dick--had insta-declassified via his super secret pixie dust declassification powers.
But now we've got George Bush, confirming that he, the President of the United States, authorized the leaks of "this information."
Now, though Scottie refers, obliquely, to "this information," he explicitly refers only to the NIE. But as I've described over and over again, it's not just the NIE Bush authorized Dick to order Libby to leak.
As a review, here's what Libby's NIE lies are all about. This is all documented in this post, and here is the court transcript in which most of this is revealed.
- Scooter Libby has instructions in his notes to leak something to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003
- When questioned about the notation, Libby claimed the instructions related to the NIE
- Libby went further to make certain claims about the NIE leak--that the leak was authorized by Dick Cheney and George Bush, that such an authorization was totally unique in his career, and that Libby was so worried about leaking the NIE to Judy that he double checked to make sure he was authorized to do so
- Libby later made claims that directly contradicted these assertions--most importantly, even though Libby claims the Judy leak was totally unique in his career, he also leaked the NIE to three other people: Bob Woodward, a journalist [David Sanger] on July 2, and the WSJ
- Also, in spite of the fact that Libby says he was really worried about getting authorization to leak the NIE to Judy, he's not really sure whether he was authorized to leak the NIE to Woodward; his concern about the leak to Judy only extended to whatever he leaked to Judy
In short, Libby is almost certainly lying about what he was authorized to leak to Judy on July 8, 2003, in a meeting where Judy Miller admits he talked about Valerie Plame, and where Libby tried to get her to falsely attribute the story.
At this point, Scottie McC is still accepting Scooter Libby's lies, though I suspect he sees the dangerous frailty of them. With Bush's clear admission to Scottie that he was in the loop, and the evidence that, subsequent to receiving an order from Cheney (authorized by Bush) to leak classified information to Judy Miller, Libby leaked Valerie Wilson's identity, the circumstantial evidence shows the President was directly involved in the deliberate outing of a CIA spy. The only question now is whether Bush realized he authorized the leak of Valerie's identity, in addition to a bunch of other classified documents.
Think of how much sense this makes. We have evidence that George Bush ordered Libby to respond to Joe Wilson on June 9, 2003. We now have Bush's own confirmation that he authorized the leak Libby made to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003--which included the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity. We know on July 10, Condi told Stephen Hadley that Bush "was comfortable" with the response the White House was making towards Wilson. And we know that--when Cheney forced Scottie McC to exonerate Libby publicly that fall, he did so by reminding people that "The Pres[ident] [asked Libby] to stick his head in the meat-grinder." We know that Libby's lawyers tried desperately to prevent a full discussion of the NIE lies to be presented at trial. And we know that--after those NIE lies did not come out, for the most part (though one juror told me that NIE story was obviously false, even with the limited information they received)--the President commuted Libby's sentence on July 2, 2007.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
I think Scottie knows exactly what he is doing. Just too bad it has taken him so long.
I’m not sure that’s what he said. It seems to me he said that Bush declassified the information, which isn’t the same as authorizing Libby to leak it.
Like you said, it’s kind of old news, because I seem to remember Bush declassifying the report after the fact, and there was some talk about whether Cheney had the right to declassify or not, and then Bush said that he did. There was a lot of this cover-their-asses bullshit going on, but basically it all came down to the same thing that Bush has been claiming all along: if the President did it, or approves of it, it’s legal. How else does the Libby pardon get justified?
Out of all of Valerie’s appearances about her book this is one of my favorites. Plame/Wilson with Bill Maher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vlE0s83_s
No. McC used the phrases “selective leaking” and “authorized the leak.”
From Wexler’s website:
I guess you’re right, but as disingenuous as it is, it’s still a case of the President declassifying material, isn’t it?
This is interesting.
Yes.
But that means it’s an entire framework of obstruction to protect the President.
You’ve got the missing emails. You’ve got more lies told by Libby and, almost certainly, Rove. I suspect you’ve got lies from Bartlett and Ari. And lies from Dick.
I find it hard to believe that on the strength of being told this, Scooter would follow Cheney’s order. He would’ve needed something more substantial than Cheney’s word in a matter of such importance to the integrity of an operation concerned with the proliferation of WMD, putatively, the abiding preoccupation of the Junta.
Nice catch, EW … Wexler wants Scottie to appear before a hearing … could this be the one that sets Nancy’s table ?
I saw Meredith’s hatchet job on Scottie as payback for him ripping the MSM … can’t wait for him to appear on KO today.
Don’t you get it? They are all lying weasels who stop at nothing to keep their power…
Scooter would follow cheney into a flaming house made of dogshit if he was asked by the “Magic Man”.
HI MARCY! Thanks for everything you do.
Pelosi won’t do squat.
I agree but it would appear that Wexler has the bit ‘tween his teeth …
If Bush is clearly thr source of the leak then the Libby pardon was a coverup , and as Kagro points out in email, impeachable as contemplated and written by James Madison.
By all means:
Some things have been beyond obvious for a long time, like [1] the Bu’ush overt coverup here, and [2] the utter lack of stones of either Reid or Pelosi to act up on evidence of it.
The narrative is still too complicated for ordinary people who have to worry about keeping their house and filling their tank to follow. The way it will play out is — so the President declassified the information. He’s president. He has a right to do that. We don’t know that he authorized leaking it. End of story. We know different, but it won’t matter. He’s going scot free.
Both she and Harry are busy setting the stage for the revival of the Republic brand.
Indeed. But there have been many documented transgressions prior to this — how is this sufficiently different to motivate Pelosi to restore the Constitution? I don’t see her acting in the public interest now or ever.
Man your fingers are fast … my two points exactly …
Jacqrat, In making my observation I was trying to imagine myself a high-powered lawyer in Libby’s situation.
Yep. Sadly.
I’d love to be proved wrong, but not optimistic.
Banish this bad habit of blaming the public for the media’s censorship. A jury followed the relatively unabridged version of this narrative. The public will have no trouble discerning the crimes and coverup here.
I hate to be a party pooper. I’d like to see this come home to roost as much as anyone–the day Scooter got a pass from the Commuter In Chief I put another IMPEACH bumper sticker on my car, and it’s still there). But…
We don’t have Bush’s own confirmation, we have a second hand report, not under oath, not (to my knowledge) substantiated by any contemporaneous records, that he said the words “yeah, I did” in a context which might arguably make them a confirmation of complicity. That’s not a confession.
– MarkusQ
P.S. Even sadder, I sometimes suspect that he could come out and admit everything up to and even including ordering 9/11 on national TV and it would be a three day wonder, forgotten as soon as the next young blond girl, American Idle peon or flag pin goes missing.
Adding to your points, I think Obama’s peeps will push for hearings on all of BushCo’s misdeeds this fall … would do wonders for the Dems in the GE …
The case grows stronger but we need a few more McClennans to come forth … don’t surrender now …
Marcy,
If Ari was given immunity and then lied under oath about some of this, I’d think Patrick Fitzgerald would be outside his door soonest with an indictment.
They all appear to have thrown out way too many lies to keep track of what they’ve told whom and it will (I hope and pray to doG) will come tumbling down around them like a house of cards.
That would probably drive far more people to the McCain camp than all current worst case scenarios would’ve predicted.
Um … huh ?
You say:
I have to ask: protect the President from what?
I mean, this is an administration which has, pretty uniformly since Day One:
(a) decided, by signing statements, to selectively decide which parts of laws really are laws,
(b) lived by the dictum that “if the President does it, it is not a crime”,
(c) decided that whole parts of the Constitution (like, e.g., Congress enumerated power to create uniform regulations for the Army and Navy) must give way to the superior, unemumerated and unlimited power of the Executive,
(d) and many, many more.
So, is this merely a case of, as the one pundit (I forget who) said the other day, that Bush’s intransigence, unwillingness to admit failure/defeat/error, and unwillingness to change are indicative of an executive who has no confidence in his own positions and/or competence for the job?
Or are there literal bodies buried out there (I’m thinking, today, in particular about the two missing children of KSM.) that will pop to the surface?
Many years ago, I worked in construction, doing soils engineering. One of the things one learns after looking at enough sites and dirt is that sooner or later everything which gets buried will work it’s way to the surface, no matter how deeply it’s buried. Had a truck tire pop its way to the surface through 8 or 9 feet of clean sand, once. But one could tell it was there several feet before it actually got to the surface. That, I think, is where we are now.
So, is Fitz able to take this matter up again or is it absolutely shut down? I’m unclear on that. Also, what do you think Fitz is thinking…let congress handle it first and then wait until after 1/20/09 or just foggetaboutit?
I wish there were evidence for that. I don’t think that’s the way things work in this country.
If by “people” you mean the press and other co-conspirators, you’re right.
Scotty has left a flaming bag of sh*t at Bushco’s door step. We knew all this stuff, but the MSM has ensured than the average citizen does not. McCain’s support of a war that the US was most surely lied into engaging should damage McCain. Bad memes like the selling of the war are gaining traction now b/c of Scotty’s book.
If anyone moves forward on this, I doubt it’ll be Fitz–unless what Scottie says contradicts what Bush testified to. I don’t think it does, though–the big question is whether Bush testified to knowing WHAT he had declassified, and the best reporting on this (Murray’s) says Bush remained very vague.
Furthermore, Fitz would only have a really tenuous case to go against Bush. Bush’s authority to declassify things, after all, is unlimited. As is his ability to pardon.
Thus, it would have to be done in the political realm. But there’s more reason to do so now, or at least to reopen the efforts to revisit the commutation.
Marcy - your story - this story - is right now the top of the page story at HuffPo.
Nice analogy.
I think it’s similar to the torture revelation, in that we’ve known it’s true, but we’ve got to find a way to leverage the fact that Bush has been breaking the law to hide his own shameful behavior.
It’d help if Congress got more attentive though.
Actually, I was thinking of the “of the people” people whose immediate concerns are not the disposition of the crooks currently in power.
I’m convinced that Obama will not attend to such minutiae during the general election, focussing instead on fundamental issues at a much higher level.
Part of the problem is that the public does not want to believe that a President and his administration could possibly be this bad. Yeah, they’ll watch shows on TV about this, but in real life it can’t happen.
But who holds the card to the new investigation that will need to take place? I think Pelosi. Mukasey will never appoint another special prosecutor. Someone has to start an investigation to knit up all these loose lies into a long, narrow cognitive scarf that can hang the president.
With all due respect to Kagro, tt always was; the thing lacking is the will to impeach, not the basis.
exactly. and every day she refuses to do so, her complicity in bushco’s crimes grows.
Wow, great to see you connecting the dots again on all things plame EW. Don’t see much of Jodi in these parts anymore. Who scared her off? Was it finally freepat or did she just come to the pathetic conclusion of her insignificance?
I don’t remember if McClellan was a witness of if he had any part in the Libby trial or Grand Jury testimony prior. Marcy, what do you have on this?
Right. Perhaps now we can see about actually requesting/subpoenaing Fitz’s files including the interviews of Bush and Cheney? You know, like he specifically invited Congress to do.
No, after much struggle with my Beamish conscience, I banned her.
bmaz - since you had such a lovely insight into the motivation for telco immunity, can you give us your thinking on why the frack is congress apparently helping to cover up for bush?
IANAL, just one of “the People”, but that does seem to be a valid argument. Is it really this clear cut?
And remember, impeachment is a political, not legal, act. And politics being more about perception than action kept Nancy in 2006 from putting impeachment on the table.
The question now is does Mc’s book change the perception? Judging from the WH’s furious reaction, I think this is what it most fears-that the Rs in Congress and the corporate media will decide they’ve had enough of covering for Bush and a sacrificial head will have to be offered up.
Three guesses? Well, it won’t be Rove or Cheney. (Which, for some reason, reminds me of the Jim Baker quote to Bush, “Sit down and shut up. Everybody hates you!”)
A few things are making more sense. For starters, Bush is not stupid. He is deeply ignorant, incurious, lazy, crude and boorish. But not stupid. He cares about very little, mostly protecting inherited and corporate wealth from the jihad of the Tax Man and The Regulator, and getting even in biblical excess for the smallest slights.
If a government lawyer or Cheney told him he could de-classify something at will, and that doing so would get back at his enemies, protect his self-image over his rationales for war and his success in Iraq, and would enhance his odds of winning “re-election” in 2004, he would not have hesitated for a moment. If so, it would further explain the concerted ReichWing attacks on Lil’ Scotty, because a helluva lot more than tittle tattling is going on.
The whisperer controlling Bush’s decisions, then and now, is Dick Cheney. Cheney hates the bureaucracy. He hates its merit-based aspirations and the myriad ways it subverts those to protect its favorites. He hates that its professionals sometimes refuse to tell him what he wants to hear the way sycophants do in a private company. He despises its potential to obstruct him. Personally, he would have destroyed Plame’s and Wilson’s careers in a heart beat. Substantively, he rarely agreed with the CIA’s analysis or conclusions, preferring Doug Feith’s “Team B” approach, regardless of how consistently wrong that advice has been. But Cheney is smart and he knew to put the President on the line instead of himself.
Bush may or may not have followed the logic of his own acts. He may not have seen beyond the goals of destroying Valerie Plame’s career and her husband’s credibility. (That, after all, was just payback, they were both in play.) He may not have seen that he was also undermining national security by jeopardizing Plame’s work and that of her network - and threatening the model used by the CIA for other covert ops. But I don’t think he cared. His priority is to win, and he’s never done it without bribing the ref or moving the goal posts, while making others bear the cost. And thinking ahead, except when planning payback, is not his strong suit.
As for McClellan, his self-image is as flawed as Bush’s. He didn’t become press secretary as a neophyte. He’d worked for Bush in and out of the White House. He’d seen Ari Fleischer work for years. He knew about the White House players’ professional lying and so knew he was doing the same thing every time he stepped on that podium.
Ignoring that, perhaps, is the price of shaving every day without smashing the mirror or misusing the razor. A good guy done wrong is also the staple of political and Hollywood career comebacks. We’re likely to hear it repeatedly as the Bush cohort tells us why it’s the Democrats who created all the problems the next administration will expose and try to fix. But this is a big one.
Bush wasn’t under oath when he testified, was he?
I’d expect him to go for ‘I don’t recall’ even if he was - it’s a cheap nad easy way out (just his style), and puts the burden of proof that he’s lying on the prosecution, which is handicapped by his (and Darth’s)
love ofobsession with secrecy.Nice post.
I have long referred to that vile prick Cheney as “the Bu’ush Whisperer.”
This is pure speculation on my part:
Congress is helping cover for Bush for three basic reasons -
A combination of a few of each of these is enough to turn a substantial Dem majority and a mandate, into a bunch of spineless jellyfish.
He can”t recall whether he ever snorted coke, LOL!
Right.
Heh, even a deaf, dumb, blind squirrel stumbles on a nut every now a and then; doesn’t mean I can do it again. My guess is it is a combination of wanting to conceal their own role in it and sheer political calculation on their re-election and increasing their precious majorities. Basically every element except their sworn duty in their oath to office to protect the Constitution.
Precisely. There would have been no point to de-classifying the NIE in this manner had they not intended to use it in some form of political payback in defense of their actions. This was early in an election year; the war and national defense were the chief planks of the campaign.
Wilson’s OpEd (and other OpEds and reporting that might follow it), and the Bush team’s inability, the lack of interest even, in occupying Iraq as effectively as they prosecuted the initial invasion, threatened to expose their flank. They wanted that threat done away with. This is not a team that rationally uses facts in open debate. They misuse them in gutting their opponents.
Henry Waxman has already done that. Two or three times. It looks like the docs were due January 8th. I can find no further information on the committee’s site.
http://oversight.house.gov/doc.....pdf”>
Delaying this news is why Bush pardoned Scooter.
Bush knew who the leaker was, because he authorized the leak.
Then he covered it up.
This kind of revelation could (SHOULD!) generate a Watergate syle firestorm, although given how lazy and intimated the press is, I doubt it.
Toobz clogged. Pls snd plmmr.
EW, this has probably been asked before, but what would be the mechanism to mount a legal challenge to the pixie dust theory? I realize one route is through a new AG undertaking a thorough weeding of OLC opinions, but is there some way to start getting the bad opinions tossed earlier than that? How exposed would Bush and his minions be if it can be shown that they actively demanded OLC opinions to cover them for known past and future intended illegal acts?
Simply put, when Bush said “If there’s a leak in my adminstration, I’d like to know who did it.” It was the very beginning of HIS cover-up. His minions, mooks and monkeys then did whatever was needed to protect him.
-G
Reading the comments on the Politico web site is trully demoralizing. So many bloggers attacking any criticism of Bush and the Administration. The 28 percenters are sure a busy lot.
Some Democrats supported Bush and enabled his actions.
Some because they believed, others because they were scared.
Many more were complicit by their silence and inaction.
For almost all, even as a de facto coup was taking place before their eyes and after disaster after disaster and excess after excess unfolded before them, they still saw it all as nothing out of the ordinary, just business as usual.
The problem too is that which I describe above does not define discrete groups. At various times, Democratic politicians in Congress belonged to several of these groups.
You can’t
make me confesshandle the truth !Prolly all those Pentagon Generals or their minions …
They are only stoking the fires of contempt against themselves. The public is in no mood to seek rationalisations and excuses for Bush’s misdeeds.
The lead lemming is in mid air and the legions are rushing towards the cliff chirping “bring it on”.
-G
The potential for criminal liability remains. In 2004, it was unclear what might follow revelations of executive misconduct, though the administration has worked non-stop to ensure that nothing followed it. But that success was not certain. You and EW are both right. The pattern of conduct has been both to subvert the government and law, and to protect itself from others who would undo that.
As Chou En-Lai remarked a few decades ago about the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell whether the Bush team’s gambits will work. Practically, that’s up to the next President and Congress. Lots of money, spin, threats and political obstruction will be thrown around in a real life version of Mortal Kombat.
I like Attaturk’s comment on this: If he can’t remember he snorted coke, then he probably snorted too much.
It’s hard to see anything shaking Bush’s “vindication of history” delusion. Hopefully, the Republics pay for years for having foisted him on this nation.
I recall it being pointed out over and over on the Plame threads - that it didn’t matter whether he was under oath or not - lying to prosecutors was lying to prosecutors -
under oath = perjury
not under oath = false statements (Martha Stewart/Marion Jones)
emptywheel, you are George W. Bush’s worst nightmare, and his com(anti)patriots too.
Ditto re lying to Congress whether or not under oath. It’s a felony separate and apart from perjury.
Do you think the Democratic controlled Congress can be roused from their slumber to uphold their constitutional responsibilities? Highly unlikely with this group of posers.
With all the prosecutions being lined up here, Scotty should be included as admitted aider and abetter, I expect.
It doesn’t affect long-term memory. Trust me.
Is there anything Bush hasn’t lied about?
He can’t remember.
Um … the twins ? *g*
(((Quaker gilr)))
(((QuakerGirl)))
I meant (Quaker girl)
Nice work!
((((( Quaker Girl )))))
Jane’s upstairs.
But Bush wants the truth and thinks that it is helpful that Scotty came forward.
Thanks EW for this post. I have a question about McClellan’s book. Did he have to get permission from the President to publish it? I can’t help wondering about the timing of this book coming out. I keep getting the feeling that someone is pulling a fast one on all of us. Or perhaps it is just a fatigue from so much lying this bunch have done.
I like Vincent Bugliosi’s take on GWB. Charge him with murder. His arguments are compelling and he has contacted prosecutors across the country hoping one has the courage to look at the evidence and charge him accordingly. Add treason to the list of charges.
Jon Tester at FDL now
It is late in the day to try for impeachment(and in the context of a political campaign, too distracting).
Fitz bringing new charges, though….I would LOVE that!
It’s a PR stunt by Bugliosi, an man famous for PR stunts; his argument is full of shit.
Waxman requested information by letter, but I don’t recall him issuing a subpeona. You link didn’t work for me, so I’m clueless about what you are referring to.
patFitz could not legally turn over GJ docs on his own just to repsond to a letter.
If he was served with a subpeona, PatFitz could go to court and make a motion to have the docs tured over to resond to the subpeona.
A mere request ain’t gonna cut it.
I have a serious problem with the president being able to at will declassify anything
as far as I am concerned he can declassify only info he himself classified in the first place
yes
I forget the exact phrase but something like
“our enemies are always looking for ways to harm america and so are we”
that wasn’t a lie
I wonder what loophole the OLC/Addington/Ashcroft/Yoo wrote for everybody on this
Try this one on for size.
Jeff Gannon reappeared on the scene. Today on JeffGannon.com:
Really, Jeff?
Are you lying?
Are you suggesting a gay affair?
Or are you suggesting you are a plant?
The first two I’ll let slide, but the third, well, back to 2005 Vanity Fair…
Remember, this is 2005. This is before the public knew of the DOD-propaganda military bloggers program which was recently uncovered. Was Gannon a prong of that program? Is that why McClellan would know him so well?
OT, but an interesting question. The NYT David Kirkpatrick — in an adulatory front-page story that could have been written by one of McCain’s lobbyists — reports that St. John the Divine turned down an admiral’s star in 1981, because he wanted to go into politics.
Several earlier discussions here revolved around McCain not getting his star, raising questions about his judgment and capacity to lead, as a reason for leaving the Navy. Anyone have the scoop?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05.....ref=slogin
This link?
http://oversight.house.gov/doc.....104132.pdf
Republicans would portray Democrats as opportunists who are playing politics with mischaracterized past events and who are not addressing important issues of the moment. Democratic elected and party leadership are much too afraid of that line of criticism, but afraid they are, so formal proceedings of more than one kind have suffered or have never been commenced.
lol, how could i forget that one *rolls eyes*
Oh, for a Congress able and willing to live up to its oath of office!
Congress, Congress, wherefore art thou?
Bob in HI
Thanks tw3K. I’m having major toobz problems today. That is what I tried to link to at 57.
LHP - I believe that Henry believes that he can have the Bush and Cheney interviews specifically because they were not GJ testimony and therefore not subject to the same rules.