McClellan apparently feels liberated, at least a little

I caught former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on The Daily Show a few weeks ago, and he was surprisingly … different. He no longer seemed quite as ridiculous defending the indefensible. Asked about Cheney, McClellan described the Vice President as “competent,” which isn’t exactly the most complimentary word White House flacks are supposed to use in reference to the VP.

Last night, McClellan was willing to go even further, telling a national television audience that the current White House political strategy in relation to the Plame scandal isn’t good enough.

Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan said [last night] that if he was still advising the president he would urge him and his team to drop their policy of not talking about the Libby/CIA leak case.

“I would advise the White House to find a way to get out there and talk about it and answer some of the questions,” he said on Larry King’s CNN show tonight. He said it would be “interesting to see” if the White House can sustain its refusal to say anything through the appeal process.

After acknowledging that he felt “saddened for Scooter Libby and his family,” McClellan said the conviction “does change the equation a little bit with the American public.”

“For a long time, [I] don’t think this has been much of a story for the American people,” McClellan said. “It been more of an inside the beltway story. But now they are kind of looking at it saying, ‘What’s going on here?’ …. And I think, Larry, it will be interesting to see if the White House can sustain not talking about this through the appeals process. They sustained it for this long, but … I would be advising the White House to get out there and find some way to talk about this in enough detail to answer some of questions that … are still hanging out there.”

If Libby got that pardon we were talking about earlier, it would no longer be an “ongoing legal matter,” and White House officials could talk about the case to their hearts’ content. (Which, I suppose, suggests a pardon won’t come too soon.)

That said, McClellan’s change of heart is helpful. He stonewalled the press for years, repeating lies given to him by his colleagues.

Now he believes the Bush gang owes the nation an explanation.

It’s unlikely the White House will take McClellan’s advice, but in case anyone in the West Wing needs a refresher, Dan Froomkin helps get the ball rolling with a few questions that need answering.

It’s time for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to come clean about their roles in the White House’s outing of a CIA agent and the ensuing cover-up.

It’s actually long past time. But with former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby’s conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction yesterday, the stench of corruption has taken formal residence at the White House.

The president and vice president can pretend it’s not there, and can continue to hide behind their weak and transparent excuse for not commenting on an “ongoing criminal investigation”.

But the trial is over. The investigation is over. And the conviction of a liar in their midst has made it more imperative than ever that the leaders of this country fully address the American people’s legitimate concerns that the lies in question were intended to hide from public view even deeper skullduggery at the highest levels of the administration….

Reporters yesterday glibly expressed no surprise by the White House’s refusal to comment. The proper response, however, is sustained outrage, until every last critically important question is addressed.

Among those questions, just for refresher purposes:

* What did Bush know and when did he know it?

* Did Cheney tell Libby to leak Plame’s identity to reporters?

* How involved was Cheney in the cover-up? How involved was Bush?

* Why is Karl Rove still working at the White House?

* What are the ethical standards for this White House? What is considered acceptable behavior and what is not? What is a firing offense?

That’s a start.

McClellan was a sniveling liar for years and now the poodle has an opinion. And we’re supposed to care what that opinion is and consider it an honest opinion. No credibility for that weasel.

  • He apparently has more credibility than Ari. Juror No. 9 – AKA, Denis – wrote on huffingtonpost.com that the jury totally disregarded Fleisher’s testimony.

  • More questions:

    1) Who was behind the 2001 burglary in the Niger Embassy in Rome, where stationary (of all things) was stolen?

    2) Who forged the Niger documents? Did Berlusconi hand us the forged documents? Did he know they were forgeries at the time?

    3) Why did Doug Feith’s OSP, AIPAC, Chalabi and SISMI (Italian Intelligence) meet in Rome in December 2001? Were the forgeries on the agenda?

    4) Even after the State Dept analysts found out it was a forgery, why did Bush say the 16 words in the SOTU: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”?

    5) Was Cheney afraid that the forgeries could be tied back to him? Is that why Wilson’s trip to Niger was met with so much vindictiveness?

  • It is nice to see McClellan speak openly and candidly. He was never the problem, just the messenger. The problem was the policies he had to defend.

    Libby and Rove lied to him. Rove now needs to explain his lying self.

    McClellan was paid to push the party line as spokesman. If he can help provide some candid perspective for history, I for one welcome it.

  • Why is Karl Rove still working at the White House?

    …and as a follow-up, why do he and anyone else involved in the leak still have security clearances?

  • Hey, the underlying issues in the Libby case are not outing a CIA agent, or covering it up — they are:

    1.) Who fabricated the Niger-uranium story?

    2.) When did Cheney and Bush know the SoTU 16 words were deceptive?

  • “What are the ethical standards for this White House?”

    That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

    Ethical standards? That is so pre-9/11. Quaint, even.

    I would put the ethics question to Bush this way: “First you told us that you would fire anyone who leaked classified information, then you said that you wouldn’t fire anyone unless they were guilty of a crime. Karl Rove did at least one of those things, and Dick Cheney orchestrated the crimes committed by Libby. You continue to support them both, knowing full well that they were involved in the Plame conspiracy. So my question is: Do you want to be impeached as a group, or individually?

  • Ohioan and Bruce bring out some requisite questions that have to be answered, but, to completely simplify this matter, this nation needs to get it through its thick skull that all of this was done to keep under wraps the fact that the entire case for invading Iraq was a damned lie. Every single word. And we are still waging war over the lies, our treasury is being depleted because of those lies and soldiers are losing limbs and dying because of those lies. And the liars will ride off into the sunset with handsom pensions paid for with tax dollars despite the most serious lies ever told Congress and the US public.

  • Watch David Gergen talk out of both sides of his overpaid mouth:

    KING: David Gergen, do you think there’s more to come?

    GERGEN: I’m not sure, Larry. I — it’s not clear to me that Mr. Fitzgerald is going to pursue this any further. What I do think is clear is that there’s a lot more to know. And there had to be a reason why the defense attorney did not put Scooter Libby and the vice president on the stand, particularly after he said some days earlier that we would be hearing from them. That decision was — I think in addition to the Tim Russert appearance, that decision was the turning point in the case. They must have had a strong reason. Perhaps Ted Wells never even knew why Scooter Libby didn’t want to go on the stand. But clearly, there’s somebody behind this case. Why would Scooter Libby lie as the jury determined? Why would he not take the stand? Why would the vice president not take the stand? There’s clearly something they do not wish to discuss. And I don’t know what that is.

    […]

    KING: David Gergen, what do you make, finally, of that civil suit the Wilson’s have filed?

    GERGEN: Well, we will have to see where it goes. It’s clear they want to keep pursuing this. They will get their movie out. They’re going to get their day. They are getting their revenge, I must say. But, Larry, what strikes me above all about all of this, we learned back in Watergate, that the cover-up is always worse than the crime and people keep forgetting that. But here we are back at that same place. There’s no underlying crime here. What Scooter Libby may go to jail for is lying about a non crime.

    So Gergen has lots of good questions, he says “clearly, there’s somebody behind this case”, and “Why would Scooter Libby lie” but he’s sure that there’s been no crime committed that is any worse than a coverup.

    Hey Dave, could it be that they were covering up the fact that they lied us into war? And wouldn’t starting a war that way be worse than a coverup?

    Ya think?

    Gergen is a stupid old tool, and wouldn’t last a week as a blogger if he allowed comments.

  • I couldn’t stand Scott McClellan as the administration spokesman. I couldn’t stand Ari, either, but he was more animated than Scott when he was stonewalling. Snow has the best, most personable style of either lying or saying nothing.

    Frankly, I don’t really remember how Clinton’s guys were, but for the past six years, the WH might as well not even bothered to hold the things.

  • Scott is still lying. Cheney is certainly not competent. Venal, arrogant, ruthless, bugf**k crazy, yes. Competent, uh, no.

  • Comments are closed.