Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Gear free zone - shoot the breeze (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-free-zone-shoot-the-breeze/)
-   -   Karl Rove up Shit's Creek...Just lost his paddle! (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-free-zone-shoot-the-breeze/37143-karl-rove-up-shits-creek-just-lost-his-paddle.html)

De chromium cob 12th July 2005 03:18 AM

Karl Rove up Shit's Creek...Just lost his paddle!
 
Press Batters Scott McClellan on Rove/Plame Link heh

Here is a full transcript of the Rove-related queries today.

***

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.

And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....

***

Q: There’s a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there’s an investigation or not.

So are you saying that he’s not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.

This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

***
Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.

Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open…

MCCLELLAN: It’s the same type of question. You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I’m not going to do that.

Q: I’d like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.

MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what he expects people in the White House to do.

Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with…

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.

Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?

MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who’s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing.

mdbeh 12th July 2005 03:58 AM

Here are some Scotty blasts from the past, courtesy of David Corn :

Quote:

...I was there, and I had a list, too. Here are some of the past White House statements I had collected.

On September 29, 2003, Scott McClellan said of the leak (which first appeared in a Bob Novak column on July 14, 2003):

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 would be authorized to do such a thing.

Asked then about the allegation Rove had been involved in the leak, he said,

Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion....It is simply not true....And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

He also said that the White House would not stand for such conduct:

If anyone in this administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration..

On October 1, 2003, McClellan reiterated the White House position:

The president certainly doesn't condone the leaking.

And he said of Rove:

I made it very clear that he didn't condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity.

On October 7, McClellan noted that prior to previously telling the press that Rove and two other White House aides--National Security Council staffer Elliott Abrams and Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby--were not involved in the leak, he had spoken to each of the three and determined they had not been part of the Plame/CIA leak:

I had no doubt of that...but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

nightchef 12th July 2005 04:11 AM

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. jkthtyrt

alphajerk 12th July 2005 04:48 AM

rove is the devil incarnate....

isnt leaking a name of a CIA agent undercover treason? merely firing him [unless it was a firing squad] would be letting him off easy.

its obvious the white house leaked this information. rove did it the FIRST time with reagan and released from the staff then.

fool me once.... [damn, i wish i remember how dumbya misquoted that]

jordan19 12th July 2005 04:52 AM

yeah what's going on with this valerie plame investigation? Rove is finally implicated? i haven't followed it since a couple years ago lol

rove went rogue and can't be controlled, is that it? (Quoting from the movie Ronin lol. RIP John Frankenheimer.)

De chromium cob 12th July 2005 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphajerk

fool me once.... [damn, i wish i remember how dumbya misquoted that]

http://www.portfoliage.com/portfolia...OWERres_QT.mov


"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on....................—shame on you........... Fool me—you can't get fooled again."
Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

alphajerk 12th July 2005 05:11 AM

actually, didnt dumbya father enact it as treason for leaking CIA agents names?

zabour 12th July 2005 05:23 AM

Karl Rove eats live babies for breakfeast and the info was leaked to give the white house a change take the public's focus off how lame their spin was on other matters....

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphajerk
[unless it was a firing squad]

This administration leads through fear... remeber the terror altert metter jumping in inverse proportion to G.W. poll ratings during the election...

Treason is a captial crime and since Rove and G.W. are both proponents of capital punishment I think they should stand behind their ideologies.

alphajerk 12th July 2005 05:51 AM

no ****... why arent their kids over in iraq? guess they arent patrotic enough.

De chromium cob 12th July 2005 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphajerk
no ****... why arent their kids over in iraq? guess they arent patrotic enough.

They're evil, not stupid.....

jordan19 12th July 2005 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by De chromium cob
They're evil, not stupid.....

Haha. Good one.

chromium what happened to the distress flag? Laura's face is nervewracking

Tim L 12th July 2005 01:22 PM

1 Attachment(s)
By day...

Tim L 12th July 2005 01:24 PM

1 Attachment(s)
... By night.

alphajerk 12th July 2005 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordan19
chromium what happened to the distress flag? Laura's face is nervewracking

yeah, what happened to it?

De chromium cob 12th July 2005 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordan19
chromium what happened to the distress flag? Laura's face is nervewracking

I just like to mix it up a little.... I'll change it again to something else in a week or two...

infiniteposse 12th July 2005 07:44 PM

It's so funny you posted the entire transcript. I did that earlier today on another forum... I'm so glad to see the press finally going after these A**holes like a pack of hungry wolves. It's been so frustrating to see the Bush group get away with one thing after the other with this backwards doublespeak that they always seem to utilize and succeed with... It seems like someone should have gone down long ago.

It'll be interesting to see how Bush tries to bail Rove out, too. This guys half (or more) of our President's brain and he's not going to let him leave if he can get away with it.

neve1073 12th July 2005 09:14 PM

KR should face a firing squad for treason and attempted murder of a political enemy's spouse.

PRobb 12th July 2005 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by De chromium cob
They're evil, not stupid.....

An important distinction. Bush himself is a buffoon, but the cabal around him are some damn smart bastards. don't misunderestimate them. shiee

The White House is spinning like crazy on this one. I said this on another forum, and I'll say it again here. They know damn well it was Rove and the infield tarp at RFK Stadium isn't big enough to cover their asses on this one.

alphajerk 13th July 2005 05:46 AM

this seems to be a LOT more than getting a blow job kinda lie.

lucey 13th July 2005 08:13 AM

Seriously ...




it's Treason





The responsible response ... Firing Squad








but wait ..... can Bush fire anyone excpet Bill Maher? wworried

jkshort 13th July 2005 05:52 PM

He should be shot!

even in pansy- ass canada (where I live) we shoot traitors during a war. and bush keeps reminding us all that we're in the middle of one.

following this line of logic I wonder what you would get for harbouring and aiding a traitor?

doe this mean we should put an extra one in the chamber for bush too?

alphajerk 13th July 2005 06:21 PM

execute the executioner.... the irony that would have. dont forget about gonzalez too.... oh the crimes against humanity they created in texas was enough to have them executed alone for all the innocent people they killed there.

jordan19 13th July 2005 06:23 PM

thumbsup

catfish11 14th July 2005 08:35 AM

YOU GUYS ARE ASSHOLES!!

don't you care even a little for this country?

how the **** can President Bush protect us and run this great nation,
when his shoes are untied?

YOU SCUMBAGS!!

WHO IS GOING TO TIE THE PRESIDENTS SHOES?

WHO!!!!

jkshort 14th July 2005 01:19 PM

I thought bush wore loafers or those nifty running shoes with the velcro on them?

I hear he took a ride in a short bus to get to DC from texas....

Ruphus 14th July 2005 01:50 PM

heh heh

stinkpot 14th July 2005 03:51 PM

anybody know how to email members of the white house press corps? they need to be bombarded with email's begging to keep the heat on.

this administration seems to be really good at distracting everyone from the important issues at hand. that can't happen this time. these reporters need to stick it to mclellen, and co. and not let this issue die. they need to hear from regular folks that we want answers dammit, not "i've responded to your question" bull****.

PRobb 14th July 2005 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinkpot
anybody know how to email members of the white house press corps? they need to be bombarded with email's begging to keep the heat on.

this administration seems to be really good at distracting everyone from the important issues at hand. that can't happen this time. these reporters need to stick it to mclellen, and co. and not let this issue die. they need to hear from regular folks that we want answers dammit, not "i've responded to your question" bull****.

One of their own is in jail over this. I hope that helps to focus their attention. Maybe somewhere in their lizard brains brains they realize something important is at stake here.

jordan19 14th July 2005 04:23 PM

it seems to me that Bush might not let this one slide. he apparently "passed up on a chance to publicly give a vote of confidence in Rove" heh (google it for the story)

I'd be pretty pissed if he did publicly support him. Bush gets ****ed over by Rummy and does nothing. Getting ****ed over by Rove and saying nothing would make him look like a pansyass... not that he doesn't look like that already...


it's about time someone starts holding this administration responsible for their cowboy hoopla... hooppie hooppie

Sounds Great 14th July 2005 05:26 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...m/bush_leak_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The husband of a
CIA agent whose identity was revealed amid debate over the
Iraq war accused the White House on Thursday of being involved in a giant "cover-up" in the scandal and said
President Bush should fire his top aide Karl Rove.

"Wilson scoffed at the notion that Rove did not use his wife's name or that he did not realize she was an undercover agent.

"My wife's name is Wilson, it is Mrs. Joseph Wilson, it is Valerie Wilson. He named her, he identified her. That argument I don't believe passes the smell test," said Wilson.

"What I do know is that Mr. Rove was talking to the press and saying things like, my wife is 'fair game.' That is an outrage. It is an abuse of power," Wilson added."