On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, after discussing Scott McClellan's views on invading Iraq with FNC contributor Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly turned the discussion to McClellan's comments on Rove's role in the CIA leak probe. Rove complained that while the media were obsessed with him during the investigation, Richard Armitage, who was the actual leaker, was virtually ignored, and argued that if Armitage had publicly admitted earlier that he had leaked Valerie Plame's identity, "this would have all gone away. You'll notice when it came out that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak, the media rapidly lost attention." Rove also accused Joe Wilson of making untrue claims about his trip to Niger.
After playing a clip of McClellan from his Today show interview in which he complained that Rove and Scooter Libby had claimed they were not involved in the leak, Rove contended that it was Armitage who leaked Plame's identity: "The identity of Valerie Plame was leaked to Robert Novak by Richard Armitage. What I told Scott was I didn't know her name, didn't reveal her name, didn't reveal, didn't know what she did at the CIA, and that I wasn't the source for the leak." (Transcript follows)
Rove then complained that Armitage had not come forward earlier: "Imagine what would have happened if Richard Armitage had come forward and said, 'You know what? I did it. I talked to Robert Novak and gave her the background and gave her the name.' And this would have all gone away. You'll notice when it came out that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak, the media rapidly lost attention."
The former White House advisor also complained about the media's obsession with him during the investigation:
For about five months, I had news organizations camped out in front of my house when they thought I did it and that something bad was going to happen to me. When it came out that nothing bad was going to happen to me, and that the person who had leaked the name to Robert Novak was Richard Armitage, all of a sudden, those news crews went away. And I never heard them going up on Richard Armitage's lawn.
O'Reilly responded: "Mr. Rove, they don't like you. They don't like the President. They don't like anything about you."
In discussing Joe Wilson's attacks on the administration, after contending that it was untrue that Wilson was sent to Niger as the result of a request for information by the Vice President, Rove disputed that Wilson's report was ever sent to the White House: "He said that he came back with a report that was seen by the White House, which on July 11th of 2003, the CIA issued a statement saying that his report was never forwarded to the White House because of concerns about the quality of the work."
Rove also argued that Wilson's findings in Niger actually gave support to claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Africa, as the President had claimed in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Rove:
He also said that he came back with definitive proof that the Iranians, excuse me, the Iraqis had never attempted to acquire yellowcake from Niger. We now know that that is absolutely incorrect. We know that not only did he not disprove it, he came back with additional information about a previously unknown attempt by the Iraqis to send a trade delegation to Niger. The Niger government said, you know, all we've got is uranium cake. That's the only thing we sell is uranium. So we better not accept a delegation from Iraq because it would be in violation of the international sanctions.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portions of the Thursday May 29 The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY: Continuing now with Fox News analyst Karl Rove, who is criticized in Scott McClellan's new book.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN: By the last 10 months or so of my time at the White House, I grew increasingly disillusioned by things. When the first revelation came out that what I had been told by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, that they were in no way involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, which we now know is not true, when, and despite the fact that I went to the podium and said these people assured me they were not involved.
O'REILLY: All right, what say you, Mr. Rove?
ROVE: Well, as we now know, the identity of Valerie Plame was leaked to Robert Novak by Richard Armitage. What I told Scott was I didn't know her name, didn't reveal her name, didn't reveal, didn't know what she did at the CIA, and that I wasn't the source for the leak. And we now know Richard Armitage was the source. Imagine what would have happened if Richard Armitage had come forward and said, "You know what? I did it. I talked to Robert Novak and gave her the background and gave her the name." And this would have all gone away. You'll notice when it came out that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak, the media rapidly lost attention.
O'REILLY: Just explain to the audience who Richard Armitage is.
ROVE: He was the number two guy at the State Department. And he in a conversation with Robert Novak talked about Wilson and how he went to Africa.
O'REILLY: Okay. Isn't it true, though, that the White House and yourself were furious with Ambassador Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, and you guys were angry, and that Scooter Libby did eventually mislead the grand jury, which he was convicted of doing?
ROVE: Look, the White House had a right to go out and correct the record with regard to what Ambassador Wilson said. I would remind you what he said. He said that, he implied that he was sent to Africa as a result of a request from the Vice President, which is not true. He said that he came back with a report that was seen by the White House, which on July 11th of 2003, the CIA issued a statement saying that his report was never forwarded to the White House because of concerns about the quality of the work.
He also said that he came back with definitive proof that the Iranians, excuse me, the Iraqis had never attempted to acquire yellowcake from Niger. We now know that that is absolutely incorrect. We know that not only did he not disprove it, he came back with additional information about a previously unknown attempt by the Iraqis to send a trade delegation to Niger. The Niger government said, you know, all we've got is uranium cake. That's the only thing we sell is uranium. So we better not accept a delegation from Iraq because it would be in violation of the international sanctions.
O'REILLY: But why drag Valerie Plame into it?
ROVE: Well, look, it was, again, I repeat, it was Richard Armitage who talked with Robert Novak about it. I can't say much about this because there's a civil lawsuit ongoing. But the public record is, is that my contribution to this was to say to Robert Novak-
O'REILLY: So you never, you yourself never talked about Valerie Plame to anybody?
ROVE: When Robert Novak tells me about a conversation about what he knows about Valerie Plame, I say to him, from my recollection, I say, "I've heard that, too." From his recollection, it was, "So you've heard that, too." And that was the extent of the conversation.
O'REILLY: Okay, but you yourself never talked to Valerie about Valerie Plame to anybody?
ROVE: No. In fact, the only other conversation I have about this before Robert Novak's column emerges is a conversation with Matt Cooper on the Friday after the Sunday of Wilson's column, in which I discourage him from talking about, writing about Wilson. He's thinking about writing a story. And from his own notes, it's clear I'm saying to him don't get ahead on this. It's not worthy of your attention. I'm trying to discourage him from coverage.
O'REILLY: I have no reason to disbelieve you. And I just want to get it on the record. But McClellan's making a big deal. And obviously, the left-wing media is running wild with this. I mean, they couldn't be happier at NBC. This is like the best day they've had over there in 10 years.
ROVE: And again, look, and I hate to be a little cynical about this, but again, you know, for about five months, I had news organizations camped out in front of my house when they thought I did it and that something bad was going to happen to me. When it came out that nothing bad was going to happen to me, and that the person who had leaked the name to Robert Novak was Richard Armitage, all of a sudden, those news crews went away. And I never heard them going up on Richard Armitage's lawn.
O'REILLY: No, they're not going to do that. They don't like you. Mr. Rove, they don't like you. They don't like the President. They don't like anything about you.
ROVE: I'm shocked. I'm shocked. I'm shocked.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The key thing to remember
May 30, 2008 - 10:53 ET by BDThe key thing to remember is that Armitage is from State, therefore by definition he is a liberal.
It is thus quite apparent that he waited to come forward so he could watch the conservatives in the administration step on the landmine that was Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.
Being from Foggy Bottom, you must understand that Armitage has no honor.
What the MSM is missing
May 30, 2008 - 13:57 ET by ArminiusThere’s a slight problem with this myth that McClellan is attempting to sell: the chronology is off. According to Newsweek, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward about Plame’s identity three weeks before talking to Robert Novak. Armitage met with Novak on July 8, 2003—“just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20061005094345/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek
Armitage spoke with Woodward in mid-June 2003. However, the New York Times did not publish Wilson’s column until July 6. Therefore, how could revealing Plame’s identity to the media be retribution for Wilson’s column? How could have Armitage known in mid-June that the New York Times would publish Wilson’s column three weeks later, let alone know the content of that column?
Prosecutorial abuse
May 30, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Galvanic"The key thing to remember is that Armitage is from State, therefore by definition he is a liberal. It is thus quite apparent that he waited to come forward so he could watch the conservatives in the administration step on the landmine that was Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. Being from Foggy Bottom, you must understand that Armitage has no honor."
Actually, the thing to remember is that Armitage was a Bush political appointee and a conservative. He wasn't out to undermine the Administration; he merely made a comment to conservative Novak, who published it rather than hold it in confidence.
The real question remains: Why did Fitzgerald pursue this expensive investigation when, under oath, Novak had told him (and Armitage confirmed) that it was Armitage who told Novak of Plame's identity? This prosecutor should be disbarred at the very least, and prosecuted himself.
»→ Patrick Fitzgerald
May 30, 2008 - 11:00 ET by Cool ArrowPatrick Fitzgerald it was who told Armitage to keep quiet about the truth because he wanted to skewer some Republicans.
This is the strangest thing about the whole investigation. That government money was funneled into an investigation that was already solved.
Why isn't Fitzgerald up on charges for misappropriation of Government funds?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Amazing
May 30, 2008 - 11:23 ET by cvgbuckeyeWhat is totally amazing to me is the extent to which a majority of the American public is totally blind to the lieing nature of the majority of the democrat party, and the nearly 100% lieing nature of the leftists and the main stream news media, (as if there were any difference).
They are being fed this crap
May 30, 2008 - 13:24 ET by ThermistoclesThey are being fed this crap 24/7 by the news media. To this day, Val is refered to as a covert agent that was outed by the White House. I think the media actually believe this, dispite the facts.
Some may be empty-headed
May 30, 2008 - 17:41 ET by bigtimerSome may be empty-headed enough to believe their own lies...after-all they repeated them often enough, they believe them now.
Others had and still have an agenda...
The prosecutor should of been fired.
In fact he should not be a prosecutor anymore IMO...his licence should of been revoked.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Uninformed, Misinformed, and Uneducated
June 1, 2008 - 18:52 ET by Rush Fancvgbuckeye wrote:
What is totally amazing to me is the extent to which a majority of the
American public is totally blind to the lieing nature of the majority
of the democrat party, and the nearly 100% lieing nature of the
leftists and the main stream news media, (as if there were any
difference)
I am amazed as well, but not surprised. Many Americans are misinformed because they only watch the left-leaning mainstream-media newscasts such as CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, and the infamous MSNBC. Most of the print media provides a left-leaning perspective as well. The constant barrage of lies, half-truths, and omissions disseminated by the MSM eventually poison the minds of those who fail to seek alternative news sources (NewsBusters, etc.). Secondly, many people don’t want to spend the time to keep informed. Lastly, it frightens me to think about those who may not have the ability to fully understand and analyze what they read and watch on television. The high school graduation rates are abysmal. Studies report a graduation rate of only 74% nationwide, with only 56% of African-American students and 54% of Latino students graduating nationwide. Ref: http://www.manhattan...
"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts"
The movie Recount / David Boies / McClellan
May 30, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Gary HallThe left loved David Boies in the recent HBO flim flam movie, "Recount."
Naturally, as Boies and numerous other folks spoke out on much of the obvious, which anyone with any interest should have been familiar with, the MSM practiced its perfected art of censorship. (my bold).
David Boies on H_C on Fox - March 5th, 2007
Those last two sentences of Boies are striking - he continnued
Earlier (JULY 22, 2003) -- Larry King interviewed Bill Clinton. The entire Wilson/Plame fiasco began with the "16 words in the SOTU address. King wanted Clinton to jump on this issue and use it against President Bush - but not only would he not bite, he put up one of the best defenses ever offered on these issues, and then promoted a unifying concept of, "let's just move on - there is nothing here worth worrying about. There were WMD's. This Africa nuclear trip, is a waste of our time. Let us bring democracy to the people of Iraq . Let's get together behind this."
The media's interest in what their own Bill Clinton had to say? "Shh, never repeat his words again. Never bring up this view in any discussion or interview. Keep it off the table of discussion - we the media need to be able to attack Bush for years to come on these issues, and reporting on President Clinton's view here would hurt our agenda."
Funny thing - that's what I thought as well. I suspect that had the American people all been witness to this conversation, at that moment in time when the effort in Iraq seemed to be unraveling, we might have all come together and provided the unifying moral support - the MSM might have backed off - the blossoming organization of and infiltration in Iraq by Al Qaeda fueled in the face of discontent and lack of support of the effort from the US, may have been cut short. We gave them the strength to organize.
Of course, had the broad public, been informed as to how patheticly partisan driven the Wilson/Plame game was from the beginning - well, who knows?
Sources
May 30, 2008 - 11:53 ET by KC MulvilleArmitage was well known to be a reliable source for inside gossip. That's why Novak talked to him regularly. The reason they didn't go after Armitage is because that would have damaged an asset that the media wanted to keep. The media's self-serving agenda is on full display.
A disciplined manager knows that dynamic, and if he's smart, he prepares for it. You explain to your subordinates that they need to be prepared to lose some decisions, simply because that's the humanity of the situation. You need to have subordinates who don't take losing personally. You need professionals who appreciate that the responsibility lies with the president.
It's tempting to try and solve that dilemma by only choosing people who are personally loyal, but that's only a band-aid. A president needs professionalism, not loyalty. For example, my impression (admittedly from afar) is that Scott McClellan was loyal, but ultimately proved himself to be unprofessional. I would have respected McClellan if he stuck with facts, but instead he offers broad, vaporous personality characterizations. He doesn't analyze the policy details from an insider's view. Instead, perhaps because of his public relations background, he simply looks at the audience's view of the result and confirms whatever they think. That's unprofessional.
The sad part
May 30, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Jimmybobof this whole thing is that the left does not and will not be bothered by a truth that gets in the way of what they want to be true. And what they want to be true in this instance is that President Bush is the lier and is at the same time both diabolical and too stupid to run this country. Something that the left just can't reconcile.
Wilson and Plame are
May 30, 2008 - 13:12 ET by toucheWilson and Plame are traitors, plain and simple. This was a scam from the get go. It was obvious to me from the beginning that Wilson was inserting himself into a situation the had nothing to do with him. This looked like a CIA shell game and turn out to be so. Why these people are not in jail is the crime.
What you may not know about Joseph Wilson
May 30, 2008 - 15:22 ET by ArminiusSince the MSM won't tell you--it would contradict their narrative that Wilson exposed Bush's "lie" about Saddam's WMD: Wilson himself said Saddam had WMD just before the invasion. My source: Wilson's own web site. Unfortunately, www.politicsoftruth.com appears to be a dead web site. However, I was able to access one of Wilson's columns using the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.
Wilson referred to Iraq’s WMD in a February 6, 2003 column in the Los Angeles Times: “There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070816000555/http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/big_cat.html
On October 13, 2002, Wilson wrote a column entitled “How Saddam Thinks” for the San Jose Mercury News. In this column, Wilson asks, “Can we disarm Saddam this time without risking a chemical attack or a broader regional war that threatens our allies?”
The original URL for this column was http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/saddam.html
If anyone knows how to access the latter column, please let me know.
Found the October 13, 2002
May 31, 2008 - 00:50 ET by stratmanFound the October 13, 2002 San Jose Mercury News Wilson editorial at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8948131_ITM.
You need to register (free) to read the entire article. I didn't register, so if you do, could you please copy and paste it in this thread.
RRAM Tough!
OK. I registered. The
May 31, 2008 - 01:03 ET by stratmanOK. I registered. The salient text from the editorial is as follows:
"The decision to live or
May 31, 2008 - 01:14 ET by RESTLESS 1"The decision to live or die then becomes his to make."
Wilson was right, the decision was Hussein's. He made it. He died.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
It's now pathological
May 30, 2008 - 19:41 ET by winston smithThe MSM lies about the administration and now they actually believe their own lies. Doesn't really matter if everything they've reported on the Plame affair has been willfull fabrication, as long as at the end of the day, the average joe believes that Bush did something wrong ---- MSM wins, Bush loses. One more chink in Bush's armor, one more notch in the MSM's belt, one more step closer to installing a Democrat in the WH. Notice how Rove stated that the media hounds just disappeared from his front lawn one day when the well known truth was finally broadcast to a long abused and deceived public? The whole "affair" basically vanished into thin air. Just like that --- no more hourly Rove updates, no more beaming smiles and accusations from Plame or Wilson, no more "Libby-watch", no more daily duplicity from Fitzgerald. That's it. Over and done with. Pack up your kit and slither off. Nobody even bats and eyelash. No beg-pardons or corrections in the media. what is a real shame is that no heads will roll. It's scary because what's to stop them from dragging this out all over again? They now know that no one will stop them should they try it again. Fitzgerald and Armitage should be prosecuted but no one in this government has the bells to do it.
One of the most irritating
May 30, 2008 - 21:37 ET by fitzfongOne of the most irritating aspects of this McClellan fiasco is that it gives the left-wing media another opportunity to dredge up the phony "Plamegate" controversy. Once again, two of the most frivolous and inconsequential individuals to walk the face of the earth, Joe "Bloated Gasbag" Wilson and Valerie "Glorified Desk Jockey" Plame, are dishonestly portrayed as patriotic victims. Nauseating.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
I watched
June 1, 2008 - 22:57 ET by Rush FanScott McClellan’s interview on Meet The Press today and, of course, Russert brought up the Valerie Plame leak. As he has done in every interview I’ve seen, McClellan stated that Rove and Libby lied to him about their role in the leak. What surprises me is that in all the interviews I’ve seen over the years, with few exceptions, where the Plame leak is discussed, including Russert’s interview today, Richard Armitage’s name never comes up. Only in the alternative world of the MSM can a leak be discussed without mentioning the leaker.
"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts"