CNN’s John Roberts conducted a softball interview with Joe Wilson on Wednesday’s "American Morning," based upon the claim by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan that he had "unknowingly passed along false information" about the roles of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame "leak." McClellan made the claim in his upcoming book, and further stated that "Rove, Libby, the Vice President [Dick Cheney], the president’s chief of staff [Andrew Card at the time], and the president himself" were "involved" in this "misleading," as Roberts put it.
Roberts first asked Wilson (who was falsely identified as the "former U.S. ambassador to Iraq," when Wilson actually worked as Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq from 1988-1991, and as ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995) for his response to McClellan’s statement. Wilson responded that the statement ‘advances the narrative a bit" about Vice President Cheney’s involvement in the "leak,"and proposed that President Bush was "either completely out of touch, or he's an accessory to obstruction of justice, both before the fact and after the fact" in the matter.
Roberts then brought up Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame’s "outraged" response to McClellan, and asked how his claim might "advance your civil suit." Wilson’s answer:
WILSON: Well, the argument that we've made in our civil suit is that public officials were abusing the public trust in the exercise of their official duties in support of a private political vendetta. I think what McClellan says has certainly makes that very clear. At a bare minimum, for openers, I think it's incumbent upon the president and the vice president now to release the transcripts of their statements with the -- to the special prosecutor, so that we now have a fuller understanding of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they said to Justice.... And whether or not they continue to frustrate the efforts of the Justice Department and the efforts of the government to get to the bottom of what is essentially, the betrayal of national security of our country.
Wilson repeated this "betrayal" line after Roberts asked if he supported a new investigation by Congress in the matter. Wilson also went again on the offensive against conservative writer Robert Novak for his involvement in the "leak."
ROBERTS: Do you think as a result of what McClellan says in this book, that Congress should open a new investigation into what happened back in 2003?
WILSON: Well, I certainly think that the efforts of Congressman Waxman and Congressman Conyers and Senator Leahy, in investigating the many, many transgressions of this administration, have been useful. I think it would be helpful to have congressional hearings on this matter.
ROBERTS: All right.
WILSON: This is a betrayal of the national security of the country. This is essentially treason. Had the vice president told Libby to tell the Russian military attache my wife's name, there would be no question about what we would be calling this. The fact he brokered through a bottom-feeder like Bob Novak doesn't make it any different.
ROBERTS: All right. And again, McClellan is still very careful in how he is portraying this, saying that they were ‘involved,’ not coming right out and saying that they told him to lie.
The full transcript of the Joe Wilson interview from Wednesday’s "American Morning:"
JOHN ROBERTS: ROBERTS: Forty-four minutes after the hour. Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims the president and vice president were involved in his misleading the public about the CIA leak case. In an excerpt from his upcoming book, McClellan says he, quote, ‘unknowingly passed along false information about the role that Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby played in the leak that revealed Valerie Plame's identity.’
Here is what McClellan originally said about Rove and Libby at an October 2003 press briefing.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They’re good individuals. They are important members of our White House team, and that is why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved.
ROBERTS: McClellan has since said that wasn't true. But in the book, he goes even further, saying that ‘I had unknowingly passed along false information and five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so. Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself.’
Former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson is Valerie Plame's husband. He joins us this morning from Eden, Utah. Joe, good to see you. Let me ask you your response, first of all, to the statement that McClellan put out in this book.
JOE WILSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: Well, I think it advances the narrative a little bit. I think it now makes it very clear the extent to which the vice president was involved, which, of course, then makes it very clear how important to the vice president the commutation of Mr. Libby's sentence was. They basically closed ranks, guaranteed that the cloud that Fitzgerald said was over the vice president's head would not be lifted, and now because of McClellan's statement, that cloud is over the president himself. He is either completely out of touch, or he's an accessory to obstruction of justice, both before the fact and after the fact.
ROBERTS: Your wife says that she is outraged after hearing about this. She went on to say, quote, ‘McClellan's revelations provide important support for our civil suit against those men who violated our national security and maliciously destroyed my career.’ He very carefully uses the word ‘involved,’ when talking about the idea of misleading. How does that help advance your civil suit?
WILSON: Well, the argument that we've made in our civil suit is that public officials were abusing the public trust in the exercise of their official duties in support of a private political vendetta. I think what McClellan says has certainly makes that very clear. At a bare minimum, for openers, I think it's incumbent upon the president and the vice president now to release the transcripts of their statements with the -- to the special prosecutor, so that we now have a fuller understanding of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they said to Justice.
ROBERTS: All right.
WILSON: And whether or not they continue to frustrate the efforts of the Justice Department and the efforts of the government to get to the bottom of what is essentially, the betrayal of national security of our country.
ROBERTS: A federal judge threw out that lawsuit back in July. He did it on jurisdictional grounds, not constitutional grounds. Where are you with that whole process?
WILSON: It's in the appeal process, and the appeal briefs are being filed, and I think it will be heard early in the New Year.
ROBERTS: So, will you seek to depose McClellan, as a result of what he is saying here in this book?
WILSON: I think we'll depose everybody who has any knowledge that they can bring to bear on this case.
(CROSSTALK)
WILSON: And remember, the lawsuit also includes, in addition to the four that we've sued by name, it also includes John Does one through nine, so there may well be some interesting information that McClellan has offered here in that regard.
ROBERTS: Do you think as a result of what McClellan says in this book, that Congress should open a new investigation into what happened back in 2003?
WILSON: Well, I certainly think that the efforts of Congressman Waxman and Congressman Conyers and Senator Leahy, in investigating the many, many transgressions of this administration, have been useful. I think it would be helpful to have congressional hearings on this matter.
ROBERTS: All right.
WILSON: This is a betrayal of the national security of the country. This is essentially treason. Had the vice president told Libby to tell the Russian military attache my wife's name, there would be no question about what we would be calling this. The fact he brokered through a bottom-feeder like Bob Novak doesn't make it any different.
ROBERTS: All right. And again, McClellan is still very careful in how he is portraying this, saying that they were ‘involved,’ not coming right out and saying that they told him to lie. Joe Wilson from Eden, Utah...
WILSON: All the more reason, all the more reason...
ROBERTS: Yeah.
WILSON: All the more reason to have the full investigation of this.
ROBERTS: All right. Joe Wilson, joining us this morning from Eden, Utah. Joe, thanks for getting up early -- Kiran.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hypocrisy
November 21, 2007 - 15:01 ET by contraryThis is a betrayal of the national security of the country. This is essentially treason. Had the vice president told Libby to tell the Russian military attache my wife's name, there would be no question about what we would be calling this. The fact he brokered through a bottom-feeder like Bob Novak doesn't make it any different.
Pot.. meet kettle.
I will be very curious how history books will remember the Wilsons and their contributions to our country.
Treason?
November 21, 2007 - 15:04 ET by allanfSo pray-tell, why wasn't Wilson's publishing details in the New York Times of his classified trip to Niger a crime?
exactly, among other
November 21, 2007 - 15:19 ET by contraryexactly, among other questionable choices...
Not that the Bush administration did everything right running up to the war, but the Wilson's part in all of this smacks of narcissism and questionable patriotism.
Every one of your bullet points is a lie
November 23, 2007 - 10:28 ET by professor truth1)Wilson's selection was based on his diplomatic experience. His wife only recommended him 2) The administration committed treason by outing a non official covert agent(acknowledged by the CIA as such)
3) the administration committed a war crime by it's illegal invasion according to UN principles. The Nuremberg principles saw this as the "supreme crime."
Everyone of your posts is a
November 23, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Jack BauerEveryone of your posts is a lie.
Plame was not a covert agent as defined by the relevant act. A fact confirmed by the author of the act passed by Congress. Which is why Scooter Libby was not indicted on that felony.
Your knowledge of "international law" is as shallow as every point you struggle, and fail, to make. Keep up the good work.
THE NEW YORK SLIMES...
November 22, 2007 - 19:14 ET by danybhoyI was wondering that as well, but it's not as if the NYT has'nt been undermining the war effort by leaking ANYTHING they could. The NYT takes pride in it's efforts to destroy America from within, I will cheer the day that America puts the NYT out of buisiness by not buying a paper that should go straight to the bottom of your birdcage BEFORE you read it.
As to the softball reference at the top of this piece, it's not even that, Wilson needs T-Ball with today's politically correct rule that means you can't strike out, no matter how often you miss the ball. Joe Wilson is a half witted moron that thinks he's a patriot, I don't believe he will ever know the truth about how big of a dupe he really is. He's not honest enough to understand what he & his wife did was wrong. The MSM gave them a pass because she's a good looking woman & they too are trying to undermine the war effort.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Bush undermined the war effort
November 23, 2007 - 10:29 ET by professor truthwith his comment,"bring en on."
FUNNY...
November 23, 2007 - 19:21 ET by danybhoyprofessor truth,
I find your comment odd. The only thing I can conclude is that you see President Bush as a bigger threat to world peace then radical islamic jihadis. That's just an assumption on my part. Was "bring it on" the best thing to say, maybe not. However, the west usually gets hit by these animals & then turns the other cheek hoping that these whackjobs will go away. This viewed as a sign of weakness by those who wish to destroy the US & the west. UBL among others, has said that time after time.
Like him or not, Bush did what needed to be done, you will likely disagree. My only real complaint is that we have not been hard enough. Looking back at history, the US has'nt finished off any war since 1945. Korea, Vietnam, & Iraq were fought half-assed & not fought to be won. Korea & Iraq remain problems to this day because we did'nt finish the job the 1st time, & our unwillingness to deal with Iran is allowing them to be a bigger proplem then they really should have ever become. I'll lay that on the head of Jimmy Carter, he allowed radical islam on the map, literally. We are left to clean up the mess almost 3 decades later.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
danybhoy
November 23, 2007 - 19:56 ET by MrShyAll I can say to your post is..... hellz yeah! (we need to be GIVING them hell....) We're dragging our feet on Iran, which is really the final piece to the puzzle. It will be a house of cards after this, I believe, that will finally pull the M.E. out of it's archaic "us-vs-them" poisonous mindset, and they'll finally be a peaceful player with the developed world.
And yeah, after WWII a new mindset crept in, not just among Democrats and the U.S. in general, but all other developed parts of the world, and especially in Europe which I've been to many times. After the fatigue of war in the 1940's that so many felt, the mantra began of "enough war... not again".
That sentiment assumes there will never be an "evil" for good to have to fight again, or it denies that there ever was inherent evil in the world... a legitimate enemy.... and chalking up previous wars to just being a product of "man being man". It's a dangerous way to think. I don't want war. I love peace, but I'm not a fool to think war should never be an alternative. Sometimes, it's necessary.
"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
Good post, but you treat
November 23, 2007 - 21:55 ET by fitzfongGood post, but you treat this clown "Professor Truth" with far too much respect. Responding to his idiocy with any credulity just creates the impression that he has something (anything) interesting to say. He doesn't. If you look at his feeble attempts to turn the Global Warming thread into low farce, you'll notice that he could start a fight in an empty phone booth. Best to ignore him and let him do just that.
Nevertheless, your substantive points were very good.
I think this story has been
November 21, 2007 - 15:18 ET by Free ThinkerI think this story has been beaten to death. Richard Armitage told her name to Novak and she was not covert. Joe Wilson is the only one who has been caught in any lies. This has been investigated over and over and the Wilsons' case was thrown out of court. What part of this does CNN not get?
Even More To The Point
November 21, 2007 - 15:34 ET by BourbeauWhat part of this does Valerie and Joey not get? Their fifteen minutes of fame is up; no one gives two craps about them, who said what to whom, or what it meant. We know what happened; they got exposed when they appeared on the front cover of Vogue magazine while she was "still under cover" (yeah right). Then Armitrage ran his mouth and got nervous and jerky and told Colin Powell what he did. The two of them then hid under their respective desks while the MSM had a hissy fit about two overblown bureaucrats and ripped the hell out of the White House. Libby got railroaded over nothing; no one even knows what this blathering idiot (Valerie) did, while at the CIA; I can't imagine it was anything substantive, and it probably was more administrative then actual field work. Regardless; no body cares Joe; now get on your horse and ride into the sunset; and take Valerie w/you.
Richard Armitage?
November 21, 2007 - 16:12 ET by Seton MotleyDo either of these feather-headed featherweights, or the just as unweighty new author, reference the inconvenient truth that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is the admitted source for Novak?
Seton Motley
Director of Communications
Media Research Center
The bias is the interview itself
November 21, 2007 - 16:39 ET by KC MulvilleIf you invite Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame on, we already know what they're going to say. If you then ask them leading questions like ...
WILSON: All the more reason, all the more reason...ROBERTS: Yeah.
Why did they bother waking up Joe? (He needs his sleep.) They used him simply as a prop. There is no difference between John Roberts expressly saying that CNN thinks Congress should investigate versus using Joe Wilson to express the same opinion on CNN's behalf. But using Wilson allows CNN to pretend that they're objective and simply gathering Joe's view, when it so glaringly obvious that this is really CNN's view.
But no one is fooled by this accusation-by-proxy anymore. When CNN invited him in the first place, we all knew what CNN was doing. Of course they don't invite anyone who can challenge Wilson, because presenting both sides isn't what they're trying to accomplish. So what if Wilson accuses Novak of spreading the Bush Lie, even though we all know that Novak's source had nothing to do with the Bushes? What matters is the accusation, not the truth.
Roberts failed to mention
November 21, 2007 - 17:13 ET by mattmRoberts failed to mention Armitage or ask Wilson to explain how a jury, that was basically out to get Libby and Rove, and by proxy, the President, couldn't find any way to convict anyone on any of the actual charges originally alleged.
This tells me that Roberts and all his MSM colleagues who continue to allow Wilson a forum for his lies are co-conspirators in the treasonous smear campaign Wilson and the insane Bush-hating Leftoids have been engaged in since the 2000 election.
Just go away,
November 21, 2007 - 17:57 ET by motherbeltJust go away, Joe...please.........
But you're all forgetting!
November 21, 2007 - 18:14 ET by heldmywhttp://www.youtube.c...
...The Plamester was just interviewed by none other than Jason Leopold! Zowie!
..."a journalist described in a Howard Kurtz Washington Post article: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html> as: engaging in "lying, cheating, and backstabbing." The article also
states that Leopold was a cocaine addict who has battled mental illness
his whole life. So this is the person that Valerie Plame allows to
interview her which says a lot about her."
(h/t DUmmie FUnnies)
Val, your time is up, your ship has sailed out and sunk, you're being interviewed by discredited loons from Truthout... Just go pose naked for Playboy, take the dough and retire into your well-deserved obscurity.
Oh! And be sure to take that lying sack of...stuff you married with you!
CNN & MSDNC are desperate to
November 21, 2007 - 22:15 ET by fitzfongCNN & MSDNC are desperate to keep their limited (both in number and intelligence) audience. Apparently, the only way they can do so is to continue trotting out these two turds (Wilson and wife) for some further polishing. The media seem clueless that, increasingly, their puff reports on these two footnotes are akin to masturbation...without an audience, they're only pleasuring themselves.
Slob
November 21, 2007 - 23:59 ET by fosstenJeez, what a slob. He's going to be on national TV, and he wears a sweatsuit and looks like he was just raised from the dead. And this is the darling of the BDS crowd? Not. Impressed.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Also HuffPo gave Valarie yet
November 22, 2007 - 02:13 ET by Right2thePointAlso HuffPo gave Valarie yet another soap box to spout her talking points which as usual had no provable connection to anything but for them over there it's the thought that counts.
-
November 22, 2007 - 09:53 ET by dahliatravers... abusing the public trust in the exercise of their official duties in support of a private political vendetta.
Oo, righteous indignation. You go boy.
Except that the person who actually leaked Plame's name (Richard Armitage) was not sympathetic to Bush and had no interest in a vendetta against Plame. In fact, just the reverse.
As Christopher Hitchens said, this has been the mother of all non-stories.
http://www.slate.com/id/2145889/
http://www.slate.com/id/2148555