Was McClellan Book Excerpt Really About Valerie Plame Wilson?

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | November 23, 2007 - 19:01 ET

Without peeking, do you think the now infamous excerpt from White House press secretary Scott McClellan's not yet written book specifically referred to Valerie Plame Wilson, or anything to do with that scandal?

While you ponder, it is quite conceivable that this entire media frenzy is not only much ado about nothing, but an example of what happens when today's so-called journalists see what they believe to be Republican blood in the water despite the presence of red dye #2.

As cleverly pointed out by Lee Hempfling Thursday (emphasis added):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Like a pack of starving banshees, jumping at the first odor of raw flesh, the liberal and foreign press have fallen all over themselves to write about a short excerpt of a book by Scott McClellan. The problem is, the quote offered says nothing about the topic the lunatics have attributed it to.

Let's take a close look at the actual excerpt and see what the real subject was (emphasis added to point you in the right direction):

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

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.

Do you see Valerie Plame Wilson's name anywhere in this excerpt?

No.

So, why were media outlets - in particular, MSNBC - so quick to conclude that this had anything to do with her?

When you read that excerpt without the preconceived notion that it's about Plame, isn't it actually about the failure to find WMD?

As such, isn't it likely that the "false information" McClellan "unknowingly passed along" dealt with weapons in Iraq, and that this is what "Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself" were involved in?

Honestly, where in these 121 words can one deduce this has anything to do with Plame without stretching to spine-breaking conclusions?

In the end, the reading comprehensions skills of the media appear quite abysmal, and we should all be ashamed for not recognizing it sooner.

Bravo, Lee.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's really becoming quite pathetic...

The MSM is desperate for any 'good' (meaning bad for G.W., republicans and/or conservatives) news and are grasping at straws with almost comic mania.

Earlier today, the LAT story on Sandra Day O'Conner was another prime example of a manufactured, twisted, slathered, dipped, rolled and dunked story desperately trying to be relevant and, of course ...bad for conservatives.

You shake your head, and are literally embarrassed for these poor, poisoned little people.

Worse yet (for them) places like NewsBusters aren't taking this lying down, and on other blogs, this sort of tripe isn't being taken lying down.

We're learning.

 

But on the other hand,

if he wasn't referring to l'affaire Plame, why would he drop in the line about exonerating Rove and Libby? I ain't buying Hempfling's thesis.

But back to the first hand, if the "not true" IS about Plame, what does the "it" refer back to? Either they left out the whole point of that phrase, or else this excerpt is exceptionally poorly written. It's a verbal Rorshach blot!

Myself, I wonder if Mr. McClellan didn't engineer this as a game of reverse "gotcha" with the press that he had to tolerate so long -- and of course to get a crapload of free publicity at MSM expense.

I agree

I think he threw out some bait and a boatload of large mouth basta...I mean bass took it.

Gosh 40 years ago you could

Gosh 40 years ago you could have won the taffy pull at Coney Island as much as you tried to stretch a point to fit your concept.

This changes nothing

Once the left has declared something to be true, they can never be proven wrong. They will either drop this issue and never mention it again, or they will continue to claim that it's proof of the administration's campaign to out a covert agent.

Another case in point; they other day I was listening to an interview with Lewis Lapham where he was discussing the administration's fear-mongering. He noted the President's assertion that Iraq had nuclear weapons and offered, as "proof", Condoleezza Rice talking about a mushroom cloud. I was dumbstruck since I knew exactly what he was referring to. Here's the quote in question;

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

He ignored everything except the last two words and the fact that she was talking about Saddam, and somehow the Ms. Rice is lying about Iraq having nuclear weapons. The left has no shame.

Heck even Joe and Val fell

Heck even Joe and Val fell for it as a chance to exploit another chance.

HuffPo gave Valarie another soap box appearance on the weight of this press release point.

Wow the super duper secret 'analyst' who figured out all the stuff about nuclear proliferation jumped to yet another unsupported conclusion.

Read any of her posts over there including another good one which was her 'online interview' at FireDogLake and you will catch where she lets the host make totally stupid mistakes in the premise of their questions and just lets it stand rather than challenge them, because the error fell in her favor and it was in her interest to make it 'the new truth'.

Nice Head-Fake

There are publicists, and then there are great publicists. McClellan is clearly getting his money's worth from this book's publicist.

By chumming the waters with an out-of-context drop of "red dye #2," this publicist has convinced the ignorant media sharks that there's blood in the water, and gained more publicity for the book than any amount of money could ever buy.

Of course the fact that the MSM has devolved into predictably Pavlovian responses does make the job easier.

Heck, why fight the MSM when you can outsmart them?

 


Thompson/Giuliani 2008

Who was his target audience?

Obviouslyhe caught their attention. Scott is trying to sell a book.  What conservative was that enamored with him to want to spend $20.00 + for his memories on the job...he was so boring, I can't even remember his work...

What is this really

Rhetorical question as McClellan no one can even remember who he is or what he ever did. So his claim to fame is a statement whining about something which is about nothing.

I really do not have allot of respect for McClellan and these kiss and tell books for profit. He is not bright enough to know that Russia dumped 2 shiploads of WMD into the Indian Ocean for Saddam which the DOD recorded. He is not bright enough to read the DOD reports that a convoy and 2 plane loads of biological weapons ended up in Syria and Lebanon and that Saddam's one big nuclear weapon he did built which was too heavy to mount on a Scud was taken to mother Russia on a Bolshevik transport.

Apparently McClellan never even read the published reports out of European junk yards which showed Saddam had scrapped to hide most of WMD delivery systems.

Apparenlty McClellan never even bothered to check the reports that Saddam shipped to Sudan via Iran chemical weapons to the Muslim regime to gas the Christians of Darfur.

Now the above being written about would have been a wonderful book to read. It would have landed most of the deposed socialists in Europe and Clintonia in prison which is why all of this is being hidden as boss Bush didn't want America in political anarchy knowing Russia and China got us in the AK 47 sights.

McClellan should have written a cooking book in boiling water and making toast as it would have been of more value.........at least liberals could not be taking that out of context.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Bunch of Isaiah 29:21er's

Isaiah 29:20-21

(20) For the terrible one [the oppressor, the persecutor] is brought to naught, and the scorner [the accuser, the defamer] is consumed, and all that watch [lie in wait] for iniquity are cut off:

(21) That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside [overthrow, or pursue] the just for a thing of naught [OVER A LIE].

Luke 11:53-54

(53) And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

(54) Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Not to worry though, as long as the good men trumpet the hypocrisy of lunatic liberals from the mountaintops Psalm 37 details their end ...

Psalms 37:1-2

(1) Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.

(2) For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.

Noel, I thought the same

Noel, I thought the same thing myself about the book. Its just
media hype. When his book does come out and the truth about
Bush....it just wont matter. The damage is done, they wont
correct it. whoops, oh well. The media does this all the
time.

mom

Noel,

When I first read this, I was excited. Then I read it a few more times. I think you may have this one wrong.

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In my mind, he is saying that credibility has already been lost because of the WMD thing, and is trying to restore it by exonerating Rove and Libby with regard to the Plame affair. I don't know why Scooter Libby would need to be exonerated regarding the subject of Iraq's WMD. Just a thought.

I hope you are right, though.

oh well

McClellan and/or the editor who wrote the book for him needed a controversial point or no one would have cared about the book in the first place. Now lefties will be standing in line to buy it.

When Ann Coulter does it, she's being mean and shrill just to boost her sales.

When someone does it to embarrass Bush, lefties are immediately convinced it's the gospel truth and cannot thank the author quickly enough.

Remember the book won't even be available until next year. They were doing this as a test to see if it would be popular. McClellan is laughing all the way to the proverbial bank.

It'll be interesting to see how this eventually plays out.  

 

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

Valerie Who?

My watch reads 16 minutes past the hour.

 <insert witty signature here>

You will have to forgive me

You will have to forgive me if I think that most press secretaries are not insiders with burn before read clearances who take a doses of truth syrum before holding a press conference just to get it right.

Don't ask, Won't tell

Has anybody bothered to ask McClellan?

To my knowledge nobody has and this failure to do so should speak volumes.

Connecting dots:

It would appear the demedia is uninterested in hearing what the horses mouth has to say as it will surely be 180 degrees from what the donkey's six-o'clock is saying.  As with the war is lost in Iraq mandate, the law of man is the culprit in global warming, etc, etc, what deniers have to say is lost in demedia concensus.  Spokesman for all, dem Rep and strategist Rahm Emanuel sums up the dem silence the opposition policy nicely; Americans have concluded what they have concluded. They're done.  

Bestseller seeking McClellan certainly is in no hurry to return to the podium to address this actual man made hot air. Doing so would only serve to silence book publicity.  Alas, he must at some point but as demonstrated time and time again since Soros bought the dem party along with it's media machine, perception is synonymous with reality.  Or simply put, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Meanwhile all-is-vanity Plame and Wilson, oblivious to their own shortcomings, relish this media created opportunity to do battle once again with the bogeyman while collecting the spoils.

Lee and Noel have it exactly right but regardless of what McClellan will have to say on the matter, that genie is one powerful force once let out of the bottle and Americans have concluded what they have been told to conclude.