It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video & Transcript of Team Bush lying about a Crime

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Can the press corp-DC beat reporters have finally shirked the leash of the Corp. overlords who own the media? Bile can only come up so much, I guess....

Video: press corp on the hunt, McClellan lying thru his teeth

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

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.

QUESTION: 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...

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

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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...

(LAUGHTER)

... 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.


( Bout Time: " BOOOOYAAAAAH!!!
)


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

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

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.

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

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

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

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

Printed Transcript


Let's see if the press corp keeps the same tenor, God knows it's overdue.




[edit on 12-7-2005 by Bout Time]




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
This really has the potential to become worse than Watergate. While most of the attention has been on Rove latelty the orginal Novak column that leaked Plame's name sited two senior Bush Administration sources. Many people have suggested the sources were Rove and VP Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby. If Rove and Libby and both are indicted there is no way even a Republican controlled Congress can deny congressional hearings. This is seriously bad news for the Bush administration.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
MCLELLAN :: "As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies"

Well since america is always at WAR; does that mean were not FREE, Mr. President????






posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
MCLELLAN :: "As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies"

Well since america is always at WAR; does that mean were not FREE, Mr. President????





I wasn't aware that there was a war going on in America.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
"Perhaps the closest parallel to the current controversy over the outing of the CIA official occurred more than a decade ago.

In that political dustup, a newspaper columnist wrote a damaging piece in 1992 about Rove political rivals within the Texas Republican Party. Although Mr. Rove denied that he was the leaker, Republican leaders believed he was responsible and canceled his direct-mail contract with the Texas GOP.

The columnist in that episode, as in the Valerie Plame case, was Robert Novak. "

www.dallasnews.com...

one thing is for sure, we seem to have the wrong journalist in jail!! it seems that Novak and Rove might have a history of doing this kind of crap!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Sorry to let you all down, but this "scandal" is already unraveling, in spite of McClellen's lame non-answers to the white house press corps acid questioning.
There is no crime involved with what Rove was repoted in having said, Valerie Plume is not a undercover agent.
Start looking around for another life to destroy.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Delta 38
This really has the potential to become worse than Watergate.


Oh spare me, it's likely a crime was not even committed here, the law holds a very high standard. I think the worst thing that could happen is Rove gets fired.

This is not a big deal.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   


To have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the exposer must be authorised to see classified information, must know the officer is undercover, and must know that the CIA is taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the operative’s identity.


It doesn't look like Rove did any of these things. He simply implied in the email to Cooper that Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger did not reveal anything about uranium because it was simply a trip set up by Valerie Plame and that Mr Wilson's reasons were simply an excuse.

There's no way at this time for us to know that the CIA was taking "Affirmative measures" to hide the fact that Mrs. Plame was a CIA operative. There's no indication in Rove's email that he knew that Mrs. Plame was working undercover. The whole issue is political bantering. Rove sought to discredit Wilson's investigation of Saddam's uranium quest in Niger, and now the Democrats are trying to discredit Rove.

There's now way on God's green earth that they are going to be able to prove that Rove did anything illegal or broke any laws. I doubt any changes or replacements will be made in the Bush administration. If any it won't be Rove.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
But then again,I think, I could be mistaken, you're on record as advocating everything from nuking sand hovels to ethnic detainment camps - so how valid is your opinion, really?

An undercover agent with the stellar cover of being a diplomats wife was outed for political revenge after her husband, a former Bush employee, was sent to fabricate a rush to war justification, and refused.
That, my dear 6 watt bulb, is an act of treason. That it's tied to a further act of treason ( fabricated intel & bold faced lies on the war rush) should not be lost on anyone.
That Republicans are spineless yes men and have blockaded impeachments to this point because of their majority, should not be misconstrued as no laws have been broken - they have been, it's just that cowards are in charge.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Bout Time]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
An undercover agent with the stellar cover of being a diplomats wife was outed for political revenge


It's clear now that this was not for political revenge, but to steer journalists away from a bad story. Plame sent her husband in an act of favoritism and cronyism and he was wholly incompetent or a complete liar, whatever you'd like to believe. His report has been totally discredited.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
An undercover agent with the stellar cover of being a diplomats wife was outed for political revenge after her husband, a former Bush employee, was sent to fabricate a rush to war justification, and refused.
That, my dear 6 watt bulb, is an act of treason. That it's tied to a further act of treason ( fabricated intel & bold faced lies on the war rush) should not be lost on anyone.
That Republicans are spineless yes men and have blockaded impeachments to this point because of their majority, should not be misconstrued as no laws have been broken - they have been, it's just that cowards are in charge.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Bout Time]


You got a way above vote from me for continuing to remind people that this is A BIG DEAL


Props to the White House press corps for finally growing a spine. I hope this isn't an isolated event (although I'm sure they are all being sent off to the gulags as we speak....)

If Bush is a man of his word, Benedict Rove should be fired (again.) Not that it will matter. He isn't really suited for public life, is he? He will receve his requisite medal of honor from Bush for a job poorly done and retreat to his slimy hole in the ground where he will make 50 times his current salary running the campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

But he should not only be fired, he should be thrown in jail. People should be punished for having the hubris to commit treason for political gain, shouldn't they?

And what kind of person has the hubris to knowingly sends poor kids to die based on "manipulated facts"? Faulty intelligence, my a**.

Betrayal of trust is an impeachable offense.

If we lived in a world where the American way still represented truth and justice, it would happen.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Am I the only person who read through the original post?
I'm sorry, but how does the title for this topic in any way relate to that post?

It is just a guy saying over and over again "i'm not supposed to comment on that"

How is that lying? Whether or not you think he is lying at some other time, what does this have to do with it?
Maybe this is a big deal, maybe not, I really don't know, but either way I don't see how this topic in particular really does anything but criticize somebody for a fairly normal conversation.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Bout Time,

Great Find!



Here is Another Interesting Article with the same Topic:

White House Maintains Silence About Rove



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
You really need to go back in september of 2003 with another press conferance on this issue. The main thing is the Bush administration wanted to delay things until after the election. To do that there had to be a bold statement that no one was involved. McCeallan (the one who makes a living by lying) stated that Rove Libby and cheany were not invovled in the Plame case, AND if anyone in the white house was they would be fired.

The white house lied to the public AGAIN, and this time it wasn't about stains on a blue dress, but a matter of national securtiy dealing with a covert agent working on WMD problems

Even if Rove never metioned Planes name specifically, if he metioned "wife of jo wilson" all it would have taken was about 6 minutes of searching on google of Jo wilsons bio to find out his connection to Plame.... even back in 2003

Right now I think the courts are trying to figure out:

1. If Karl Rove had clearance for this information
2. If Rove was the one who broke the barrier between authorized, and unauthorized

if they have called him back at least 3 times, it means that there is either new information, or information that may contradict Roves story

And anyone who starts talking about Jo wilsons trip, that is nothing more then a smokescreen to cover Rove backside and avoid the real issue with disinformation tactics



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Political revenge has been the hallmark of this administration - it's the only thing they've done consistently well.
That "steer away from a bad story" canard has been the latest GOP talking point making the airwaves - non stop. I see why you offer it up here, but it doesn't change the facts of it being transparent revenge, unless you're now admitting that Team Bush is policy driven by media/polls? Something that the Right labeled the Clinton team as.

Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 reads as follows:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."


I don't see where this has as many layers of due diligence in leveling the charge; prosecution is a whole other matter, but that's after trial - I'm not out to hang him without one.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by muzzleflash
MCLELLAN :: "As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies"

Well since america is always at WAR; does that mean were not FREE, Mr. President????





I wasn't aware that there was a war going on in America.


Being at war doesn't necessary mean fighting it in your own territory. Do you imply that a society is peaceful as long as it doesn't fight wars in their own country?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Valerie Plame was not simply an analyst or a data cruncher. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. That sentence deserves to be written twice. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

The Bush administration pushed very hard the idea that America is in danger from WMDs being placed into the hands of terrorists. This was one of the central arguments behind the war in Iraq. Yet in order to protect Bush's political standing, a couple of "administration officials" blew Valerie Plame, and by proxy her network, completely out of the water in an attempt to shut her husband up. In short, in order to protect Bush from the ramifications of using fake evidence to support his war, this White House destroyed an intelligence network that was protecting us from the threat posed by chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

We are less safe now that Valerie Plame is no longer performing this vital task, and the members of her network are in mortal danger of being revealed and destroyed. Beyond that, we are facing a level of hypocrisy that shatters any and all previously known boundaries. This administration ginned up a war in Iraq based upon manufactured evidence and wildly overstated threats, all of which was painted over with rhetoric about defending the country from terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. The fate of Valerie Plame, and her network, shows without doubt that the moral standing of this administration is as empty as Saddam Hussein's WMD cache.

In Ambassador Wilson's words, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

The current spin from administration defenders within and without the mainstream media is that Valerie Plame was only an analyst, and not an operative. This, somehow, is supposed to lessen the blow of an administration willing to attack the families of its critics. Yet the characterization of Plame as an analyst is factually incorrect. For one, Robert Novak himself indicated that she was an operative in the original report that birthed this scandal. "Wilson never worked for the CIA," wrote Novak, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."

McGovern further elaborated on the damage done when such an agent has their cover blown. "This causes a great deal of damage," said McGovern. "These kinds of networks take ten years to develop. The reason why they operate under deep cover is that the only people who have access to the kind of data we need cannot be associated in any way with the American intelligence community. Our operatives live a lie to maintain these networks, and do so out of patriotism. When they get blown, the operatives themselves are in physical danger. The people they recruit are also in physical danger, because foreign intelligence services can make the connections and find them. Operatives like Valerie Plame are real patriots."


by William Rivers Pitt



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   


I wasn't aware that there was a war going on in America.


he didn't say IN america, he said america is at war. which we are, in iraq. where have you been?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Bout Time, you also got a Way Above award for me, and I am no Liberal against the Bush Administration, I am a Conservative Against the Bush Administration. It's time we stop hiding behind party loyalty and realize that America is in trouble. It's not about Liberal vs Consevative or Republican vs Democrat, it's about America. There are people that are so loyal to their party that Satan could run in it and they would vote for him. WHY? Because you believe the other party is always more evil than yours? The last I checked is we're all Americans, and we can't compromise our country's integrity and even our own because the person being accused of a crime that puts our country in danger has the right "label" that we follow.




[edit on 13-7-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJustice
Bout Time, you also got a Way Above award for me, and I am no Liberal against the Bush Administration, I am a Conservative Against the Bush Administration. It's time we stop hiding behind party loyalty and realize that America is in trouble. It's not about Liberal vs Consevative or Republican vs Democrat, it's about America. There are people that are so loyal to their party that Satan could run in it and they would vote for him. WHY? Because you believe the other party is always more evil than yours? The last I checked is we're all Americans, and we can't compromise our country's integrity and even our own because the person being accused of a crime that puts our country in danger has the right "label" that we follow.



THANK YOU!!!!!!!!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join