A Bad Day to Be Scott McClellan

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Because Joe Wilson said Cheney authorised the Niger investigation. They caught him in a mistake (or lie) and used the media to expose it.

No, he didn't.

Transcript of the CNN Interview from 8/3/03:

BLITZER: I know you were sent to go on this mission long before the State of the Union Address. When Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, was on this program a few weeks ago, on July 13th, I asked her about your mission. Listen to this exchange I had with her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I didn't know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look in Director Tenet's statement, it says that counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, sent Joe Wilson. So, I don't know...

BLITZER: Who sent him?

RICE: Well, it was certainly not at a level that had anything to do with the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is that true?

WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.

What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself...

BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.

WILSON: Scooter Libby.


They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed.

The RNC talking point that Wilson made such a claim is simply another lie in their obfuscation campaign. To show you what a liar Ken Mehlman, RNC chair is, he has been shopping around only part of this interview ("What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself") as "proof" that Wilson claimed Cheney sent him. Anyone can look at the whole exchange above and see that is categorically not true, and there's no way Mehlman can't know it. So who's lying here again?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'ld say Wilson, base upon his (Wilson's) claims in the NYT namely:

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

What experience he had none?

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Firstly he had NO experience with the administration. His writing in the NYT's leaves one to only be led down the path that he was implying the administration had hand picked him or at the very least been consulting with him throughout the mission.

Regardless of Mehlman's parsing of statements the orginal NYT article clearly implies (and need I remind you it was an OPED written by Wilson so there isn't even NYT's editorial cover) that Wilson claimed to have had intimate workings with the administration that allowed him insight into the supposed insidious doctoring of evidence. A clear and total fabrication.

The reasons for the WH to distance themselves from this complete loser were obvious.

Also if one follws the timeline of the stories above, Wilson realized he was caught in a lie or fabrication from his NYT claims and started back tracking as the 8/03/03 caim out long after the Novak stories started to gain traction.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'ld say Wilson, base upon his (Wilson's) claims in the NYT namely:



What experience he had none?




Firstly he had NO experience with the administration. His writing in the NYT's leaves one to only be led down the path that he was implying the administration had hand picked him or at the very least been consulting with him throughout the mission.

Regardless of Mehlman's parsing of statements the orginal NYT article clearly implies (and need I remind you it was an OPED written by Wilson so there isn't even NYT's editorial cover) that Wilson claimed to have had intimate workings with the administration that allowed him insight into the supposed insidious doctoring of evidence. A clear and total fabrication.

The reasons for the WH to distance themselves from this complete loser were obvious.

Also if one follws the timeline of the stories above, Wilson realized he was caught in a lie or fabrication from his NYT claims and started back tracking as the 8/03/03 caim out long after the Novak stories started to gain traction.

What are you talking about? first, you can only m,ake suppositions about any dealings prior relating to this or other issues Wilson may have had with the admin. for him to make his statement- for you, lacking any info, to say "HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE" is ludicrous.

Second, where the hell in that article does it show Wilson saying he had anything of a "intimate relationship" with the admin.?

Cheney asks the agency something. The agency (not Cheney) as him to give feedback on the issue and investigate. So Wilson never claims he had direct dealings with Cheney'f office, but with the CIA.

That you want to get in a tizzy vs Wilson (but for some reason, not the lying bastards in the admin. who messed up) by reading into his statements things you want to read into them is silly.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Cheney asks the agency something. The agency (not Cheney) as him to give feedback on the issue and investigate. So Wilson never claims he had direct dealings with Cheney'f office, but with the CIA.

Cheney who asked for the clarification via the CIA stated in numerous occasions he had no knowledge of Wilson or that Wilson had been requested by the CIA to go on the trip or for that matter ever have seen the "all important info" Wilson was to deliver.

As this request originated from Cheney AND Wilson claimed to have expereince of the administration one can only conclude that his comments were that someone/anyone within the WH had some dealings with him. That has NEVER been corroborated and further the only logical person that would have had dealings with him would have been Cheney or Cheneys staffers. A claim flatly refuted and further cooroborated in back pedal statements from Wilson.

Face it Wilson tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to imply some carnal knowledge of the inner workings of the administration, a point the administration was clearly in the right to point out never existed.

If Wilson meant his dealing with the CIA were the same as first hand expereince with the administration that would be a stretch far in excess of poetic license.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


What are you talking about? first, you can only m,ake suppositions about any dealings prior relating to this or other issues Wilson may have had with the admin. for him to make his statement- for you, lacking any info, to say "HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE" is ludicrous.

Dealings prior to or after are not germane to the NYT article as his frame of reference and topic matter is exclusively talking towards the Niger info he supposedly gathred. Being that is the topic at hand, this is further supporting evidence that expereince he would have of the administration would be limitted to the office of the VP who made the request to the CIA, which clearly was not the case.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Cheney who asked for the clarification via the CIA stated in numerous occasions he had no knowledge of Wilson or that Wilson had been requested by the CIA to go on the trip or for that matter ever have seen the "all important info" Wilson was to deliver.

Which in no way contradicts what Wilson says since Wilson deals with the agency, NOT Cheney.

As this request originated from Cheney AND Wilson claimed to have expereince of the administration one can only conclude that his comments were that someone/anyone within the WH had some dealings with him.

False. Cheney makes a request of the CIA. The CIA makes a request of Wilson. Is that so difficult to understand?

That has NEVER been corroborated and further the only logical person that would have had dealings with him would have been Cheney or Cheneys staffers. A claim flatly refuted and further cooroborated in back pedal statements from Wilson.

And yet Wilson in his article you quoted does hnot speak about briefing anyone in Cheney's office, does he?

Face it Wilson tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to imply some carnal knowledge of the inner workings of the administration, a point the administration was clearly in the right to point out never existed.

Face your grand delusion? The very thing you quoted does not have Wiulson ever saying he spoke with Cheney or anyone in hsi staff. He states to work for the CIA in getting the info. Where the **** are you reading what you claim? Please, either find a writen piece were Wilson says he met with Cheney or anyone in his staff because otherwise you look like Ned.

If Wilson meant his dealing with the CIA were the same as first hand expereince with the administration that would be a stretch far in excess of poetic license.

You seem to be the only one reading such a message into it here, you and republican hacks.

[Drake Tungsten]

Once more, with feeling...

Republican hacks...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'ld say Wilson, base upon his (Wilson's) claims in the NYT namely:

Disengenuous quote mining. Let's look at the whole article, and the parts you omitted:

Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. [b]I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Wilson's "experience" with the administration was referring to his interaction with the State Department and that his conclusions--conclusions that were substantiated by the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria and many others--were ignored. Wilson is very clearly laying out his experience in the matter, and nothing there says that he in any way received direct marching orders from the VP. State Department officials were involved throughout this (even being present at the initial meeting at the CIA discussing the trip).

Find me a quote wherein Wilson claimed that Cheney had sent him on the mission, and you have a point. Otherwise, we have weak claims that Wilson was "implying" as such, in spite of his very clear statements that he meant no such thing. I certainly don't see anything indicating he was deliberately lying. At worst, he was too vague in his wording. But the first time anyone asks him about the connection, he clearly says: No, the VP didn't send me.

Regardless of Mehlman's parsing of statements

Mehlman is lying, there's no way around it. If you look at the true transcript of what Wilson said in the 8/03 interview, it says exactly the opposite of what Mehlman claims. There's no way anyone could read that whole transcript and think Wilson was saying what Mehlman claims. It's patent bull****.

[GePap]

Re: Once more, with feeling...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Republican hacks...

Its turlly sad that you think and old blog somehow actually means anything to anyone.

[Drake Tungsten]

The point Drum makes, ie. that Wilson is full of ****, is still a valuable one.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak.

The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it.

The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials. The first source, who is unknown, was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger" who provided the outlines of the story. The second, confirming source, Mr. Novak wrote, responded, "Oh, you know about it."

That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said, although Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was slightly different. Mr. Rove recalled telling Mr. Novak: "I heard that, too."

Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.

Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Mr. Luskin has previously said that prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.

In a brief conversation on Thursday, Mr. Novak declined to discuss the matter.

The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, alleging that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their conversation reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper said to his editors that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name.

After saying in 2003 that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case. But he has suggested that President Bush continues to support Mr. Rove. On Thursday Mr. Rove was at Mr. Bush's side on a trip to Indianapolis.

As the political debate about Mr. Rove grows more heated, Mr. Fitzgerald is in what he has said are the final stages of his investigation into whether anyone at the White House violated a criminal statute that, under certain circumstances, makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Ms. Wilson.

The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said that Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer.

The revelation of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever described that conversation, or his conversation with Mr. Cooper, with the president. Mr. Bush has said several times that he wants all members of the White House staff to cooperate fully with Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.

In June 2004, at Sea Island, Ga., soon after Vice President Dick Cheney met with investigators in the case, Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name.

"Yes," Mr. Bush said. "And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

White House officials may argue that Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak did not amount to leaking the name of the agent. But to critics of Mr. Bush - including the Democrats who have called for Mr. Rove's resignation - that is splitting hairs, and Mr. Rove in effect confirmed her identity, even if he did not name her.

Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. Mr. Novak said he knew that in contrast to Mr. Wilson's suggestion in his Op-Ed article that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney's interest in the matter, Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of his wife.

Mr. Rove's allies have stressed that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife's career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Fitzgerald has indicated that his investigation is winding down, but many aspects of it remain shrouded in secrecy. It is unknown who Mr. Novak's other source might be or how that source learned of Ms. Wilson's identity as a C.I.A. official. By itself, the revelation that Mr. Rove had spoken to a second journalist about Ms. Wilson may not necessarily have a bearing on his exposure to any criminal charge in the case.

But it seems certain to add substantially to the political maelstrom that has engulfed the White House this week after the disclosure that Mr. Rove had discussed the matter with Mr. Cooper of Time magazine. Mr. Cooper's e-mail message to his editors, in which he described his discussion with Mr. Rove, was among documents that were turned over by Time Inc. executives recently to comply with a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald.

A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, who never wrote about the Plame case, refused to cooperate with the investigation and was jailed last week.

In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, the revelation is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush. Already, Democrats have been pressing the president either to live up to his pledges to rid his administration of anyone found to have leaked the name of a covert operative, or to explain why he does not believe Mr. Rove's actions subject him to dismissal.

The new revelation also leaves Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, in an increasingly awkward situation. Two years ago repeatedly assured reporters that neither Mr. Rove nor several other administration officials were responsible for the leak.

The case has also threatened to become a distraction to the White House and Republicans as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

All week, as Democrats have been demanding that Mr. Rove resign or provide a public explanation, the political machine that Mr. Rove built to bolster Mr. Bush and advance his agenda has risen up to defend its creator. The Republican National Committee has mounted an aggressive campaign to cast Mr. Rove as blameless and to paint the matter as a partisan dispute driven not by legality, ethics or national security concerns, but by a penchant among Democrats to resort to harsh personal attacks.

But Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he would not prejudge Mr. Rove's role, and Mr. Rove was seated conspicuously just behind the president at a cabinet meeting, an image of business as usual. On Thursday, on the trip with Mr. Bush to Indiana, Mr. Rove grinned his way through a brief encounter with reporters after getting off Air Force One.

Mr. Bush's White House has been characterized by loyalty and long tenures, but no one has been at Mr. Bush's side in his journey through politics longer than Mr. Rove, who has been his strategist, enforcer, policy guru, ambassador to social and religious conservatives and friend since they met in Washington in the early 1970's. People who know Mr. Bush said it was unlikely if not unthinkable that he would seek Mr. Rove's departure barring a criminal indictment.

After his re-election last November, Mr. Bush thanked Mr. Rove, calling him "the architect" of the victory. Mr. Rove subsequently added to his role as senior adviser the title of deputy chief of staff for policy, a job that formally gave him broad authority over much of Mr. Bush's second-term agenda, including his call for an overhaul of Social Security.

Most recently, Mr. Rove has been at the center of the White House's deliberations over the choice of a nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the Supreme Court.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, if Rove wasn't the leaker, who was? It'll be interesting to see if all the speculation on Miller's role pans out...

[Berzerker]

Boris

The RNC talking point that Wilson made such a claim is simply another lie in their obfuscation campaign. To show you what a liar Ken Mehlman, RNC chair is, he has been shopping around only part of this interview ("What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself") as "proof" that Wilson claimed Cheney sent him. Anyone can look at the whole exchange above and see that is categorically not true, and there's no way Mehlman can't know it. So who's lying here again?

I gotta agree with that. Damn parties are corrupt

Ogie - When Wilson is talking about his experience with the administration in this quote,

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war

He had plenty of experience in the months running up to the war. They outed his wife and started smearing him.

[Berzerker]

Was the war after that all started happening? My timeline ain't up to snuff...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The wife outing defintiely happened after the NYT's article whihc essentially precipitated the whole affair.

Baiscally if Wilson had not been an over reaching Megalomianiac who attempted to oversell his credentials the admin would not have been forced to distance themselves from him and ultimately leak Plames wife.

War happened before the articles came out.