Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
The White House on Monday rejected Democratic demands that an independent counsel be appointed to find out who leaked secret information apparently aimed at discrediting a vocal critic of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
The sudden squall over the leak that blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative energized Democratic presidential candidates and deepened tension over the administration's failure to find promised weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Officials said the Justice Department began a preliminary inquiry to determine if there should be a full-blown probe based on a memo from the CIA stating a leak had occurred.
An official said one thrust of the inquiry would be to determine whether the leak violated the law or national security, or caused any damage.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, during a lively news briefing, said no internal investigation was planned.
"At this point, I think the Department of Justice would be the appropriate one to look into a matter like this ... There are a lot of career professionals at the Department of Justice that address matters like this."
The controversy centers on the disclosure that Valerie Plame -- the wife of Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Gabon -- was an undercover CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction. Wilson believes his wife's cover was blown by administration officials looking to discredit him or get revenge.
"I don't think people appreciate very much ... the unnecessary dragging of my wife's name into this sphere," Wilson told CNN.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a Democratic presidential hopeful, said an independent commission was needed.
"This administration has played politics with national security for a long time, but this is going too far," Clark told Reuters.
Another Democratic candidate, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, called for a thorough investigation free from political pressure. He suggested it be carried out by the independent Justice Department inspector general.
"KEEP PHONE LOGS"
Candidate Joseph Lieberman, a senator from Connecticut, urged the White House to maintain all phone logs, e-mails, correspondence "and anything else that may relate to these events, and make clear that anyone destroying or otherwise tampering with these records will be fired."
A leak of classified information is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Connecting the leak to the White House would be an embarrassment for President Bush, whose claims that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction have never been proved.
Wilson said Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, condoned the leak. But McClellan said Rove had assured him it was "simply not true" that he had anything to do with it.
McClellan pledged the White House's cooperation with the Department of Justice and suggested anyone involved in the leak would be fired.
Wilson has accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein as it made its case for an invasion of Iraq.
He wrote in The New York Times in July that he went to Niger early in 2002 at the CIA's request to assess a report that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. The International Atomic Energy Agency later dismissed the allegation as based on forged documents.
The Niger uranium charge found its way into Bush's State of the Union speech in January this year as part of the U.S. case against Saddam, and only after Wilson went public did the White House admit Bush should not have included it, blaming the CIA.
The fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was published by a columnist, Robert Novak, shortly after Wilson's article appeared in The New York Times. He refused to divulge his source. - Source
At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.
The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.
The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."
A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."
The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.
It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."
Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's occupation, has suggested publicly that he believes Bush's senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, broke her cover. Wilson said Aug. 21 at a public forum in suburban Seattle that it is of keen interest to him "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that he knows of no leaks about Wilson's wife. "That is not the way this White House operates, and no one would be authorized to do such a thing," McClellan said. "I don't have any information beyond an anonymous source in a media report to suggest there is anything to this. If someone has information of this nature, then he or she should report it to the Department of Justice."
McClellan, who Rove had speak for him, said of Wilson's comments: "It is a ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true." McClellan was asked about Wilson's charge at a White House briefing Sept. 16 and said the accusation is "totally ridiculous."
Administration officials said Tenet sent a memo to the Justice Department raising a series of questions about whether a leaker had broken federal law by disclosing the identity of an undercover officer. The CIA request was reported Friday night by MSNBC.com. Administration sources familiar with the matter said the Justice Department is determining whether a formal investigation is warranted.
An intelligence official said Tenet "doesn't like leaks."
The CIA request could reopen the rift between the White House and the intelligence community that emerged this summer when Bush and his senior aides blamed Tenet for the inclusion of the now-discredited uranium claim -- the so-called "16 words" -- in the State of the Union address in January.
Tenet issued a statement taking responsibility for the CIA's approval of the address before it was delivered, but made clear the CIA had earlier warned the White House not to use the allegations about uranium ore. After an ensuing rush of leaks over White House handling of intelligence, Bush's aides said they believed in retrospect it had been a political mistake to blame Tenet.
The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information.
Members of the administration, especially Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have been harshly critical of unauthorized leakers, and White House spokesmen are often dismissive of questions about news reports based on unnamed sources. The FBI is investigating senators for possibly leaking intercept information about Osama bin Laden.
The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public with it was Novak, the conservative columnist, who wrote in The Washington Post and other newspapers that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He added, "Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."
When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.
Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."
After the column ran, the CIA began a damage assessment of whether any foreign contacts Plame had made over the years could be in danger. The assessment continues, sources said.
The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name.
Wilson was acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the run-up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991. He was in the diplomatic service from 1976 until 1998, and was the Clinton administration's senior director of African affairs on the National Security Council. He is now an international business consultant. Wilson said the mission to Niger was unpaid except for expenses.
Wilson said he believes an inquiry from Cheney's office launched his eight-day mission to Niger in February 2002 to check the uranium claim, which turned out to be based at least partly on forged documents. "The way it was briefed to me was that the office of the vice president had expressed an interest in a report covering uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger," Wilson said in a telephone interview yesterday.
He said that if Novak's account is accurate, the leak was part of "a deliberate attempt on the part of the White House to intimidate others and make them think twice about coming forward."
Sources said that some of the other journalists who received the leak did not use the information because they were uncomfortable with unmasking an undercover agent or because they did not consider the information relevant to Wilson's report about Niger.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been pushing the FBI to investigate the disclosure since July, said yesterday that it "not only put an agent's life in danger, but many of that agent's sources and contacts." - Source
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, blames the White House for telling a newspaper columnist that his wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative. The Justice Department is investigating the claim at the request of the CIA.
Wilson spoke to CNN anchor Paula Zahn Monday.
ZAHN: Are you still saying this goes all the way to the top levels of the White House?
WILSON: No, on the contrary, I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak.
What I do have are any number of journalist sources, none of whom I have any reason not to believe, who have said that the White House was pushing this story after the leak, after the Novak article, and including [Bush political strategist] Karl Rove.
ZAHN: The Washington Post reported over the weekend that at least six Washington correspondents were fed this same information. Why?
WILSON: Well, I think, if The Washington Post article is correct, I think there were probably two waves.
The one wave was being this -- of the phone calls to the six journalists. The only person who published an article was Mr. Novak. He's now claiming that he wasn't called. But it was in that timeframe, apparently. Then, I believe there was a second wave that occurred later on in the week, when I started getting phone calls from different journalistic outlets, saying things like, the White House is telling us that the real story here is not the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife, culminating in the day that I actually did an interview on another network, saying that my understanding was that this might be against the law, after which those calls stopped.
ZAHN: And why do you think you're at the receiving end of all this?
WILSON: Well, I had assumed early on that it was probably because the White House wanted to discourage others from coming forward. And I have said that repeatedly, that there was nothing they could do to me. I had already told my story.
The accuracy or the validity, the veracity, of my story had been sort of agreed to by the White House 36 hours or 30 hours after my article appeared in The New York Times. There was nothing particularly to be gained by going after me. But you might want to discourage other people from stepping forward. There were a number of people at the time who were speaking off the record to journalists about pressures that they felt out at the CIA.
Whether those were accurate or not, those were the stories that were going around. So I thought that it might be directed at them.
ZAHN: Do you believe your wife's life is in any increased danger as a result of this?
WILSON: Well, I don't know.
We've always thought about this in the context of what is compromised in terms of national security, what operations, what agents, what networks that have been put in place during her career. That was the focus of our thinking. I will tell you that, increasingly, people are asking that question. And I'm going to have to think about it. But I'm not -- we have not been the recipients of any general threats or even -- or specific threats.
ZAHN: So you're not sure whether you fear for her safety, when you say it's something you have to think through?
WILSON: Well, I'm certainly concerned about her safety, but it's -- we had not thought about it in those terms at this point. We had thought about it more in terms of the violation to our own national security.
ZAHN: And, finally, I wanted to share with you something that Robert Novak [the columnist who wrote the initial report] had to say a little bit earlier today about this controversy. Let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "CROSSFIRE")
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: You want to answer that question? Is this Bush-bashing on your part?
WILSON: Let me make a couple of points about that.
First of all, Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointee was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this.
Secondly, somebody with Novak's self-described 46 years experience will know the difference between operative and analyst. And his report clearly says -- his article says operative.
ZAHN: So what does that mean?
WILSON: That means that I think that he knew and he was told that she was a CIA operative, which means that they come under the branch of the CIA that deals with clandestine operations.
ZAHN: So you're basically saying there's no doubt in your mind that this was a leak, when in fact he said, in the course of interviewing a senior White House official, that is what he was told, and your wife's -- not her name at that point, but at least her official capacity was shared with him?
WILSON: Bob Novak called me before he went to print with the report. And he said, a CIA source had told him that my wife was an operative. He was trying to get a second source. He couldn't get a second source. Could I confirm that? I said no.
After the article appeared, I called him and I said: "You told me it was a CIA source. You wrote senior administration officials. What was it, CIA or senior admiration?" He said to me, "I misspoke the first time I spoke to you." That makes it senior administration sources. - Sources
"He wasn't involved [in the Valerie Plame leak]," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved...It's simply not true." Really? The President KNOWS that Karl Rove wasn't involved?
How?
Either he knows who DID do it, and it wasn't Rove....or he asked Rove, and Rove denied it directly.
In which case, why is Bush ONLY asking Karl Rove?
Or ...Is he only asking Karl Rove? And if he's asked other people, who are they, and what did they tell him?
Of course, if he already knows who did it, then there's no reason to ask anyone...now is there?
Bush is busted.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall has the complete transcript, which has some added gems [brought to my attention by a commenter]:
"QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this --
McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.
QUESTION: How does he know that?
QUESTION: How does he know that?
McCLELLAN: The President knows.
QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know?"
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. This afternoon the President will welcome and congratulate the 2003 Stanley Cup Champion New Jersey Devils to the White House. Later this afternoon, the President looks forward to meeting with congregational rabbis. This is the Jewish high holy days, and it is a time for prayer and reflection in the Jewish community. Today's meeting is part of the President's ongoing commitment to reaching out to faith-based leaders who make our nation stronger. So the President looks forward to that meeting.
And then, following that meeting, the President looks forward to signing the Do Not Call legislation, which affirms the FTC's authority to maintain the Do Not Call Registry. This action, combined with the FCC's announcement earlier today that they will enforce the Do Not Call rules, is a victory for the millions of Americans who have registered some 50 million phone numbers on the registry. Americans have the right to reduce the number of unwanted solicitations they receive. The Do Not Call Registry is a valuable way for them to stop the nuisance of annoying calls.
And with that, I will be glad to jump right into questions.
Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --
Q Does he think it didn't come from here?
MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.
Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Does he doubt?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.
Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?
MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.
Q You're saying the White House won't take a proactive role?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to bring to my attention suggesting White House involvement?
Q If you would --
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.
Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked information of this kind?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter. And it should be --
Q So why doesn't he want --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --
Q Right, so why --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice.
Q Why wouldn't he proactively do that, ask people on the staff to say that they had not leaked anything?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement? I saw a media report that said "senior administration officials." That's an anonymous source that could include a lot of people. I've seen a lot of "senior administration officials" in media stories.
Q Would they know -- to the White House?
Q Scott, when you say that it should be pursued by the Justice Department -- Justice has not said whether it actually is conducting an investigation. Does the President want the Justice Department to investigate this matter?
MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so.
Q And do you know that they are doing this?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question you need to ask the Department of Justice. My understanding is that if something like this happened and it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to pursue it further. But those are questions you need to ask the Department of Justice.
Q But, Scott, something like this did happen, right? Bob Novak had information he should not have had, that he was not authorized to have. So something --
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, all I can tell you is what I've seen in the media reports. And I've seen different statements in the media reports from, the CIA hasn't confirmed or denied that this was a covert agent for the CIA; I've seen media reports to suggest that it was referred to the Department of Justice, and that -- and comments the Department of Justice would look into it.
Q So the President of the United States doesn't know whether or not this classified information was divulged, and he is only getting his information by reading the media?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q He does not know whether or not the classified information was divulged here, and he's only getting his information from the media?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we don't know -- we don't have any information that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the media reports. I've made that clear.
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --
Q But how does --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.
Q But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --
MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --
Q But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --
MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.
Q Does he know whether or not the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby --
MR. McCLELLAN: If you have any specific information to bring to my attention -- like I said, there has been nothing that's been brought to our attention. You asked me earlier if we were looking into it, there is nothing that's been brought to our attention beyond the media reports. But if someone did something like this, it needs to be looked at by the Department of Justice, they're the appropriate agency charged with looking into matters like this --
Q Well, you do know that they are looking at it, don't you?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and so they're the ones that should do that.
Q They're telling reporters that they're looking at it; haven't they told you that they're looking at it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there you have it. There you have it.
Q Haven't they told you? Haven't you asked?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've seen the media reports. There has been no requests made of us at this time.
Q But, Scott, it gets to the question if you know, if the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the President specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom of this?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the President wants, and I've been very clear about that.
Q Is the President convinced that there was no White House involvement in this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if I could get "anonymous" to 'fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier.
Q That's not the question. That's not the question.
MR. McCLELLAN: But there has been nothing -- there has been absolutely --
Q Does the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm answering that.
Q Scott, does he know -- is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?
MR. McCLELLAN: There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. The media reports cite "senior administration official," or "senior administration officials."
Q But they're wrong, as far as you're concerned?
MR. McCLELLAN: But I haven't seen anything before that. That's why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it.
Q Those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement.
Q And the President is pretty passive on this, right?
MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest --
Q He's not doing anything proactive?
Q Let me just -- let me follow up on one of the --
MR. McCLELLAN: He's making it clear that this is a serious -- through his spokesman, me -- that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent.
Q But has he ordered an investigation inside the White House? If he thinks it's that serious, wouldn't you do that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information, Helen, to bring to my attention?
Q No. Are you --
MR. McCLELLAN: If you have specific information, bring it to my attention.
Q Scott, you are answering questions out there for a few days on media reports. I just wonder, isn't there an internal investigation going on to find out what's happened?
MR. McCLELLAN: The Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to look into this. And if something like this happened, the President believes it should be pursued to the fullest extent.
Q Why wouldn't this be the --
Q Can I follow --
MR. McCLELLAN: Ed. I'll come back to you in a minute.
Q Scott, this is clearly a serious matter, with possible penalties being going to jail. It's not going to go away. Why -- and as you said earlier, there probably is a limited number of people with access to this information. It doesn't take much for the President to ask for a senior official working for him to just lay the question out for a few people, and end this controversy today.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Ed, do you have specific information to bring to our attention?
Q No. But it's not --
MR. McCLELLAN: But are we supposed to chase down --
Q -- for me a big story --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that. That's what -- I think you need to --
Q The anonymous reports, though, allege criminal activity.
MR. McCLELLAN: You need to keep in mind that there has been no specific information, there has been no information that has come to our attention to suggest White House involvement, beyond what has been reported in the newspapers.
Q The implication you're leaving us with, I'm afraid, is that nothing is being done here at the White House to even look into this matter --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait a second, I made it very clear that if something like this happened, the President believes the Department of Justice should look into it and pursue it to the fullest extent. Leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very serious matter.
Q Do you see any need to appoint a special counsel for this case, as some Democrats are demanding?
MR. McCLELLAN: At this point, I think the Department of Justice would be the appropriate one to look into a matter like this.
Q Can I follow up on that? Does that mean that you would say to the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to determine whether a special or outside counsel is necessary, that you believe it is not necessary at this point?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of career professionals at the Department of Justice that address matters like this. I have made it clear that they're the ones, that if something like this happened, should look into it. You need to direct that question to the Department of Justice. It would be a Justice Department matter; it wouldn't be our place to get involved in that.
Q But wouldn't you like to see all questions about the independence of any investigation taken care of by putting it in the hands of somebody who has no formal statements out there?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think we're assuming certain things have happened. That's why I said you need to direct a question like that to the Department of Justice, to find out what has happened here, or to get a response to that.
Q Well, clearly, there is, at least on a preliminary basis, an investigation going forward.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, keep in mind what I said earlier, that it's my understanding that in a situation like this, that if information was forwarded to the Department of Justice, the first step would be to look at it to determine whether or not it warrants looking into further. So that's where -- that's what I understand the process is on something like this.
Q Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman --
MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.
Q -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical --
MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention --
Q No, but you say that --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
Q Scott, the Independent Counsel Act, as you know, is no more. Prior to that act, what would normally be done in an instance like this, I believe, would be -- as you say, if there's enough evidence that warrants it, the Attorney General would appoint a special prosecutor. Do you think that --
MR. McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the Department of Justice about what they do, or what their intentions are.
Q And, also, the Executive Office the President is the only agency or entity in the federal government that does not have an inspector general's office to do its own internal investigations. Do you think, because of what is allegedly arising here today, the White House should revisit the idea of establishing an office of inspector general within the White House?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I mean, you know, you're assuming that certain things happened within the White House, so I'm not going to get into that kind of speculation in the current environment that we're asking that question.
Q Scott, a quote coming out of this controversy is that the real story is why Ambassador Wilson was chosen for this mission. Has the White House asked the CIA why they've sent somebody who was so vehemently opposed to the administration's position on Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We made it clear that we weren't aware of his trip before we saw it in the media reports, and that still stands.
Q Scott, since the President takes it so seriously, and since the revelation was made two-and-a-half months ago, why does the President only now, since others have called for a Department of Justice inquiry, support that action?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you recall what I said a couple of months ago, as well? Because I made it very clear then what I'm making clear now, that there was no information that has come to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. So that's where things stood. But I made it very clear that that is not the way this White House operates, that the President expects people to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics -- and that he has made that very clear from day one of this administration.
But I answered this question a couple of months ago. I'm glad you brought that up, because we're answering some of the same questions today.
Q Did George Tenet -- did George Tenet bring this matter to the President's attention prior to the weekend?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware that anything was brought to our attention before information was apparently forwarded to the Department of Justice.
Q We do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name was leaked of a CIA operative. Whoever did it, does the President want some type of Justice Department investigation into just that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, one, I've only -- I've seen the media reports and in one report I saw that the CIA had neither confirmed or denied that this individual was a covert operative for the CIA.
Q Why don't they deny it, if it's --
MR. McCLELLAN: But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak of highly classified information of this nature, the President would want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice.
Q Are you saying the President is not even aware whether or not this actually was a CIA operative who was identified? I mean, you're not even saying that that is a given in this matter?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I just said is what I've seen in the media reports, was the CIA has neither confirmed or denied that. I don't know. But --
Q But that's always their policy. They never confirm.
Q They never do.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand that. And I'm saying, if someone leaked classified information of that nature, then it should be looked into by the Department of Justice. Now you need to ask the Department of Justice what their procedures are and what they would do.
Q And if the President thinks the Department of Justice should look into it, what kind of cooperation would the White House provide? In the past, there have been some concerns about records and that sort of thing --
MR. McCLELLAN: Of course, we always cooperate with the Department of Justice in matters like this. And you could expect we would in this matter, as well.
Q Like phone records and that sort of thing?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not aware of any requests that have been made. I mean, we can go down a whole list, but as far as I know, at this moment no request has been made. And I've checked on that --
Q They can't get on the phone with the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- but of course, of course, we will always cooperate with the Department of Justice in a matter of this nature.
Q Okay. Now, in terms of your efforts to -- and in terms of the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials, are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the President, or that it's too difficult?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, contact them in the sense of asking whether or not there is any involvement?
Q Well, obviously, someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I'm wondering, why not contact others? Were others contacted in the -- among the President's senior advisors?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there was a specific allegation leveled -- I saw it has now since been backed away from -- about Karl Rove. And that's why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down the White House directory of every single staff member and play that game. I'm not going to do that. What I've made clear is that if anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I'm not going to go down a list of every single staffer in the White House, when there's not specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest --
Q No, I understand your argument there. But there are a limited number of people who would be aware of this information. Is it --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's right, I would think so.
Q -- is it inappropriate in your view? Or is it just too diffuse, it's too difficult? I don't understand exactly what the reason is that you wouldn't expand the effort from Karl Rove to, perhaps, another dozen or so people who might have been knowledgeable.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've got important work to do here in Washington, D.C. for the people of this nation. And the President will continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on terrorism, strengthening the economy. There are a number of important priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media reports that happen all the time. And it's not our practice to go and try to chase down anonymous sources every time there's a report in the media. If there's specific information that comes to our attention, that's another matter. But there has not been any information beyond what we've seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there was White House involvement.
Q So you're telling --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, are we supposed to go through every anonymous source?
Q No, no, no. But the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let's make that clear.
Q All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call a meeting here and find out. And if they all say, we didn't do it, he also can call the CIA. What is the big barrier?
MR. McCLELLAN: Because the Justice Department is the appropriate agency to look into a matter like this. There's nothing specific to suggest -- there's no information that's been brought --
Q I'm not saying that.
MR. McCLELLAN: Hold on, let me finish. There's been no information brought to our attention to suggest that there was White House involvement, beyond what we've seen in the media reports. And those are anonymous media reports, at that.
Q You're challenging anyone who has information about this --
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- to step forward --
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- and contact the Department of Justice?
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely. And if there's a senior administration official -- I saw quoted in one article -- that senior administration official, if they have specific information, they should go provide it to the Department of Justice, absolutely, you bet, because this is a serious matter.
Q On pre-war intelligence, Scott, on pre-war intelligence, has the White House seen this letter from the House Intelligence --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, let me finish with -- are we finished with -- let me finish this topic, and I promise I'll come back to you.
Q You said that the President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten those assurances. By those statements, you've implied that the President has not talked to Karl Rove specifically about this.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said that --
Q Is that a correct inference, or did we --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question, when Terry asked it earlier, and I said that it's not my habit to get into conversations the President has with staff or with advisors. I'm not going to get into those conversations.
Q So he has --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that.
Q Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Are we on the subject? We're going to stay on the same topic. I want to stay on the same topic, and then we'll get on to -- go ahead.
Q I have a different subject.
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, we'll come back to that.
Q Can you explain why the President, who ran to say that he would, himself, restore, honesty and integrity to the Oval Office, that he would do it, is now saying he has to do nothing proactively on this front and will leave it to the Justice Department, when it's his own staff who's been accused of committing a very, very serious federal crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: And I think I've asked and answered that.
Q No, but why is he not doing anything proactively?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked and answered that question. I had that asked up here. I mean, I'll go back through it.
Q You haven't said why -- you haven't said what his thinking is and why he doesn't --
MR. McCLELLAN: Because there has been no information that's come to our attention, or been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports.
Q -- classified --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish, and then you can ask your question. I've seen the anonymous media reports. But like I said, there are anonymous media reports all the time. Are we supposed to go chasing down every single anonymous report?
Q No, no --
Q There are serious consequences --
MR. McCLELLAN: If there's -- no, no, there are anonymous reports all the time making accusations about the White House.
Q There are not anonymous reports all the time about serious leaks. The White House in the past has called for investigations based on leaks, based on anonymous sources up in Congress.
MR. McCLELLAN: And what -- what have I said?
Q So why not do the same in this case?
MR. McCLELLAN: And what have I said? The President believes that if someone leaked classified information of this nature, that it should be looked into. The Department of Justice should look into it, they should pursue it to the fullest extent possible. So we very much are saying -- we very much are saying what you're asking.
Yes, sir, Bob -- oh, sorry. I'll go to Kate next.
Q Has the White House Counsel Office issued any kind of paper to staffers --
MR. McCLELLAN: No --
Q -- regarding the President's, you know, desire to cooperate with any probe or anything like that?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. Again, I've said that nothing has been brought to our attention. There have been no requests made of the White House and nothing has been brought to --
Q -- step forward. You said people should step forward --
MR. McCLELLAN: They should.
Q -- if they have information. Is there going to be anything circulated telling --
Q -- could put it in writing --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear -- well, there's no specific information being brought to our attention to suggest White House involvement. I think I've been through that.
Q -- then you're not saying you're going to tell people that?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I'm saying, because there's no specific information, or there's no information, period, that has been brought to our attention beyond what is in the media reports. But if someone has information, they should report it to the Department of Justice. We've made it very clear that if the Department of Justice looks into something like this, of course, we always cooperate with them in that.
Q Scott, you keep saying: if there was a leak. But Ambassador Joe Wilson has been all over the place, on ABC this morning, in other media outlets saying, himself, that his wife was outed, that she was -- he has confirmed it, that she was a CIA operative and that her identity has been revealed. So if that's the case, why wouldn't the President be proactive about this in trying to find out where that leak came from?
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, so if it's a "senior administration official" we should go to every single agency? I think that's -- the Department of Justice can do that, and that's what they're charged with doing. So they will look into it. If there is specific information relating to the White House, someone is welcome to bring it to our attention. But I have not seen any information, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.
Q But isn't the President concerned when there is a leak of this magnitude, that could threaten someone's very life?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that earlier. Absolutely, the President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking about the leak of classified information. The leak of classified information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've always taken it very seriously. And if it happened in this case, it's a particularly serious matter and it should be looked into by the Department of Justice.
But if you have specific questions about where it -- who is looking into it and what is happening, talk to the Department of Justice.
Q You're still saying "if" --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, talk to the Department of Justice and they'll get you more information.
Terry.
Q Scott --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we're on ABC right now.
Q Thank you. In the Enron -- tag-teaming -- in the Enron matter, the White House Counsel's Office issued a request to all personnel to save their emails and phone logs and that kind of thing. That was proactive. Has that been done here? And, if not, why not?
MR. McCLELLAN: There had been some information there that we were pursuing to find out more about what contacts there had been. Again, there has been no information brought to our attention, beyond what is in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.
Q So at this point there has been no request from the Chief of Staff's Office, from the President, for White House personnel to save emails, to save phone logs, to recall and account meetings and --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if the Justice Department made a request of us, of course we would always cooperate. It is the appropriate place for the Department of Justice to look into this. I believe we did receive some request previously on that matter.
Q Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can you categorically say that he was not involved in this?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office, as well. When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as well.
Ken, did you have a question?
Q Yes. Your answer to Dick's question about a special prosecutor was to point to the career prosecutors at Justice who are going to be handling this. But those career prosecutors ultimately report to political appointees -- ultimately, of course, to the Attorney General. Why is that not precisely the kind of conflict of interest that the special prosecutor law envisages, and why, therefore, should there not be a special prosecutor?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went over this earlier, Ken. And, again, you need to talk to the Department of Justice. That's assuming certain people may be involved in something of this matter. I have not seen anything to suggest that anyone -- suggest who is or who is not involved in looking into this.
Q The Justice Department is run by the Attorney General. He's a political appointee.
MR. McCLELLAN: Right.
Q Ultimately, it's his call as to whether or not there is grounds for a criminal investigation.
MR. McCLELLAN: And have you asked the Department of Justice if he's involved in looking into something of this nature?
Q Are you saying he's refused --
MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea. I don't know where the Department of Justice stands and whether or not they're even pursuing this further, if there's a need to.
Q Should the political appointees at the Justice Department, in the White House's view, recuse themselves from dealing with this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the Department of Justice, they have a lot of professionals over there and we believe that they are the appropriate ones to look into this, and that they can do an independent job of doing so.
Q Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.
Q Have you read any book about him lately?
Q -- have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation --
MR. McCLELLAN: I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I've already addressed it.
Q When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or this weekend?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I said then still applies today, and that's what I've made clear.
Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.
Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.
Q Well, I'm trying to ask how --
MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn't -- it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this.
Q And that conversation that you had with Karl was this weekend? Or when was it?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? No, I've had conversations with him previously. I'm going to leave it at that.
Q -- on the record?
Q Has the President spoken to the Attorney General today, or over the weekend, on this subject? Or directed any aides to speak to the Attorney General?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any contact. And, no, that -- we would not do that, talk to the -- I'm not aware of any contact the Attorney General has had with anyone in this administration about that.
Q What about intelligence letters? Does the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, are we through with this subject?
Q No.
Q No.
MR. McCLELLAN: Because I'm going to move on. I'm going to go quickly. Paula, you've already one, so I'm going to go to April, and then we're going to move on to another subject.
Q You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q At a minimum?
MR. McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q Scott, can I ask you something from earlier, it was part of a -- I'm sorry, were you done, April?
Q No, I wasn't, but go ahead.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, finish, then we'll go to Bill, then we'll go to Ken.
Q All right. But you also -- you are also saying --
MR. McCLELLAN: Then David and then Sarah.
Q You are also saying that, you know, for your knowledge, including the Vice President' Office, no one divulged this kind of information. But with this assuredness, why do you think the husband came out and pointed fingers and said this?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, why what?
Q Why do you think the husband came out and pointed fingers saying that this was actually leaked?
MR. McCLELLAN: I can't speak to why people say certain things. But I did notice that there was some backtracking from some of the earlier comments today.
Q Are you doubting that the leak came from the White House directly? I mean, you seem to have been casting doubt throughout this whole conversation. I mean, you talked about --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you the facts. The fact is that we don't have any information beyond what we've seen in the media reports to suggest White House involvement.
Q It seems like the White House -- you're sort of operating on an honor system, almost a do not -- look, don't ask, don't tell system, when it comes to this.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if there is specific information that you have to bring to our attention, please do so. But --
Q That's the core question. You keep on saying, you keep pointing the finger at us to step forward with information. I mean, you're asking us to come forward and reveal things, but you haven't asked the White House staff to --
MR. McCLELLAN: You're a reporter and you recognize that there are stories written all the time, with all sorts of accusations and all sorts of allegations, a lot of times from anonymous sources. If we spent all our time going through all those stories and trying to track down information, we couldn't keep our focus where it needs to be, which is on the people's business.
Q But this is a different level of story. I mean, you're talking about all other stories -- maybe the economy, maybe some policy -- but you're talking about a potential -- almost a potential national security breach, which is a step above, sort of, the daily story of the day. So wouldn't that -- wouldn't that inspire somebody in the White House to talk to a staffer and say, hey, look, this happened, do you know anything about this, do you know anything about this?
MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is the appropriate place to look into this. Where does it stop? I mean, the anonymous source quoted -- was quoted as a senior administration official. That doesn't say "White House" in and of itself.
Q Scott, you, yourself, said there's a limited number of people who could be involved in this --
MR. McCLELLAN: Paula, I've got to -- I'm going to try to keep moving so we can get to David's question.
Q Just to clarify something earlier that came out of a question. Has this White House, this White House specifically, in the past conducted an internal investigation into media leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: Into media leaks?
Q Yes, has this White House ever looked into media leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'd have to check. If you have a specific one you want me to check in. There have been some requests of us from others at times that have been looking into matters. And we've always cooperated, just like we would in this one, as well.
Q Right. And just to follow up, in the 70's we had a very similar situation where a CIA operative was outed. That actually ended up -- resulted in a loss of life.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it's a very serious matter.
Q At that time, we had FBI, CIA, Interpol, many agencies around the world looking into it. Why would we not, at this point, want to go to the full extreme and have as many different eyes looking for this as possible?
MR. McCLELLAN: Make no mistake about it, something like this happened, someone leaked classified information of this nature, the President wants it pursued to the fullest extent. And that's what should happen.
Do we have any more on this topic? Yes, go ahead.
Q How is it that the Justice Department, and I know you -- this has been asked before, but I didn't get a clear answer -- the Justice Department, headed by a man that the President, himself, appointed, how can that Department credibly investigate a claim that could be very embarrassing, could be -- could result in criminal prosecution for someone in the White House? How can that be fairly --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are some -- there are some outstanding career employees at the Department of Justice that do an outstanding job, and they look into matters like this. And we expect that they would treat this just like they should and that they would treat this just like any other matter of this nature.
Q Certainly, the minute the Justice Department came out with something that exonerated anyone --
MR. McCLELLAN: You can obviously try to suggest that about anything in the administration that went to the Department of Justice.
Q I don't see how a Justice Department that's headed by a man --
MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is charged with independently looking into matters like this, as well as other law enforcement matters. And that's fully what we would expect them to do in a matter like this.
Anymore on this topic? No more? One more?
Q Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter to Justice?
MR. McCLELLAN: What may have been sent to the Department of Justice? Not that I'm aware of. You're talking about "seen it"?
Q Have you seen it or --
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, we read the media reports about what has happened.
Q Yes, I understand that. But I mean outside the media reports. Have you seen a copy of the letter or been told about it by anybody at the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: A copy? No, I've not been told about a specific letter or a copy of that.
Q I'm talking about Mr. Gonzales or anybody else?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We've seen the media reports.
Q Scott, on another letter --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm going to Russ, and then we're going to go to you. We've got to keep moving.
Q Even though the independent counsel statute has lapsed, there is a provision where the Attorney General can appoint a special prosecutor. Why wouldn't the President support --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked this question earlier and I answered it. So I'm going to move on. I've already been asked that question and I answered it earlier. And now --
Q Scott, the statement you gave about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor was almost word for word what the Clinton people said in 1994 about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor in Whitewater. Why should it stand now if it didn't stand then?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I just reject that comparison.
Q You can reject it, but it is the same issue. Why is --
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement?
Q No, but why --
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any information to suggest White House involvement?
Q My issue -- the issue is the credibility --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, bring it to my attention if you have information. But there's no information we have beyond the media reports to suggest White House involvement.
Q But Novak --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think the media has obligations, too. If they are aware of something that has happened, of the leaking of classified information, like anyone else they should report it to the appropriate authorities. In this case, it would be the Department of Justice.
And with that, I'm going to move on to a new topic. I know we could go through this all day. I'm going to David -- David first, then Sarah, then Goyal.
Q Is the White House aware of the House Intelligence letter to the CIA on prewar intelligence, and what's the reaction to it? And does the President think that he was given bad or incomplete information that ultimately led to his decision to war?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, if you look at the statement put out by the CIA, they said that the intelligence community stands -- and this is a quote -- "The intelligence community stands fully behind its findings and judgments as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs."
And that is the part of the judgment -- that is the judgment of the intelligence community. We looked at that, as well. But let's go back when we're talking about Iraq and look back at everything here. Let's look at what we knew. We knew, just like the United Nations Security Council and intelligence agencies across the world and previous administrations, that Saddam Hussein had possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, that he had used chemical weapons, that he had a history of doing that. We knew that Saddam Hussein had large, unaccounted for stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. We knew that he had -- and everybody knew -- that he had invaded his neighbors. So this was a very unique situation.
Saddam Hussein and his regime defied the United Nations over 12 years and some 17 resolutions -- they were in defiance of the international community. They went to great lengths to conceal their program. We know that he had -- that Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorist organizations. We know that it was a brutal and oppressive regime. We've seen that from the torture chambers and the mass graves. So we knew all these facts.
Then came September 11th, the attacks of September 11th. September 11th taught us that we must confront the new, dangerous threats of the 21st century, that we can no longer wait for threats to gather and come to our shores before it's too late. The nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations is the most dangerous threat of our times. And we must confront those threats before it's too late.
Q Given that 180 members of Congress cited the nuclear threat, as reported to them by the President of the United States, as a primary reason to support a war authorization resolution, and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found to date in Iraq, why shouldn't the American people believe that this President overstated the predicate for war?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I answered that with some of what I just went threw. But Chairman Goss, who is also one of the signatures on this letter, stated that he believes that what our -- at least sources in his office have stated that he believes that this was accurate information presented by the intelligence community. He was certainly -- he was concerned about one area, about the human intelligence. And you look at the letter and it talks about this is a preliminary assessment, that they want to get some comment, they're still looking at this, they're still looking at the findings. So that's where things --
Q -- the White House been sent the letter?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's where that stands.
Q Has the White House been sent the letter?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen a copy of it.
Q You have?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.
Q But, Scott, you said --
Q Can I follow on that?
Q -- you just said a moment ago that: we knew there were large unaccountable -- unaccounted stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. In 2001, in March or February, Colin Powell said there weren't, as we learned of two days ago --
MR. McCLELLAN: Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and said, there were.
Q No, no, listen to this. No, no, he said, at that point, there weren't. The DIA produced a classified --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what he said.
Q -- assessment in October 2002 which said: we don't have any hard or reliable information about stockpiles. And the U.N. inspectors, themselves, said they had no hard information about stockpiles. So where are you getting your information from?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think you're mischaracterizing Secretary Powell's comments. Secretary Powell went before -- and he said, that I never said that he was not a threat. He went before --
Q -- looking for WMD.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and presented that very case to the world and made it very clear what was unaccounted for. Secretary Powell went through an exhaustive process to back up everything that he said, talking directly with members of the intelligence community --
Q -- to what he said in early 2001. You said, before 9/11 we knew there were accounted stockpiles. He said, there weren't.
MR. McCLELLAN: Before 9/11 -- I'm glad you pointed that out, because September -- and, no, that is not what he said. September 11th taught us --
Q He said that in --
MR. McCLELLAN: It was well documented by the United Nations Security Council that there were undocumented stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
Q That's not true. Talk to Ekeus, the Chairman. He has said that that's not the case, that you are mischaracterizing U.N. reports.
MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to move on. I think I've answered this question. I think September 11th, again, changed the way we look at threats. I want to make that point very clear, and that it became even more real after September 11th, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Let me make very clear --
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. McCLELLAN: -- no let me make very clear the results of the action that we took. America is safer, the world is better, the world is safer because Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime have been removed from power. Saddam Hussein will no longer be able to oppress the people of Iraq. He will no longer be able to carry out the brutality that he did in the past. His regime is gone, it is removed from power, and it is not coming back. And it's very clear that America is more secure because of the action that we took.
Q Can I follow up? When the Secretary of State says, as he did yesterday, that the administration believes Iran is trying to pursue nuclear weapons and that there is no legitimate justification for any of its nuclear programs, does the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and what seems to be the gulf between pre-war claims and post-war reality, does that hurt the credibility of the country, in making it --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think, one, Dr. Kaye continues to do his job. I think the CIA, in their statement, put out -- let me go back to this part of their statement that they put out about the NIE and the letter from the congressional leaders: "David Kaye has, for only two-and-a-half months, been attempting to unravel Iraq's WMD programs. His effort, which has only just begun, will be important in our process of continuing self-evaluation."
There are miles of documents that Dr. Kaye is still going through in his Iraq survey group. There are interviews that he is still conducting with Iraqis, themselves, who are providing more information. So that process needs to continue. We'll know the truth. He'll pull together the full extent and full picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction program.
But I, again -- look at the results that we've achieved. Look at the opportunity that is presented to us in Iraq. The stakes are very high in Iraq. The world has a stake in seeing a free, sovereign and prosperous Iraq. It's the central front in the war on terrorism. And foreign terrorists and remnants of the former regime are desperate, because they know we are making significant progress. And when we prevail in this front in Iraq, then we will have dealt a significant blow to the terrorists, and we would have made a significant -- we will make significant progress in the war on terrorism. And we will see it through.
Q I have two questions. An audiotape claims to be from the number two leader in the al Qaeda, says the U.S. war on terrorism is really a war against Islam. Any comment from the White House?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President -- first of all, people who carry out attacks in the name of a religion are not committed to that religion. The President has made it very clear that Islam is a faith that teaches peace. And the enemies of peace are those who carry out brutal terrorist attacks in the name of a religion like that.
Let me keep going. Goyal.
Q Scott, two quick questions. Just came back from the United Nations. There were -- the President saw the demonstrations against many countries and dictators, including demonstrations against the U.S., India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma and also China.
Is President so busy in other issues like Iraq and also -- that he didn't care or doesn't have time for the (inaudible) of information that are being committed against the people of minorities in Bangladesh and also people of -- religious persecution in China and also against the people of Burma?
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. In fact, we're pursuing all those areas you just talked about. Human rights abuses cannot be allowed to stand, and we speak out against them, we pursue action to be taken to reverse that trend, and we will continue to do so.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you. Oh, wait, wait, I'm sorry -- go ahead. Last one.
Q The Vice President continues to suggest that there is a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And the President a few days ago said there is not any link. So what does the Vice President know that --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think we're saying the same thing -- that there has been no evidence that's come to our attention to suggest a link. Now, again, it goes back to what I said before --- 9/11 taught us that we have to confront these kind of dangerous new threats we face. Saddam Hussein and his regime certainly had ties to terrorist organizations. That is well documented and not in dispute. And he publicly supported terrorist organizations.
Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.
Last week, and I quote, "At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether [Wesley] Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove."
Can we try that again?
I don't mean to pick on any particular 'top White House official'. But the Standard's put Rove's name in the mix. And his phone logs seem readily searchable. So, just at random, let's try him.
Presumably it can't be too difficult, take too long, or involve any issues of privilege since White House staffers did a similar search on behalf of a junior staffer at the Standard only a week ago.
Believe me, Matthew, you get that search done and you'll have a real story on your hands. - Source
I am very tired of writing about Karl Rove. Lately, though, I have felt a kind of moral obligation, and almost a patriotic duty to remind people of the man who really runs the White House. Politically, and strategically, nothing has happened in the Bush Administration without Rove’s imprimatur. Reporters have discovered Rove’s steely control in the form of what they call a “leak proof” White House. Nothing comes out of the Bush White House without Rove’s approval. Generally, that means nothing comes out of the White House.
Until Karl Rove wants something to leak.
Rove’s temper has always been his weak spot. He cannot seem to control his anger. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote in the New York Times that there was no truth to the allegations that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, Rove is said to have gone “ballistic.” No one who has known Rove for any period of time doubts that Rove was the one who orchestrated the leak, which “outed” Ambassador Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent. Rove has always made sure that his enemies knew he will strike back, and swing with deadly power.
Rove wasn’t just trying to intimidate Ambassador Wilson. If, as many believe, he is responsible for the leak, Rove wanted to send a message to everyone in the intelligence community that they all needed to keep their mouths shut. As the war was being sold, intelligence cooked, and the media spun, Rove and the White House had informed intelligence operatives and scientists that they were not to publicly repudiate the phony claims about aluminum tubes, which the White House falsely argued were part of an Iraqi gas centrifuge to make enriched uranium. One national reporter told me that calls to scientists and intelligence operatives to ask about the aluminum tubes, which turned out to be rocket bodies, yielded the confession the scientists and intelligence agents had been ordered to say nothing.
“We are not having this conversation,” the reporter was told.
But if he leaked Ambassador Wilson’s wife’s name, Rove was clearly trying to tell everyone in the intelligence community that they needed to toe the line, or they might also end up living at risk. This, of course, is a scurrilous, cowardly, and unpatriotic act. To believe that Karl Rove had no knowledge of this leak, or that he was not involved, it is necessary to ignore his absolute control of all things political in the White House, his Machiavellian nature, and attention to every sparrow flying under the Bush sun.
But how did it happen?
There are a few ways Rove might have planned to exact his revenge. He could have made calls himself, to high profile reporters, or ordered staffers and political intermediaries to contact journalists with the authorization that they were speaking for “senior White House officials.” Not surprisingly, “senior White House official” is Rove’s nickname among many reporters because Rove asks that the description be used virtually every time he talks to a reporter. It enables him to get out his perspective, and White House spin, without giving away his identity, and self-serving agenda. Historically, Rove has been very adept at keeping a layer of denial, and other operatives, between himself and his political misdeeds. This means there is a strong possibility that a lower-level staffer will end up taking the blame for the leak.
In this case, though, there are some telltale signs that Rove was still at the controls. Because Robert Novak wrote the original story about Ambassador Wilson’s wife, those of us who know how Rove has leaked to Novak for years became immediately suspicious. Novak has denied that “White House officials called me with a leak.” When this language is parsed, it becomes clear that Rove may have managed to get a tip to his friend Novak through an intermediary, and then the columnist called Rove for confirmation. According to the Washington Post, a half dozen reporters got phone calls about the Ambassador’s wife, and, yet, it was only Rove’s friend, Robert Novak, who wrote a story. The rationale for the story, a specious motivation, was that Ambassador Wilson got the assignment to go to Niger because his wife was a CIA agent, and she made the recommendation. Is that an important enough piece of information to justify blowing the cover of a CIA agent?
Rove’s relationship with Novak is widely known in the Washington press corps. During the presidential campaign, when the chorus of questions was being asked about Mr. Bush, and the Texas Air National Guard, reporters wanted to know where Mr. Bush went during his time on assignment in Alabama. His commander said the future president had never shown up for duty. Rove told the campaign reporters that they were “making too much of a few missed meetings.” In 48 hours, the exact language was used on network television by Novak, who described the controversy of Mr. Bush’s missing years as “a few missed meetings.” Novak was not on the press plane to hear Rove’s original comments.
An uncontrolled temper may be Rove’s only weakness as a political counsel. In Ron Susskind’s Esquire Magazine article on Rove, he described sitting outside the presidential advisor’s White House office hearing Rove scream into the phone, “Tell him we’ll f**k him. We’ll f**k him like nobody ever has.” During the presidential campaign, Rove lost his cool in front of a few hundred people on the tarmac in Manchester, New Hampshire, as I stood and watched while Rove screamed at my colleague Wayne Slater about an innocuous story of mostly recycled information.
No one, though, knows Rove’s vindictiveness better than John Weaver. Were it not for Karl Rove, Weaver might still be a leading Republican political consultant. In Texas, Rove and Weaver had been successful partners, until Weaver chose to go out on his own and build a client list. A few months later, Weaver hired an employee away from Rove. Before too long, as competition grew between Rove and Weaver, disgusting rumors began to circulate about Weaver’s personal life, and reporters and potential clients wondered about Weaver’s judgment. The stories, which many reporters have said originated with Rove, dried up Weaver’s business, and he left Texas. Eventually, Weaver became the lead political strategist to Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign. After McCain lost the bitter primary battle, Weaver discovered he was squeezed out of party work by Rove, who was now in charge of all things Republican. Weaver became a Democrat, an advisor to the Democratic National Committee, simply because Rove was never content to leave him alone.
Similar stories are innumerable in Rove’s political march to power. Anyone who has watched Rove’s rise in presidential politics, and has reported on his machinations, is not surprised to learn that Ambassador Wilson suspects Rove as being the source of the leak, or, as a minimum, a senior administration official who condoned the leak. Washington reporters, who have learned of Rove’s political discipline, are also immediately suspicious of the presidential advisor. It fits his historical pattern of behavior.
The circumstantial evidence is already in. And it points at Karl Rove.
And if the Bush Administration is serious about protecting this country, if Rove committed this treasonous act, he needs to be prosecuted under the Patriot Act he has so ardently supported. - Source
The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.
Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.
Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.
Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.
That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.
All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wilson had taken a measured public position -- viewing weapons of mass destruction as a danger but considering military action as a last resort. He has seemed much more critical of the administration since revealing his role in Niger. In the Washington Post July 6, he talked about the Bush team "misrepresenting the facts," asking: "What else are they lying about?"
After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews. "The story was never me," he told me, "it was always the statement in (Bush's) speech." The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest. - Source
Much like in the Trent Lott affair, Josh Marshall is driving the Plame story -- an advantage of being a real journalist with sources and all.
Today he shuts down two wingnut defenses of the administration's treasonous outing of a CIA agent.
The first is Novak's claim that the administration didn't contact him with the Plame dirt.
Another big problem with Novak's comments on Crossfire today. Today he said ...
Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.
But then there's this passage in a July 22nd article in Newsday ...
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." I'd say the story's changed.
So Novak is clearly a liar. Either he lied in the Newsday article, or he lied yesterday when he defended the administration. Looking at motives, it's clear that yesterday is the most likely lie as he seeks to provide cover to his Republican buddies.
Then there's the claim that Plame was not an undercover CIA employee. Marshall merely points to a letter from the White House counsel to all White House employees:
PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel's Office
We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee.
Not bad for a few hours work, Josh. So what do they have left?
That Ambassador Wilson is a partisan Democrat out to get the administration? That was the line for a bit, even getting top-of-the-page Drudge treatment. Until it was noted that Wilson donated $1,000 to the Bush campaign in 1999.
Reminds me of those cheesy action flicks. Were the hero keeps getting out of sticky situations despite the bad guy's best diabolical efforts. At the end, during the final showdown, the villian says, "Damn it! Why don't you just stay dead?!"
They can keep trying to minimize the clear criminal acts of this administration -- how endangering national security is somehow less noteworthy than a blowjob. But it's clearly not working. The Justice Department has launched a full-blown investigation, and the press is in feeding frenzy mode.
CONYERS CITES BBC REPORT THAT ADMINISTRATION KNEW THERE WAS NO WMD: "THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO SENATOR KENNEDY"
Video footage, aired on BBC, showed Secretary of State Colin Powell stating on February 24, 2001: “"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." The report also asserted that, immediately after the September 11 attacks, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not." In addition, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice reportedly said of Saddam Hussein, in November 2001: “"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." [Link]
In response to this report and White House criticism of Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., issued the following statement: "The White House should immediately apologize to Senator Kennedy for calling his legitimate criticism of the rush to war 'uncivil.' This report demonstrates that there are serious, unanswered questions about whether this Administration has been straight with the American people about the reasons for putting their son and daughters at risk in Iraq. If these allegations are true, they raise some of the most grave questions about the Bush Administration’s commitment to truth and our constitutional system of government. We deserve a full accounting on this matter, the resignation of officials who perpetuated the myth of Saddam being connected to 9/11, and the President himself should at long last take responsibility for these deceptions." - Source
The jump in the number of Americans without health insurance is not just another bad economic statistic.
Health care costs are soaring again, after several years of stability; average premiums rose nearly 14 percent this year, the third year of double-digit increases, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Employers are pushing more of the costs onto their workers, raising co-payments and deductibles. At the same time, many Americans saw their health benefits jeopardized by layoffs, which have continued despite the official end of the recession in November 2001.
In such times, the plight of the uninsured becomes more of a middle-class issue, more of a symbol of real close-to-home insecurity and thus more politically potent, advocates and experts say. Until now, "it's mainly been an issue of altruism for a discrete and disadvantaged population," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal consumer group.
"Now that the losses in health coverage are impacting more middle-class and working families," Mr. Pollack said, "this issue becomes one of self-interest for a very substantial part of the population."
Even before the Census Bureau announced the numbers, showing that the number of uninsured Americans had risen by 2.4 million last year, to 43.6 million, most of the major Democratic presidential candidates were campaigning hard on the problems in health care. Not since the 1992 election has the issue drawn so much attention, and the reasons are not hard to find.
For Democrats, it is a powerful symbol of a sluggish economy, of a lack of federal money to deal with domestic problems because of the deficit and the war in Iraq and of what they say is the Bush administration's insensitivity to the needs of the home front. It could, in short, be a significant vulnerability for President Bush — if the Democrats succeed in framing this election as a referendum on domestic policy.
Republicans argue that the administration has several major initiatives on the table to deal with the problems of cost and access to health care, from its Medicare prescription drug plan to legislation that would cap jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits.
"If Democrats are seen as obstructing that process, that could be a significant problem for them politically," said Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
The Bush administration has also proposed in the past to expand coverage to the uninsured through the use of tax credits to help them buy insurance. Still, some experts say the administration will eventually have to offer a broader vision on health care as an alternative to the Democrats.
In fact, Americans place the health care issue high on the political agenda, based on recent polls. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll last week found that a candidate's position on health care was cited as "extremely important" by 43 percent of Americans, just below terrorism (cited by 49 percent) and the economy (49 percent), and well above the environment (30 percent) and taxes (36 percent.)
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in July found that health care costs ranked at the top of Americans' economic concerns, cited by 24 percent, compared with 16 percent who cited high taxes.
Most of the major Democratic candidates have produced a major plan to expand health coverage, generally financing it by rolling back all or part of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. But Republican strategists are quick to point out that the politics of health care are complicated and that the candidate with the biggest plan is not always rewarded.
The classic example, of course, is President Bill Clinton, who ran on the promise of universal health care only to see his actual plan for national health insurance turn into a political and legislative debacle. Critics said that plan would cost more, create a huge new government bureaucracy and give many Americans poorer health coverage than they already had.
Given the Democrats' reliance on using the tax cut to finance a health care plan, Republicans are very likely to make a version of that argument again. Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster and expert on public opinion and health, said, "A lot of 2004 will be a fight about who is perceived to pay versus who is perceived to get the benefit." In the past, Mr. McInturff said, when middle-income voters sensed they were being asked to pay more so that others received health care, "political paralysis has happened."
Still, he added: "People still don't get how big an issue this will be. The numbers and the state of the economy and the relationship between the cost of care and what's happened to the uninsured will be addressed in the 2004 campaign cycle, because it's what people care about."
The problems in the health care system are related to nearly every issue bubbling domestically, from unemployment to the fiscal crisis in the states. Moreover, even if employment begins to pick up — and new estimates will be released on Friday — nobody is expecting a speedy turnaround in the problems of health care costs and coverage. - Source
President Bush appeared in Ohio, Missouri and Indiana this month to tell Middle America that the U.S. economy was now "looking up." But a Labor Department report that employers shed another 93,000 jobs in August intensified public concerns about a "jobless recovery" and persistent unemployment. "We've got a short-term problem," the president acknowledged, but he added that tax cuts and economic growth would spur job creation.
The question that looms large 14 months before the 2004 election is how much, if any, of the current unemployment problem should be blamed on President Bush. The president's supporters point out that the economy was already in a recession when he took office and that employment trends were significantly affected by long-term changes in technology, demographics and foreign trade. Critics respond that Bush, as his father did, has paid too little attention to domestic economic problems and done more for the wealthy than for the jobless.
Citizens wary of contradictory partisan claims would do well to look at the record. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has monitored the ups and downs in unemployment since the 1940s. The figures show that presidents can and do have a significant effect on the job prospects of working Americans.
Simply put, these statistics indicate that high unemployment has been a chronic problem under Republican presidents. From 1947 through 2001, five Republican presidents produced an average unemployment rate of 6.3%, while five Democratic presidents produced an average unemployment rate of 4.8%.
Regardless of the specific economic conditions and challenges facing each president, average unemployment rates have been more than 30% higher under Republicans than under Democrats. Given the current size of the civilian labor force, that difference suggests that there would have been more than 2 million more jobs under President Gore than there are now under President Bush.
What about the argument that Bush inherited an economic downturn? The comparisons presented here attribute the 2001 surge in unemployment (from 4.0% to 4.7%) to Bill Clinton and similarly assume that each president's policies took effect one year after his inauguration. However, significant partisan differences appear in the data regardless of whether we assume that presidents' policies take effect in the year they assume office, the next year or even two years later.
Are those differences mere coincidence? Perhaps — but they have persisted with striking consistency through periods of war and peace, presidential ascendancy and scandal, and economic expansion and retrenchment. Allowing for nonpolitical employment trends doesn't make the differences go away; nor does focusing on changes in unemployment from the level prevailing at the beginning of each president's term; nor does limiting the comparison to the last 15 or 20 years.
Why would Republican presidents routinely produce more unemployment than their Democratic counterparts? One answer has to do with the two parties' distinctive supporting coalitions. The Republican Party appeals disproportionately to people with high incomes, while the Democratic Party draws support from those with modest incomes. For example, in the 2002 National Election Study survey, about 25% of Republican Party identifiers had family incomes above $85,000 and a similar proportion had family incomes below $35,000; but fewer than 15% of Democratic identifiers had family incomes above $85,000, and more than 40% had family incomes below $35,000.
Not surprisingly, then, the parties have pursued different economic policies. Democratic presidents have aimed to stimulate the economy and boost employment, benefiting people of modest means. By comparison, Republicans have concentrated on reducing inflation and, in President Bush's case, cutting taxes, which has benefited the wealthy more than the middle and lower classes, while doing little to create jobs.
The current unemployment rate, 6.1%, corresponds almost exactly with the average unemployment rate under the five previous Republican presidents. What's more, the increase in unemployment from 2001 to the present, 1.4%, corresponds almost exactly with the historical difference in average unemployment rates between Republican and Democratic presidents.
Both of these comparisons underline the fact that the current employment situation is neither unusual nor short-term. Rather, it is a predictable consequence of priorities and policies that have characterized Republican administrations throughout the last half-century. - Source
An internal assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors who were made available by the Iraqi National Congress was of little or no value, according to federal officials briefed on the arrangement.
In addition, several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said.
The arrangement, paid for with taxpayer funds supplied to the exile group under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, involved extensive debriefing of at least half a dozen defectors by defense intelligence agents in European capitals and at a base in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil in late 2002 and early 2003, the officials said. But a review early this year by the defense agency concluded that no more than one-third of the information was potentially useful, and efforts to explore those leads since have generally failed to pan out, the officials said.
Mr. Chalabi has defended the arrangement, saying that his organization had helped just three defectors provide information to American intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons program, and that two of them had been judged to be credible.
But several federal officials said the arrangement had wasted more than $1 million in taxpayers' money and had prompted them to question the credibility of Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Both have enjoyed powerful backing from civilian officials at the Pentagon and are playing a significant role in the provisional government in Baghdad.
Intelligence provided by the defectors that could not be substantiated included information about Iraq's suspected program for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as other information about the Iraqi government, the officials said. They said they would not speculate on whether the defectors had knowingly provided false information and, if so, what their motivation might have been. One Defense Department official said that some of the people were not who they said they were and that the money for the program could have been better spent.
Two other Defense Department officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, defended the arrangement. While the credibility of the Iraqi defectors debriefed under the program had been low, they said, it had been roughly on par with that of most human intelligence about Iraq. The officials also said the Defense Intelligence Agency had been generally skeptical of the defectors from the start, on the ground that they were motivated more by the money and the desire to stir up sentiment against Saddam Hussein than by a desire to provide accurate information.
A Defense Department official who defended the arrangement said that even most of the useful information provided by the defectors included "a lot of stuff that we already knew or thought we knew." But the official said that information had "improved our situational awareness" by "making us more confident about our assessments."
The Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions about the value of the intelligence provided as part of the arrangement are believed to have been included in a broader, classified report sent this month to Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, the officials said. That report focused on lessons learned by intelligence agents during the war in Iraq, they said.
The Iraqi National Congress had made some of these defectors available to several news organizations, including The New York Times, which reported their allegations about prisoners and the country's weapons program.
The Iraqi National Congress, a London-based umbrella group, was formed with American help in 1992 and received millions of dollars under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. In a stance that angered the dissidents and some Pentagon officials, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had long been skeptical of the information from defectors that Mr. Chalabi's organization had brought out of Iraq. Among that group of defectors was Khadhir Hamza, the most senior Iraqi official ever to defect from Mr. Hussein's nuclear program, who complained about the seeming lack of interest of American intelligence organizations in hearing what he had to say.
The partnership between the Iraqi exiles and the American government was initially run by the State Department, with millions of dollars provided to the Iraqi National Congress under the Iraq Liberation Act, whose declared purpose was to promote a transition to democracy in Iraq. One element was intended to collect information about Iraq in order to promote public awareness about the failings of Mr. Hussein's government.
Instead, State Department officials involved in the program said, the Iraqi exiles used most of the money to recruit defectors who claimed to have sensitive intelligence information. Until 2002, the State Department handed over those defectors to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for debriefing. Federal officials said that very few of them had been judged to be credible, but that they knew of no specific assessment of their credibility.
After internal State Department reviews in 2001 and 2002 concluded that much of the $4 million allocated for the program had not been properly accounted for and that the intelligence-gathering program was not part of the department's mission, oversight was transferred to the Defense Department in 2002.
The Defense Intelligence Agency then took the lead in debriefing the defectors, Defense Department officials said. The officials said they believed that the review of the defectors' credibility overed only the period in which the defense agency had run the program. - Source
The Defense Intelligence Agency reported before the war with Iraq it had "no reliable information" that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, a US defense official confirmed on Friday.
"It is fair to say there was no reliable information to say declaratively, 'yes, there was stuff," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
But the official said that there was reliable information to say "with a degree of confidence that there was a weapons program," the official said.
The cautious DIA assessment contrasted with unqualified assertions by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials that Iraq had amassed large stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
US claims that Iraq was hiding chemical and biological weapons from UN inspectors and had revived a nuclear program became the prime rationale for the US-led invasion of Iraq in March and ouster of the regime of Saddam Hussein three weeks later.
US forces have found no banned weapons so far, but have found two tractor-trailers that US intelligence conclude - based on accounts from defectors and expert analysis - were probably designed as mobile factories to make biological agents.
The failure to find any weapons has prompted sharp questions from Congress about the intelligence that informed US decision-making, and whether it was manipulated to make the administration's case for war.
The latest twist relates to a September 2002 DIA intelligence assessment disclosed by US New and World Report in its June 9 edition.
The defense official said the report was classified, but the Pentagon was considering whether to make it public.
The Senate Intelligence Committee plans to hold hearings, and the CIA is conducting an internal review of the intelligence before and after the war.
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had requested the review, told reporters on Thursday after meeting with members of Congress that the intelligence was "good."
President George W Bush also let it be known through his spokesperson last week he was satisfied with the intelligence he had received, and that it had been "borne out" since the war.
In a scathing attack on Thursday, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia expressed amazement over the president's complacency.
"It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his integrity that is on the line," said Byrd, a ardent critic of the war against Iraq.
"Yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity, about the strange turn of events in Iraq - expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled."
"How is it that the president who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern about the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" Byrd said.
The Pentagon meanwhile has revamped its search for weapons of mass destruction, setting aside for now what had turned out to be a fruitless search of some 900 suspect sites compiled by the US intelligence community before the war.
Instead, a new team of some 1 300 to 1 400 experts from across government, as well as Britain and Austrialia, will try to piece together a new picture of Iraq's secret pre-war programs from documents and interrogations of former officials. - Source
Even while his three foundations continue to spend millions of dollars on environmental and health initiatives, Ted Turner told a newspaper group Sunday night he does not have an optimistic outlook for the future of the world. "If I had to predict, the way things are going, I'd say the chances are about 50-50 that humanity will be extinct or nearly extinct within 50 years," Turner said. "Weapons of mass destruction, disease, I mean this global warming is scaring the living daylights out of me."
Returning to the city that was home to the CNN and Turner Broadcasting companies he founded, Turner was the featured speaker at the Associated Press Managing Editors international coverage seminar. Turner spoke to editors from 10 regional states and admitted he may not be very good at making predictions.
"I said 20 years ago newspapers wouldn't be around in 10 years, and I was wrong," Turner said.
Turner, who now lives in Lamont, Fla., stepped down as vice chairman of AOL Time Warner and sold 50 million shares of the company's stock earlier this year.
"It's really a good thing those no-good weasels ran me off, they pushed me out," Turner said, adding he now has more time for his philanthropic projects.
Turner said his Turner Foundation focuses on environmental issues in America. He said his U.N. Foundation already has contributed about $600 million to support United Nations programs and will contribute another $400 million in the next eight years to complete his $1 billion pledge.
Turner also co-chairs the Nuclear Threat Initiative with former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, an effort that allows Turner to address his concerns that the end of the Cold War did not end the nuclear threat.
"The most dangerous thing in the world right now is the fact the Russian and American nuclear missiles, 10 years after the Cold War is over, are still a hair-trigger away with less than 10 minutes response time from two presidents who thankfully are together today," Turner said.
The ever-candid Turner also gave a negative review to the U.S. efforts in Iraq.
"We spent $87 billion to blow Iraq up and then we spent another $87 billion to put it back together, and all to get one man and we still haven't got him," Turner said. "Talk about a failure."
Turner's wealth had been estimated at more than $7 billion before the Time Warner stock dropped sharply following its merger with AOL. Earlier this month, Forbes Magazine estimated Turner's wealth at $2.3 billion, good for a tie for the No. 78 position on the magazine's list of the 400 richest Americans. - Source
The United States is planning to take control of parts of space and develop patrolling military aircraft in orbit as part of a revived Star Wars proposal for an American military empire above the ozone layer.
According to James Roche, the US Air Force Secretary, America's allies would have "no veto power" over projects designed to achieve American military control of space.
The key theme of the ambitious plans is described as "negation" - the denial of the use of space for military intelligence, or other purposes, without American endorsement.
The plans come after the successful use of global positioning satellites (GPS) and other space technology during the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the intelligence agency that is responsible for US spy satellites, is to develop a strategy that ensures America's allies, as well as its enemies, never gain access to the same space resources without Washington's permission. Recent proposals that have been circulated at Space Command and NRO briefings suggest that access to "near-earth space" may be refused to other nations.
All GPS satellites are located within near-earth space, which covers the orbital distance from Earth to the moon. A fleet of spacecraft will be developed, designed to attack and destroy future satellites of enemies and rivals. The rapid-launch "military space plane," the potential cost of which has not been disclosed, would also be used as a mobile "bodyguard" for US space installations. It would be the first "space plane" in history with a directly military function.
A prototype is expected by 2005 although military deployment is not expected before 2014. "It will hopefully be a new kind of vehicle, equipped for the challenges of the future," said a Pentagon official.
After the recent military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, US Air Force Command claimed that American forces on the ground had a decisive advantage in gathering intelligence and targeting enemy troop positions.
As a result, the Pentagon believes that the struggle to control space will form the next stage of a global arms race.
Its plans confirm that America expects space to be "weaponised" in the medium-term future, and is determined to take an unassailable technological lead.
Two years ago, a report commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, warned of the danger of a "Space Pearl Harbor" if America did not take action to protect itself.
At America's National Space Symposium, held in April in Colorado Springs, Gen Lance Lord, the commander of US Air Force Space Command, explained the logic of the new strategy to a largely military audience.
"The pursuit of asymetric advantage is not new," he said. "In the 20th century, airpower emerged as just such an advantage. Today, at the outset of the 21st century, we are realising the same sort of advantage through space power."
It was at the same forum that Mr Roche warned America's allies not to expect any veto over its plans.
Until now, international treaties have forbidden the deployment of weapons in outer space, although a loophole exists which allows the United States to use its satellites for military intelligence.
The 1967 Space Treaty - the first international legislation on space exploitation - also stated that outer space should be free for exploration and use by all states, and would not be subject to national appropriation by occupation or any other means.
Last month, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Ivanov, repeated Moscow's demands for the complete demilitarisation of space.
In March last year, however, Peter Teets, the under-secretary of the air force and director of the NRO, said: "I believe that weapons will go into space. It's a question of time. And we need to be at the forefront of that."
A Department of Defence Review in 2001 also stated that "a key objective [for the US] is not only to ensure US ability to exploit space for military purposes but also as required to deny an adversary's ability to do so". Canadian government officials have already complained that senior American officials have begun to exclude them from sensitive areas of joint aerospace defence operations.
The implications of an American military monopoly in space are bound to concern European allies, who have recently agreed to launch their own $3.2billion satellite navigation system - Galileo - which is to be used only for civilian purposes.
Europe has long resisted the prospect of a military use of space technology.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative - the so-called "Star Wars" plan - to use space technology to repel Soviet missiles, ending the era of nuclear deterrence, drew fierce resistance from allies.
President George W Bush's plans for a satellite-guided missile defence system have now largely been accepted. - Source
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')