White House reporters were not thrown completely off the Plame scent by the Alito nomination today. David Gregory and Terry Moran led the charge against Scott McClellan, landing some hard-hitting nibbles in the course of challenging the White House’s credibility. NBC’s Gregory landed the first peck:
So aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren’t you?
Terry Moran of ABC followed up with:
But don’t you think, Scott, that…your credibility has been damaged by this?
A few other reporters took the tack of questioning the administration’s apparent intention to barrel full speed ahead, noting Cheney’s choice of Libby-clone David Addington, author of the infamous 2002 “torture memo,” and ex-John Bolton crony John Hannah to replace Libby. Both Addington and Hannah were mentioned in the Libby indictment, though not by name, as being involved in the discussions about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson that took place in the Vice-President’s office.
When my turn came, I asked:
On October 7, 2003, the President said about the CIA leak investigation, “I want to know the truth. That’s why I’ve instructed the staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators.” Last Friday the special prosecutor said that he has been unable to find out the truth because of Lewis Libby’s obstruction of the investigation. Does the President wish that Mr. Libby tell the truth?
When Scott launched into his evasion:
Well, again, that is making a presumption. Under our legal system –
I interrupted him:
But does the President wish that Libby tell the truth?
Scott’s reply:
Under — the President directed everybody in the White House to cooperate fully with the special counsel. That’s what he expects. The White House has been cooperating fully with the special counsel, and we will continue to do so. In terms of the individual you bring up, there is a presumption of innocence. And we’re going to work under that presumption. We want there to be a fair and impartial hearing; I’m sure others do, as well. Maybe some don’t, but that’s the way that our legal system is set up. And so we need to let that legal process continue.
As Atrios and Judd at Think Progress have pointed out (while beating me to blogging my own question), how can the White House have “been cooperating fully with the special counsel” if one of its top people has just been indicted for obstructing the investigation?
I am certain that the explanation will be that Bush was acting officially as President, whereas Libby was lying through his teeth in his personal, as opposed to his official, capacity.
That is, cooperation was required by prevailing policy; the lying was just . . . what was happening.
Hmmm… So now it’s not good ol’ “Scooter.” It’s not “Mr. Libby.” No. It’s like they no longer know the man and are forbidden from uttering his name anymore. Interesting…
From Scotty’s quote above:
“…In terms of the individual you bring up, there is a presumption of innocence…”
Too funny. Just wait til Fitzgerald comes in for the next round. I wonder if they’ll conveniently forget Rove’s and Cheney’s names, too?
A good question for Scotty would be:
‘Is the administartion going to appoint any aides which are NOT a member of the Project for a New American Century, which urged Clinton for war with Iraq in 1997 and for whom Lewis Libby wrote some of its ‘white papers’, including Rebuilding America’s Defenses ?
LOOK AT THIS LINK
Scottie in the Duck Pit