Was McClellan ever asked about the Novak column before now?

[barbaraann]

Does anyone know if any reporter ever brought up the column outing Wilson's wife at a White House press conference before this week?

I am wondering if McClellan is on the record about it prior to the CIA referral of the outing to DOJ.

Any info on this is appreciated.

[w13rd0]

1. Russel Mokiber <sp>...

...asked back in July when the story came out...i THINK...i believe the response was less than adequate, but glossed over because it was during the "16 words" controversy, which is really all the same controversy as the "fake Iraqi intel from OSP+INC"...

[barbaraann]

2. Thanks.

I may try to dig this up from transcripts out of curiousity.

[w13rd0]

4. I'm watching todays press briefing...

...and Scott says that he "looked into it" back in July, and that "back in July" the WH commented on it, that there was "no specific evidence" to create cause for action.

He's a really smarmy mother f0cker...

[barbaraann]

18. But there WAS evidence.

The printed outing of Wilson's wife is evidence--it's the actual crime!

[mountebank]

3. Mokhiber transcript.

I think this was the first time someone asked McClellan about the Wilson scandal. On Sept. 16.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0916-20.htm

Mokhiber: On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier this year -- quoting -- "anonymous government sources" telling him that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, this is apparently a federal offense, to burn the cover a CIA operative. Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove. He's quoted from a speech last month as saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Did Karl Rove tell that --

Scott McClellan: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

Mokhiber: But did Karl Rove do it?

Scott McClellan: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

Mokhiber: I have a second question.

The second question is, a report yesterday from Center for Science in the Public Interest says children in America are getting fat. Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in teens over the last two decades. They blame it on junk food in schools. Kids are taking in 30 pounds of sugar from soda every year now. They say they're eating a lot of Hostess Ho-Hos out of the vending machines. They want to ban junk food from the schools. Does the President agree with that proposal?

Scott McClellan: We are working on a number of fronts to improve the health of the American people. I mean, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture are working on those efforts. And obviously, individual school districts make decisions about their schools. But there are a number of fronts in the President's initiative to improve physical fitness.

Mokhiber: But what about that specific proposal?

(Scott moves on)

[NicoleM]

6. I don't have a transcript but

McClellan said something today about having been asked about this in July.

[mountebank]

8. Who knows when it got referred?

I´m not sure when it was referred; don´t think they´ve given an exact date as to the first time the CIA referred it to the DoJ. Al Martin - who hovers in the gray area between truth, lies, and conspiracy - did accurately report, about three weeks ago, that it had been referred before anyone else reported it. And then he conflated the story with a bunch of unsubstantiated hokum.

[barbaraann]

12. Hmmm.....

So basically McClellan refused to take note of a possible federal crime. Wouldn't this be like refusing to pay any attention to a reporter bringing up a possible murder or theft when it was printed in a newspaper?

If someone had written that there was a dead body on the White House lawn could he have dismissed it as "ridiculous?"

Is Scott McClellan required to uphold federal law?

Thanks for the research.

[HFishbine]

5. Yep

July 22, 2003
----------------

Q The Robert Novak column last week identified the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative who was working on WMD issues. Novak said that identification is based on information given to him by two administration sources. That column has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

Q So you're saying --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that that is not the way that this President or this White House operates, and I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it.

Q Are you saying Novak was wrong in saying that it was two administration sources who were the source for --

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea who "anonymous" is. I often wish --

Q It's not anonymous. He says senior administration officials.

MR. McCLELLAN: That would be anonymous.

Q Well, that would be senior administration --

Q Like the guy who briefed us last week?

MR. McCLELLAN: Whether it's anonymous senior administration officials or just anonymous sources, it's still anonymous.

Q Is Novak lying? Do you think he's making it up?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you our position. I'll let the columnist speak for himself.

Q You're saying, flatly, it did not happen, nobody --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you, flatly, that that is not the way this White House operates. I've seen no evidence to suggest that there's any truth to that.

Q That's different from saying it didn't happen. Are you saying, absolutely, it did not happen?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying no one was certainly given any authority to do anything of that nature. And I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it. I want to make it very clear, that is simply not the way this White House operates.

Q If it turns out that somebody in the administration did do that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not even going to speculate about it, because I have no knowledge of any truth to that report.

Q What's the extent of your knowledge? Don't you want to get some more facts? I mean, how do you know that no one in the administration -- Robert Novak has been around for a long --

MR. McCLELLAN: If I could go find "anonymous," Terry, I would.

Q Does the President support a criminal investigation --

MR. McCLELLAN: Did you have something?

Q Can I follow on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, Richard.

Q I'm not following.

MR. McCLELLAN: You answer his question and -- (laughter.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030722-5.html

[mountebank]

9. Ah, yes.

Mokhiber´s follow-up in Sept, still before the firestorm, came in response to Wilson´s public statements about Karl Rove being behind the leak...

[barbaraann]

14. Boy, that seems like purposeful evasion to me.

It seems like his obfuscation was prepared.

Thank you for finding this.

[Melinda]

7. Yes, first press briefing on 7/22:

Q The Robert Novak column last week identified the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative who was working on WMD issues. Novak said that identification is based on information given to him by two administration sources. That column has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

Q So you're saying --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that that is not the way that this President or this White House operates, and I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it.


Begins slighly more than halfway down the page: 7/22 WH briefing

[LittleApple81]

11. DU does it again! Just ask for information and presto... it comes up.

Thanks. n/t

[Melinda]

13. lol, you should see my bookmark directory -

It's bigger than my entire OS directory... DU is an invaluable resource indeed. :)

[Melinda]

10. And again on 7/23:

Q Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates. And certainly, I first became aware of those news reports when we were contacted by reporters and the questions were raised. It's the first I had heard of those. No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates.

Q In all of those cases?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two?

Q Joe Wilson and his wife?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q And Jeffrey Kofman from ABC.

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, if there's any truth to it, it's totally inappropriate. Second of all, I just made very clear, that's simply not the way we operate.

Q So that's a little bit of a change. You said if there's any truth to it, it's inappropriate, whereas just a moment ago --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, you were talking about the first one on I guess, the ABC reporter. And I had previously said that if that were true, it would be totally inappropriate. I'm not suggesting it is. I have no knowledge of anything to suggest that it is. Obviously, sometimes there are anonymous reports out there. I always wish I knew -- I could find out who anonymous was.

Q Are you trying to do an internal investigation to find out?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have no reason to believe that there is any truth that that has happened. So if I thought that there was any reason to believe that something like that had happened, I would --

Q So you're saying that reporters just made it up?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- try to get to the bottom. Campbell, I just said that anonymous is someone I would like to know who that is, but it's usually a fruitless search.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030723-6.html#2

And I am certain there are more to be found by looking through all the WH press briefings since the story broke last July.

[w13rd0]

15. Ok...

...another

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030718-10.html

18 July 2003 - doesn't mention leak, but does mention Wilson
<!-->

Q Why, Scott, was the cable that was -- that derived from the debriefing of Joe Wilson not included among the declassified documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we always want to share as much information as we can. There is some classified information that -- well, there's some information that remains classified for national security reasons. But we felt that this information -- which is what the State of the Union statement was originally based on -- was important to share with the American people, because it could be declassified.

Q When was it actually declassified?

MR. McCLELLAN: It was officially declassified today.

Q Just today?

Q Scott, can you just tell us, why did the President not raise the subject, at all, of the uranium with Tony Blair, given events going on --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the Prime Minister -- it came up at the press conference. The Prime Minister made it very clear that he stood behind that statement. I think you have to take into account that the British government had additional sources and they made a commitment not to reveal the additional source that they had. And we understand that.

But as you see from today, that one statement had -- that one statement, in and of itself, was by no means the reason that we decided to act and confront the threat that was posed by the Iraqi regime. The case was much broader and the evidence was much broader.

And it was clear and compelling evidence, as you see, in the National Intelligence Estimate, along with the other information that has previously been disclosed by the United Nations, by the international community, that Saddam Hussein is someone that possessed weapons of mass destruction, he showed a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the past against his own people, he was someone who defied the international community for 12 years. He was someone who went to great lengths to conceal these weapons of mass destruction. But he is no longer a threat to the American people.

<//-->

[barbaraann]

16. So here's my conclusion:

Several White House reporters and others (including DUers) believed that there needed to be follow-up on a possible federal crime being committed but THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THE MEDIA AT THE TOP LET IT DROP.

The Washington Post
The New York Times
CNN
ABC
NBC
ABC
Fox (fat chance)
etc.
etc.
etc.

The editors, owners, and management of any of these news outlets could have made an issue out of this but they DIDN'T.

This is the truth about whether the media is liberal or conservative. Reporters may be liberal but it doesn't matter--they work for people who protect the powerful and the corporations.

[barbaraann]

17. Should Scott McClellan be held accountable for

dereliction of duty or something like that?

I hope a reporter asks him why he PERSONALLY did not do anything to follow up on this. The possible crime was evident and should have been investigated.