Josh Marshall has more on WH "nondenial denials"

[diplomats]

Here's his latest:

"Following up on last night’s post, I’ve now heard more information that makes me think that the denials from Libby and Abrams --- filtered through McClellan --- are really just placeholders, disposable non-denial denials.
The Libby-Abrams line --- that neither was “involved in leaking classified information” --- is, I suspect, technically true in some sense that has not yet been made clear. Or, rather, I suspect that the players involved have come up with some theory under which they feel they can say this is true.
It’s certainly possible of course that this is just a flat denial. And there’s no need for parsing. But it’s awfully hard to figure why the ‘denial’ is being couched in this very precise fashion which doesn’t even address the substance of the question --- i.e., did they disclose to a reporter that Plame was CIA?
The White House press corps gets two chances a day to put this question to Scott McClellan. To ask him to really answer the question. Why not press this point?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

[LoneStarLiberal]

1. Marshall Is Right

This McClellan-speak smacks of legal technicality.

[markus]

2. I did not have classified intercourse with that reporter

Yes, it is exactly what the Clinton White House was torn apart for.

Thank god we have the Liberal Media to make sense of these things for us. Clearly, this is somehow different.

Actually, what is different is that if they actually do their job they can't do their job. They will lose access and be ineffective WH reporters.

That Karl Rove is one smart cookie. As long as the WH reports can't do their jobs or else they're lose their jobs, and all other public access to the president is carefully controlled, no information has to come out of the WH ever, unless they chose to.

Which is why we should be looking at the Klayburgh model of lawsuits to force information out.

[grasswire]

3. as someone pointed out

(maybe Michael Moore) -- they don't really have access anyway. Yes, they are physically in the briefing room, but they get no answers. How is that access?

I suggested to Helen Thomas that the whole press corps boycott a few briefings.

[TacticalPeek]

4. Marshall could be right.

But the main upshot of non-denial denial in this case is that it would put VP aide Libby back in the suspect pool, to fit with the many indications that Nofacts called the VP office to check on the Wilson trip to Niger.

I'm inclined to accept Libby's denial (tho I admit Marshall's technically right), because that then makes Cheney the likely leaker of the first kind. The supposition that Nofacts talked to the VP office is, I think, sound. But the supposition that he talked to an aide, such as Libby, ignores Nofacts' seniority, history and repuke connections. He would first try to go straight to the horse's ass, Cheney, who certainly does not lack the hubris to out an agent with a feeling of impunity.