We find it hard to believe, but we're joining the defense of a White House hack ...

Anatomy Of Miscommunications Inside The White House
BY JOSEPH CURL

Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to Scott McClellan when the Bush spokesman asked the two top White House aides in 2003 whether they were involved in the CIA leak case.

Says who? Says McClellan. And you don't even have to read between the lines.

And one other thing: McClellan was very careful in his comments throughout the CIA leak probe. In nearly every case, the spokesman framed reporters' questions around whether Rove or Libby were involved in leaking classified information, rather than just "involved" in the scandal.

The 22-page indictment last week of Libby details the involvement of the vice president's chief of staff and Rove, believed to be the unnamed "Official A" who discussed CIA employee Valerie Plame with columnist Robert Novak. The details—while still unproven in a court of law—show heavy involvement by both Rove and Libby.

Of course, Rove forgot to mention his conversation with Time's Matt Cooper the first time he testified to the grand jury, and Libby plans to deploy the "faulty memory" defense, so it's possible that both simply forgot their deep involvement when they told McClellan they weren't involved.

But a review of McClellan's comments on the matter are illuminating. "Look at what was said -- you can go back and piece all that together," a top Bush official said Monday.

So, let's do it.

The controversy over the press secretary's credibility—which reached a predictable crescendo Monday in a combative daily briefing session—began back in September 2003, when McClellan took the podium to answer the classic Watergate question: what did the president know, and when did he know it?

At the morning gaggle on Sept. 29, 2003, McClellan said "the president knows" his senior adviser Karl Rove was not involved in the leaking of classified information that resulted in the outing of a CIA employee. He called the report "ridiculous."

"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," McClellan said later at the televised briefing. "I said it is simply not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove -- " the spokesman said before he was interrupted by a reporter.

Two days later, McClellan said: "As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it."

On Oct. 7, 2003, McClellan was asked why he checked with Rove, Libby and National Security Council official Elliot Abrams "to ask them if they were the leakers."

"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," he said.

Three days later, on Oct. 10, McClellan uttered the words that have hung over his head ever since. But there was a notable change in his answer to a reporter's question—the addition of a major caveat.

"Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?"

McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands."

"So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?"

"They assured me that they were not involved in this."

Seeking clarity, the reporter asked: "They were not involved in what?"

"The leaking of classified information," McClellan said.

McClellan was no longer speaking "on behalf of the the White House"—he was speaking for himself. Gone were the declaratives "He was not involved" and "they were not involved." McClellan was now telling reporters only what Rove and Libby had told him—in fact, what they had "assured" him.

A week before reporters would lash McClellan—with ABC's Terry Moran saying there has been "a wound to your credibility"—CBS' John Roberts asked the spokesman on Oct. 25 about the "bad information" he received before making his declarations that Rove and Libby weren't involved.

"Our relationship," McClellan said, "is built on trust, and I have earned that trust with you all. As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I gave and I've talked to you about the assurances that I received on that."

Again, the addition of "assurances" changes the nature of the spokesman's words. He's not saying Rove and Libby were not involved, he's only saying they gave him "assurances" they weren't involved.

When Libby gave those same "assurances" to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor indicted him on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. Presumably, Rove did not give Fitzgerald the same assurances, which is why he has not been indicted—yet.

While McClellan called the two senior aides "good individuals," they lied to him and for two years have left him twisting in the wind, his credibility in tatters. Neither has come to his defense or acknowledged that they misled him.

And neither one will. The result: A good man's credibility, earned over years of dealing honestly with reporters, is all but gone. "I've tried hard to earn that trust and I think I've done my part to maintain that trust," McClellan said Monday.

He has. Rove and Libby haven't.

Joseph Curl is a White House correspondent for The Washington Times

posted by Stash @ 9:03 AM