| The leak heard around the world | 11:15 pm |
|---|
I have despised Scott McClellan {press secretary to President Bush} since... well actually, soon after he replaced Ari Fleischer. I despise him not just because he has been such a lying, scheming manipulator who has deliberately covered the crimes of the Bush Administration but rather the way he's done it. He's such a cocky prick about it, and with a shit eating grin and double chin. When President Man-Chimp says something stupid, does something stupid, or criminal then good ole' McClellan is there to save the day, saying one thing but meaning something else. It really pisses me off to no end that he is always twisting the facts or omitting them and in spite of getting caught at it, he gets away with it. As of late he's even been caught flat-out lying, twice over in regards to the CIA leak case.
Of course it's his job to cover up the debacles and embarrassments of the president. No matter what it is he has to divert attention away from the Administration or spin it in such a way that makes them look good. But he's not even good at spinning issues. Oh he tries to turn things around, and it's apparently good enough to convince those who believe that Bush can do no wrong anyway, but he's not slick about it at all. Not like many of his predecessors. It's so transparent when he's lying, it's that obvious. He fumbles over his words, gets uber-defensive, talks down to reporters. It's almost comical how he says one thing then chastises critics when they call him on it. You can almost see the steam billowing out of his ears, an enraged sort of disgust that comes over his face as he gets belligerent with reporters.
I don't think any credit is merited at how he deals with Bush's many bungles. What is so great about a guy who covers what he has said in the past by claiming 'that wasn't my intention'? Seems like he shouldn't have made those misstatements in the first place. I guess that's what he gets for not simply refusing to answer questions like he normally does.
When it comes down to it though I think he should be held accountable. As far as I'm concerned, when you represent the President, for that matter when you are the President then you better be fucking clear! No ambiguities. No trying to weasel your way out of it, "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is." There's only one reason not to be clear and back up your words, and that is to cover the wrongs you've perpetrated.
Scott has definitely been through some shit over the past year. Reporters have had him squirming at that podium, trying to explain himself, the actions of the President, or recently the Vice President when he shot some old guy in the face and didn't bother to tell the rest of us about it. He has had a particularly rough time with this CIA leak case though, what with the President, VP Cheney, and Karl Rove constantly changing their stories. Dub'yah seemed to make it quite clear on several occasions that he doesn't like leaks, and whoever was responsible for leaking this information was going to be held accountable. In September of '03 he said, "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take appropriate action." Is that so? It turns out that just like with the demands on Saddam prior to the war, as each one is met the list conveniently changes. Each time it becomes more clear that his inner circle officials could be involved then all of the sudden he backtracks a bit, things become more complicated, and it is far more ambiguous just what is going to happen to those who are responsible.
By Bush's previous comments we all had rightly assumed that whoever would be found guilty of leaking this information would be out of a job. We also hoped that would involve Karl Rove or maybe Cheney since according to various sources and now admitted by Libby himself — the man who is said to have leaked the info and is being charged with perjury, obstruction, and lying to FBI agents — it was Cheney who exposed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent; it was Cheney who gave consent to discuss it. It seemed as if the big problem here was going to be proving the big wigs were really involved, I mean they're not going to make this easy afterall Bush can't fire Cheney or Rove, he'd be like a blow-up doll with all the hot air let out. I figured if anything they could always invent another fall-guy to take one for the team, they've already got "Scotter" Libby. But as it turns out they've managed to find a loop-hole. A very convenient loop-hole. They might be able to nullify the entire issue by claiming the information was declassified. Afterall, if it wasn't classified, no crime was committed. Pretty sneaky sis...
So in light of this recent cover-up but bush & Co., this may not go much farther at all. Legally. It should. Oh it definitely should. Because even if this information was "officially declassified" by the President we don't know that Plame's identity was also declassified. Not only this but according to Scott McClellan the "official" declassification happened on July 18, 2003, yet according to court documents it was declassified on July 8, 2003. Now of course McClellan is trying to BS his way out of this past admission which he hadn't expected to come back to haunt him. He's stumbling all over himself saying that what he meant was that it was being "officially released" to the public on July 18, 2003 but had been "Officially declassified" at an earlier date. Naturally he won't give us an actual date as this is an ongoing investigation. Yeah, that's a typical M.O. for McClellan also.
One would think the Prez had to sign some sort of official document to declassify information so perhaps we'll be able to find out just how truthful these statements are that is if they can produce the documents which would prove when this information was declassified. Of course that still brings up an even more important question — why? The most plausible reason put forth so far has been to exact revenge by exposing that Joe Wilson, who had came forward to say that the evidence Bush was claiming against Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons was unfounded, had a wife, Valerie Plame who just happened to be an undercover CIA agent. Regardless if revenge was the intent without question the Administration has been selectively declassifying sensitive information that could possibly help their argument, and releasing it to the public. That is definitely an abuse of power and could easily threaten our national security, which supposedly Bush is #1 in trying to protect, the Dubai ports deal notwithstanding.
I must say however that I do find it interesting if nothing else that this never came up before. Can they explain then just what the hell all this talk was about? Explain how they were unwilling to discuss the ongoing investigation, denying that Rove or Cheney were involved in 'leaking' the information, the hoopla over the reporter Judith Miller who spent 85 days in jail for refusing to divulge who had given her this information, and just why the hell was Bush going to fire people for leaking this information if he himself had already declared that information 'declassified'? If this shit wasn't classified then what was the big deal? One would think someone from the Bush Administration would have mentioned this over the nearly past 3 years it's been going on. It sounds like it should have been a non-issue from the git-go eh? Well, unless this is one of those 'quick let's use executive privilege to cover our ass' tactics. Republicans know that trick all too well, Richard Nixon can attest to this.
I'd certainly like to hear McClellan slink his way out of this one. I'm sure no heads are going to roll. But it seems obvious that the Bush Administration has YET AGAIN lost credibility, at least with the more objective folk around the world. Not that it matters, one way or another Bush & his cronies always get out of it. One has to wonder if there is anything, ANYTHING George Bush could do that he would actually be held accountable for. I wonder if there is any heinous act the man could commit that his press secretary along with his ever loyal and clearly moronic supporters couldn't spin into a non-issue. They've managed to do so with the supposed many justifications for the War in Iraq, domestic spying, and now the CIA leak just to name a few.
As for Scott McClellan himself. Well, I think he should consider new employment at this point because this isn't the first time he's said things in his press conferences which has the rest of us saying "Ha, we caught you!" I'd love to see him fired because it makes me sick to see the man so blatantly get away with lying to us for the sake of the President. But considering how much damage he's done off and on to the administration, I think it would best serve the public if he continues on as press secretary and continues to make Bush & Co. look like the deceitful asshats that they are.
~ James Feeling like:  meh |
|
|