People are making too much of the Scot McCellan "revelation" concerning the Plame case. He did not say that W engineered a cover-up. The actual words:
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.The vague term "involved" allows for a number of scenarios, including the possibility that Bush was himself misinformed.
(Personally, I think Bush was in the thick of it. But the question here is whether McClellan's statement constitutes evidence against his old boss. Not as it stands.)
Does McClellan's forthcoming book clear up the vagueness? Apparently not, or so says John Dean. And that's why I'm showing you this clip from his appearance on Olbermann's show.
3 comments:
John Dean? Don't you wonder what Maureen looks like these days? Dean was John Mitchell's boy, wasn't he? Wasn't he hired to snoop on campus radical types? Didn't he make C's in college, when that meant F? I don't know what MSNBC sees in Dean, never did. He's not a Constitutional lawyer, anyway. Where's that George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley that Keith usually splits the screen with?
Now, on the other hand, Ann Coulter is a Constitutional lawyer...
"involved" is admittedly vague. "involved in my doing so" is considerably less so. or, to re-order the phrases, "the president was involved in my passing along misinformation"
nothing vague about it.....
Plenty vague to me. The wording still allows for the possibility that Bush heard bad information. Or, that Bush ordered Scotty to get the straight skinny from person X (Cheney or Rove or whomever).
The point is not what I think actually happened, but what I think is in that book. Judging from what Dean has said, it's just not the "bombshell" the folks at Buzzflash seem to think.
Post a Comment