Locomotive Mule

October 6, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Q Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible –

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q – responsible for this. But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that’s why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better.

July 18, 2005
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for – in the leak of a CIA officer’s name, in which he said that he would – if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That’s never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they’re not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it’s important for us to learn all the facts. We don’t know all the facts, and it’s important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.

The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that’s what we’ve been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that’s the way we’ve been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President’s direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the – so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn’t say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we’ve been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know –

Q But we haven’t talked about a crime.

MR. McCLELLAN: – well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that’s something you may be trying to do here.

Q Does the President equate the word “leaking” to a crime, as best you know, in his mind? Just the use of the word “leaking,” does he see that as a criminal standard? And is the only threshold for firing someone involved being charged with a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we all serve at the pleasure of the President in this White House. The President – you heard what he had to say on the matter. He was asked a specific question, and you heard his response.

Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll leave it at what the President said.

Go ahead.

Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can’t call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he’s got to do is call him in.

MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn’t know all the facts. I don’t know all the facts.

Q Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because –

Q Why doesn’t he ask him?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll tell you why, because there’s an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it’s important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we’ll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn’t be getting into –

Q You talked about it to reporters.

MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn’t be getting into prejudging the outcome.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, we don’t know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent’s identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don’t know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Q But on the specifics – on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that’s exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it’s important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.

The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those – are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.

Go ahead, Bob.

Q Given the new formulation “if somebody committed a crime,” would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I’m not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I’ve been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don’t know that there’s really much more to add at this point.

Q But the importance is the question of would – if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That’s what we’ve been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, going back to the President’s statements from earlier – if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration – it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.

MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we’re not going to do that.

Q But if someone – if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn’t there some sort of regret?

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s a criminal investigation. We don’t know all the facts to it.

Go ahead.

Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government –

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I’ve already answered it.

Q No, you didn’t.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about – he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it’s only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that’s why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Testimony of James Marcinkowski
July 22, 2005

What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people.

Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan “dust-up” between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the American people. No government official has that right.

For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand some fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be infiltrated or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police department in any city, has undercover officers–spies, that use “cover.”

To operate under “cover” means you use some ruse to cloak both your identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out any operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A police officer performing “street buys” uses a “light” cover, meaning he or she could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate only at night and during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk job in the police station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made to infiltrate a crime syndicate, visiting the local police station or drinking with fellow FBI agents after work may be out of the question. In any scenario, your cover, no matter what the degree, provides personal protection and safety. But it does not end there. Cover is also used to protect collection methodology as well as any innocent persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with, such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government officials.

While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also provides security for that officer’s informants or agents. In most human intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by a CIA officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is mutually dependent. A case officer cannot be identified as working for the CIA, just as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working for the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or agent is exposed as working for the CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA officer has been identified as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed, his or her agents or informants are exposed. In all cases, the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or her own personal safety but that of the agents or assets as well.

The exposure of Valerie Plame’s cover by the White House is the same as the local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of its undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension. An informant in a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of losing more than just their ability to operate.

Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost.

So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief identified the names of the department’s undercover officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters, would be asked to retire.

And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame’s cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable….

And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem lies not only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets.

I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in some far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because “promises of protection” will no longer carry the level of trust they once had.

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear–politics in this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political “success” in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere “paper-pusher,” or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the “degree” of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the “I’m ok, you’re ok” politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don’t care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security.

When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That’s the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States.

It’s pretty obvious that Bush&Co rushed Judge Roberts’ nomination just as Rove’s name was becoming a household name. Even Fox was starting to say “Rove” and “Plame” more than once every 15 minutes. Or was it just to add to the noise so the House could pass the “extended Patriot Act” without our noticing?

It doesn’t seem to be working. The press seems genuinely interested in the Plame case and they’re not letting it go - yet.

Bush/Rove are good though, check this out: “I want to know all the facts,” he said. “I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” Now think about that for a minute. Here’s the most powerful individual in the world, a man who said “I will decide when we go to war”. The man who can send people to their deaths, who can command 100’s of billions of dollars. A man who can with an offhand comment, send the world’s stock markets up or down.

And yet, he can’t call Cheney, Rove, “Scooter” and Miller (Judith) into his office and demand that they tell him what happened. Why not? I’m thinking that even though I’d have trouble being civil to him in person, I’d still be awed enough to answer questions truthfully.

I know why not - he doesn’t need to do it. He knows exactly what happened and the ‘S’ memo would seem to imply that he had not only foreknowledge but quite likely was instrumental in formulating the plan. So, when he says “I want to know all the facts”, he’s just playing the “simple ol’ country boy” part, i.e. lying.

Now the really interesting piece of this is Judith Miller. What’s with her? Why would she go to jail when:

1. She didn’t publish anything
2. The supposed ’source’ is already public knowledge AND had given explicit release of confidentiality
3. She seems to have the ear and favor of the NY Times’ publisher

Try this: She’d rather sit in jail for 4 months, keeping her mouth shut and hoping that no more comes out rather than plead the 5th in front of a grand jury. “J” seems to think that the trail of all this leads to the Iranians, via Chalabi, with Miller stuck in the middle - as a willing or unwilling dupe. And by extension, Bush/Rove/Cheney all being guilty of treason by helping to blow the cover on a long term CIA op.

1. The Iranians know that there’s someone gathering intel
2. They go to Chalabio and say “float this name around and see what happens”
3. Miller&Co. get confirmation via Rove/Libbey/Cheney
4. The entire CIA operation is shutdown because it’s blown - we now know a whole lot less about what’s happening in Iran and other Middle East countries

Hmmmm. Maybe. It’s certainly possible. It would make sense that a smart operation (Iranians) could take advantage of the vindictive tendancies of their opponenets. Especially when they’re known to be vindictive.

Two points:

1) It’s almost poetic that Bush’s most important, long term impact on the country (the world?), being the appointment of 2 Supreme Court Justices, is being overshadowed by the stupid shenanigans of Rove.

2) Do we really want a person under criminal investigation to be deeply involved in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice?

Two Observations:

1) The “hate radio” guys (Hannity, Limbough) have gone off the end - they’re trying soooo hard to make this Rove thing go away by assasinating Wilson that it’s pathetic. The arguments are juvenile. They’re not arguing the facts, they’re actually trying really hard to stay away from the facts.

2) Hannity should be run off….. Preferably to somewhere he loathes, like Canada.