He went before Congress today and told us a lot of what we already know. But, again, it looks like this was definitely one of those cases where people wanted to wish that nothing happened instead of accepting the reality that Libby (and Rove and Cheney) were intimately involved with this leaking.

Excerpted liberally from the AP:

Scott McClellan, Bush’s spokesman from 2003-2006, said he had reservations about publicly clearing the name of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff at the time. Later, Libby was convicted of obstructing the FBI investigation of the leak. [...]

He said former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that Libby was not involved in the leak.

“I was reluctant to do it,” McClellan told the Democratic-led panel. “I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, ‘Were you involved in this in any way?’ And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not.”

What will come of this? Ultimately, not much. Because I can’t imagine anybody else getting indicted as a result of this testimony. Libby was the fall guy, he was convicted and that’s that.

Still, this is the story that just won’t go away, and it’ll continue to hurt Bush (and Rove and Cheney) for years to come.

On misleading the American people…

On being part of the propaganda campaign to sell the war…

On knowing that the book would have an impact…

Frankly, this doesn’t sound like a guy who’s afraid of speaking his mind. I wonder if he will indeed testify, especially about the Rove/Libby/Plame stuff.

More as it develops…

Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War.

“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney – conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq. Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.”

McClellan certainly rang a lot of bells, didn’t he? I guess we may see how well his stories hold up after all.

From Hannity and Colmes last night…

Folks, how out of the loop does Rove really think we’re going to believe McClellan was? After all, he’s said in the past that he knows he was lied to regarding the Plame affair, and no amount of carefully parsing by Rove of “Well, he asked this, not that,” will change that for him.

More as it develops…

After the administration threw Scott McClellan under the bus in the Plame affair, you knew this had to be coming. But most revealing is his inside info about the Iraq war.

Politico details some of his assertions:

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

McClellan also offers a cautionary tale about the Bush administration’s legendary take-no-prisoners partisanship…

Decrying the Bush administration’s “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” McClellan recommends that future presidents appoint a “deputy chief of staff for governing” who “would be responsible for making sure the president is continually and consistently committed to a high level of openness and forthrightness and transcending partisanship to achieve unity.

Some will call McClellan a traitor. Others will praise him as a patriot. But as is the case with so many ex-White House insiders, the answer is much more complicated. See, I think a lot of people believed in Bush, but his stubborn partisanship and blind resolve failed them all miserably. That’s why we’re seeing exposés like this…because Bush is a woefully flawed leader.

And in this case, at least, history isn’t waiting to be unkind.

From the book, “WHAT HAPPENED: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong With Washington”:

“I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the seniormost aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,” McClellan wrote.

“There was one problem. It was not true.” [...]

“I had unknowingly passed along false information,” McClellan wrote.

“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.”

What role they all had we don’t know yet. Maybe McClellan doesn’t know either.

I guess we’ll see when the book comes out.

From SunTimes:

I then asked Armitage a question that had been puzzling me but, for the sake of my future peace of mind, would better have been left unasked.

Why would the CIA send Joseph Wilson, not an expert in nuclear proliferation and with no intelligence experience, on the mission to Niger?

“Well,” Armitage replied, “you know his wife works at CIA, and she suggested that he be sent to Niger.” “His wife works at CIA?” I asked. “Yeah, in counterproliferation.”

He mentioned her first name, Valerie. Armitage smiled and said: “That’s real Evans and Novak, isn’t it?” I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column.

The exchange about Wilson’s wife lasted no more than sixty seconds.

Given this, it really seems like Armitage should have been dealt with much more harshly. It doesn’t matter if you ignorantly expose a CIA agent or not…a crime was still committed.

In any event, this is an interesting new addition on a story that just doesn’t seem to want to die.

A veteran who spent 14 months in prison for filing a conscientious objector application against redeployment to Iraq has spoken out against the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence by President Bush.

“I was imprisoned for 14 months after trying to apply for conscientious objector status after seeing the reality of the Iraq war,” Kevin Benderman, who had to serve his sentence at a prison 3,000 miles from home, said.

Kevin Benderman had served as an army mechanic for 10 years when he developed moral and religious objections to the war in Iraq, after serving there in 2003, and refused to deploy there again. After seeing scenes of devastation in Iraq, and through his readings of both the Bible and the Qu’ran, Kevin Benderman filed an application for conscientious objector status on 28 December 2004.

He was then sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment at a court martial.

Bad move Bush because you just opened up an never-ending, PR nightmare where anybody who can claim that their prison sentence was “excessive” will now get somebody to write about it.

And the kicker? Many of those who get written about probably have a decent argument that their prison sentence is more unjust and excessive than Libby’s.

Hope it was worth it George.

PRESS: “If there are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation — not pardons, but commutation — in the federal system, under President Bush, will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the president applied to Scooter Libby?”

SNOW: “I don’t know.”

I’d like to hear the answer to that one too.

Let’s hope the press keeps asking it.

As I puzzled over Bush commuting Libby’s sentence today, I came up with what I think is a pretty straight forward explanation as to why it happened and why a pardon is forthcoming.

Libby recently lost an appeal to stay out of jail while he was appealing his guilty verdict. Only then did Bush decide to act and commute his sentence. Bad move by Bush because it looks weird, but if you think Bush is hoping that Libby’s appeal actually overturns the verdict then it makes perfect sense.

See, if Libby wins his appeal, it means that his conviction was unjust in some way, shape or form and that exonerates Bush. If not, well, Bush may wait until the 11th hour pardon as he’s packing his bags to leave. It’s not like it’s going to matter to the 25% of people who’ll support him no matter what.

Or, Bush might not even be President until then. And at that point, well, it’s not his problem because he has no power to do anything about it.

What does this show us? If my theory is proven correct, this seems a touch cowardly on Bush’s part.

I guess we’ll see.

People don’t like it. Not one bit.

From Political Wire:

A new SurveyUSA instant poll finds just 21% of Americans agree with President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, 60% say Bush should have left the judge’s prison sentence in place, and 17% wanted a full pardon.

The most important part of those numbers…

Only those familiar with the case were asked to react to the President’s action.

And so it goes…

But doesn’t pardon him? That means that Scooter will still have a conviction on his record and will have to pay the $250K if he doesn’t win his appeal.

So why did Bush do it like this?

From CNN:

In a written statement commuting the jail sentence, issued hours after Monday’s ruling, Bush called the sentence “excessive,” and suggested that Libby will pay a big enough price for his conviction.

“The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting,” he said.

Yeah, who else believes this one? Show of hands? As if Scooter isn’t going to have some swank job lined up for him because he’s seen as a partisan scapegoat and a good soldier. Puh-lease.

And about this particular tactic that Bush took…

Clemency petitions are normally reviewed by the Justice Department, which investigates the case and seeks input from the federal prosecutor who brought the case before issuing a recommendation to the president. A government official told CNN that Bush did not consult with the Justice Department before rendering his decision.

So America, do you think Libby should be pardoned?

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken in March asked if Bush should pardon Libby — 69 percent said no, 18 percent said yes.

I wonder what they’ll think of this newest development…

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced Tuesday to 30 months in prison for lying to investigators looking into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.

He also was fined $250,000. Libby was convicted March 6 of four counts in a five-count indictment alleging perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to FBI investigators.

He plans to appeal the verdict.

Federal Judge Reggie Walton said he would make a decision next Tuesday on whether to allow Libby to remain free while his lawyers file an appeal.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that under federal sentencing guidelines, Libby — if imprisoned — must serve at least 80 percent of his sentence, or two years.

If the judge decides Libby must start serving his sentence, it could be 45 to 60 days before he must report to prison.

What do you think?

(NOTE: I’ve revised this one from March 16th, and included the bloggers who commented.)

Seriously. Let’s get a blogosphere show of hands.

See, the reason I’d like to hear from you is I’ve read that she wasn’t time and time again. I’ve seen people argue it in the comments sections when I’ve posted about Plame and I’ve seen it on numerous right-wing blogs. Most of the time I’d see arguments crafted like, “How could she be covert if we knew ____ about her,” and then 9 times out of 10 the conclusion was that she was not covert. And then these “facts” have been used to justify her outing.

Well, not only has Plame told us today that she was covert, but now we come to find out that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden has told congressmen that she was covert as well.

So here’s what I’m going to do. If you think she was covert, link to this post and I’ll put you in the COVERT section you’ll see below. If not, link to this post and I’ll put you in the NOT COVERT section. That way we’ll have one place to collect all the arguments that have been created after Plame’s testimony.

Sound good? Ready? Go!

COVERT:
Maverick Views
Political State Report
New Yorker in DC
elmachete

NOT COVERT:
(your blog here)

JURY’S STILL OUT
Flit(TM)
Judicious Asininity

UPDATE:
Well, apparently former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer got Plame’s name from Libby before Libby claims he heard the name from a reporter.

Hrmmm…

Interesting…

And here’s a story about Plame suing the CIA for potentially killing her memoir.

The saga continues…

How about that for a title?

From E&P (emphasis mine):

NEW YORK Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congressional committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The White House had first opposed Knodell testifying but after a threat of a subpoena from the committee yesterday he was allowed to appear today.

Knodell said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: “I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office,” he said.

Rep. Waxman recalled that President Bush had promised a full internal probe. Knodell repeated that no probe took place, as far as he knew, and was not happening today.

Knodell said he had “no” conversations whatsoever with the president, vice president, Karl Rove or anyone about the leak.

I guess we now know what a full investigation means to this administration.

The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Gallup this time. But the numbers are interesting.

• Those who followed the story closely…55% think he shouldn’t get a pardon, while 44% should.
• Those who followed it somewhat closely…73% think no, while 25% think yes.
• Those who didn’t follow it at all…66% say no, 15% say yes and 20% didn’t have an opinion.

Think it’s because of partisanship? Not really…

This finding is not because of underlying partisan differences in the likelihood of following the trial, as 45% of both Democrats and Republicans report following the trial closely. Rather, it appears that a substantial proportion of those familiar with the specifics of the trial may believe that Libby was treated unfairly enough to justify a pardon. For example, some have suggested that the special prosecutor made Libby a “fall guy” for the White House in the investigation. Those who are not familiar with the specifics of the case are more likely responding to the general notion that persons convicted of crimes do not deserve the special treatment a pardon imparts.

There the pulse of the nation for you folks. Even people who followed it closely still think Scooter should serve time.

Is Libby screwed?

But correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that about the same number who wants us to pull out of Iraq?

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent’s exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday.

Just 18 percent said they would support a pardon for Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, while 69 percent said they opposed the idea. Meanwhile, a narrow majority said they believe Cheney was part of a cover-up in the case.

And more bad news for Cheney…

Though he has a lengthy resume in Republican administrations dating back to Gerald Ford’s presidency, 60 percent of those polled said they did not consider him qualified to serve as president should it become necessary; only 32 percent said he would be qualified to lead the country himself.

And asked whether the vice president was “part of a cover-up” to keep special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from learning who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, whose husband had become a critic of the war in Iraq, 52 percent said yes; 29 percent said no. Another 20 percent had no opinion.

Not that he wants to or that he cares, but still…for the most powerful Vice President to hold the office to have numbers that low doesn’t bode well for the next couple years.

(Stolen from TMV.)

Turns out that some scientists have been studying religion from an evolutionary perspective, trying to figure out why religion is universal when it is seemingly maladaptive to survival: usually, believing in nonexistent things and expending energy on nonproductive pursuits will make it harder to survive, not easier.

(continued at Midtopia)

(Also, for those interested, my thoughts on the Libby verdict — in two posts.)