Well today sure had to be a rough day for old White House
Press Secretary Scott Mclellan. He was grilled for about 10 minuets on the
implications that Karl Rove was the leak that exposed Valerie Plames identity as
a CIA operative to the media.

In a sudden surge of courage, members of the press fired
away at old Scotty, and would not show any signs of backing down when he tried
to deny answering the question because it is under investigation. Scotty even
denied he ever made any comments regarding this matter as it could possible
interfere with the investigation.

When asked about his previous comments stating that Karl
Rove was innocent of any wrong doing, he reaffirmed the fact that he knows
exactly “what he has said” in the past and that he never commented on if Karl
Rove was guilty or innocent because of the ongoing investigation. Well after
some snooping through the White House website, I wanted to come up with some
evidence to support old Scott. Unfortunately there was none. What I did find was
the following:

From July 23, 2003:

QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this
was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . .

McCLELLAN: I haven’t heard that. That’s just totally
ridiculous. But we’ve already addressed this issue. If I could find out who
anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it’s totally ridiculous.

QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it?

McCLELLAN: I said, it’s totally ridiculous.

From October 1, 2003:

QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went
to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the
leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you
had with them?

McCLELLAN: 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. I had no doubt of
that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it’s
accurate before I report back to you, and that’s exactly what I did.

QUESTION: So you’re saying — you’re saying categorically
those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is
that what you’re saying?

McCLELLAN: That’s correct

From October 7, 2003:

QUESTION: 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: 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.

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

McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in
this.

So now the question Scott is why could you talk about it
before and not now?

Finally a question I have been wondering for awhile is
starting to get asked in the mainstream media. At the time that this leak
occurred, Karl Rove was just an advisor and consultant to the President. This
means he would have had no reason to know the identity of a covert CIA
operative. So if Karl Rove was the leak to the press then who was the leak to
Karl Rove? Did he look at some documents he should not of or did someone who had
the clearance and necessity for the identity of covert ops leak it to him?

This is definitely a thorn in the Presidents side. I think
it will be time to remind him of what he said to reporters during a press
briefing on September 29, 2003;

QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role
in it. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have
confidence in him . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody — 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 the appropriate
action.

Well Mr. President this is a time of war and the actions of
the person who did this leak are traitorous, so I think the appropriate action
would be termination. Even the simple implication of this should result in a
suspension of duties and security clearance at the current time.

Amazing how the man who recently referred to liberals as
“traitors” is now appearing as one him self.