Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Gregory:  "Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations."

McClellan:  "That's accurate."

Ouch.  Here we have Scotty, with dozens of people present, admitting that Rove outed Plame, while knowing that she was a covert agent.

That alone might seem pretty bad for the White House, but what's worse, what's really telling, is how they handled it.  Take another look at that exchange above.  Then take a look at the official White House transcript.

Q: Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's accurate.

The words of Gregory are the same, but Scotty's response has grown a new phrase: "I don't think."  So instead of confirming Gregory's statement about Rove, the transcript now has McClellan contradicting Gregory.

Hmmm.  A conundrum.  It should be easy to solve.  There are two independent transcription services that handle White House events.  Let's see what they say..  

FNS?

McClellan: That's accurate.

CQ?

McClellan: That's accurate.

Okay, so maybe it was just not audible on the tape.  Maybe Scotty got his lips moving, but just wasn't heard over the general noise of the room.  In that case, surely it would show up on the video.

Hmm, so everyone else present agrees Scott said one thing, the White House disagrees.  The audio tape disagrees with the White House.  They don't change their story.  The video tape disagrees with the White House.  They don't change their story.

The only conclusion: The White House is lying.  

There are no ifs, ands, or buts on this one.  There's no vote where some Democrats agreed with their position.  There's no report from Iraqi nationals, or hearsay from somewhere in Eastern Europe.  No, this is simply and clearly a bald-faced lie, with absolutely no way they can defend it.

This case is simple enough you can get it across to anyone, even the most head-in-the-sand Bush defender.

And once you've got them to admit that the White House can't be trusted on small things...  The house of cards will really begin to shake.