Chris Matthews Has Awkward Interview With Ari Fleischer On McClellan Book

Chris Matthews had former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on for a lengthy interview tonight on the matter of Scott McClellan's tell-all, What Happened, and while the interview never boiled over into the sort of shouty-headed highlight reel that viewers of Hardball secretly and masochistically crave, it was nevertheless packed with a cornucopia of awkward highlights. Of special note is the moment where Fleischer discusses how he felt "Scott is on justifiable grounds feeling that he was misled [on the Iraq war] by a couple staffers." That pair of staffers, by the way? Uhm...Karl Rove and Scooter Libby! Maybe you've heard of them?

Also, you can have fun watching Fleischer use his larynx, lips, palate and mouth to form TRADEMARKED WHITE HOUSE TALKING POINTS on McClellan, and track how much time it takes for Matthews to catch him out on it. He does, too...eventually. Also, Ari said a whole bunch of different stuff to Norah O'Donnell that he never thought Chris Matthews would call him out on. And, apparently, Chris Matthews has retained all of his memories of how the White House works whereas Fleischer has had them surgically removed so as to avoid spilling the beans on his many, many crimes. Still, Fleischer does say that "people should read" McClellan's book, so look for that quote on the back cover of the next print run!

[WATCH.]

MATTHEWS: Let's go now to Ari Fleischer who was President Bush's White House Press Secretary. Thanks for holding on here. David makes the point that there is a separation between policy maker and those who have to sell it to the public and present it to the public. The role you played in that primary function all those years. Is that correct? Is it true that there is a separation between them? so you wouldn't know the motivating force of this war?

FLEISCHER: Well, if you think that the press secretary sits in on the NSC meetings where they're looking at military plans, no press secretary --

MATTHEWS: I'm talking about the motivating force, not the details. Did you feel you knew why we were fighting the war in Iraq? When you were a spokesman for the president?

FLEISCHER: Sure. Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Would Scott McClellan know why we are fighting the war?

FLEISCHER: Let me answer. I was press secretary when that took place. Scott was my deputy. I sat in on the meetings, the international summit meetings where the president was explaining to foreign leaders what he was thinking, what the future might hold. I heard all that firsthand. I had a very good understanding of what the president was doing. What troubles me about this book, and Scott's allegations, is as my deputy. I never once heard Scott privately come to me, who helped brief me for the briefings I gave, and say he had any misgivings or any do you think about it.

MATTHEWS: But he is free to speak. He is in a different role now. He can speak the truth. He is not an agent now. Isn't that a difference?

FLEISCHER: It could be but I find it inconsistent.

MATTHEWS: Well of course it's inconsistent because if he said this when he was there, he would be fired.

FLEISCHER: No. If he had come to me and harbored doubts...he would also help me prep for the briefing and he would say tone this down. Don't say that. He never did that.

MATTHEWS: Let me get to the point David Gregory raised. Was Scott McClellan in a position to take a judgment as to the true motivating force of this war? Was he close enough to the principals, the president, the vice president, the top deputies to know why they were fighting this war?

FLEISCHER: Well, I think that Scott knew the reason was because Saddam, we were told, had weapons of mass destruction.

MATTHEWS: But he said that's not the reason you're fighting the war.

FLEISCHER: That was what we all said.

MATTHEWS: Is that what you believe?

FLEISCHER: Chris, I don't think there is any question. If the CIA did not tell us that he had weapons of mass destruction.

MATTHEWS: No. Is that what you believe the war was fought?

FLEISCHER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this whole question of the vice president's role. I watched you on earlier broadcast on MSNBC, the president. And by the way, the book really doesn't very, point to the president but it does include the vice president on three separate references where it said he oversaw the effort to discredit Joe Wilson and his wife in their role as critics of the war. Is that true?

FLEISCHER: I wasn't there at that time. So I can't speak to that. I do think that Scott is on justifiable grounds feeling that he was misled in that section of the book by a couple staffers, particularly. But i don't think --

MATTHEWS: By Scooter and by Karl.

FLEISCHER: That's correct. But I don't think that gives Scott license to go after the president.

MATTHEWS: How about the vice president? I know this is trickier business. But three different times. Let me read these. "Under the cloak of anonymity, the vice president and trusted aide Scooter Libby soon began an effort to discredit Wilson with selected journalists." Let me read you another. This is over and over. "To defend itself against accusation of a deliberately dishonest, deliberate dishonesty in the case for the war, leveled by Joe Wilson. Vice President Cheney and his staff were leading a White House effort to discredit Joe Wilson himself." And again, later in the book, "A larger campaign led by the vice president to discredit Wilson publicly. And there by" -- is that your assessment? The vice president was Scooter's boss? That Scooter was doing the work of the vice president?

FLEISCHER: I wasn't there at the time. I don't think it would be responsible to answer that question about what took place on the inside with that allegation. I couldn't tell you that.

MATTHEWS: Knowing how the White House worked, when I worked there years ago, the chief of staff to the vice president got access to all the paper flow going to the president. And including the State of the Union. Certainly the State of the Union. The question of the "sixteen words." The questions about his overlying responsibility for intelligence gathering. I mean, it seems to me, you would know the role of the vice president in this regard. You would know his institutional role having worked there. The vice president was the chief of intelligence. He was G-2 as they say in the military, he was the president's chief intelligence guy. And he was also in charge of making the case for the war.

FLEISCHER: When your filibuster is over...

MATTHEWS: You don't have to be sarcastic.

FLEISCHER: Let me get into it. I think it would be irresponsible for someone who was not there to answer that specific question. I do think that on the things that I was there for, Scott has said things about manipulation of intelligence. To lead to an unjust war. About manipulation, propaganda. This is where I very strongly disagree with Scott. It doesn't even sound like the Scott that I know. And if he had thought these things, I would have hoped he would have come to me privately and express some doubt. I never saw any evidence of that.

MATTHEWS: He said that he in the book, I don't know him. You know him. He was your deputy. He said in the book that he came to this understanding over time. That he didn't fully grasp the situation or the motivations of this war while there. But after thinking about it, or whatever, surmising it, whatever, he came to the conclusion that the war was fought under dishonest purposes. That in fact, it wasn't about WMD. It was about this effort to spread democracy by coercion in the Middle East. That that was the driving dream of the president.

FLEISCHER: I'm sorry to say, I think for Scott, it was a lot of time. Because one year ago, Scott was still giving interviews on Bill Maher, of all places, where he was defending the president and defending the war. So something more recently changed that has led Scott to these conclusions. And I had breakfast with Scott about a year and a half ago. He told me the book would be a very favorable book for the president. Less so for Karl Rove, he told me, but a favorable book for the president. Something more recently changed.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that Scooter Libby was justly convicted on the charges he was convicted of? That's another point in the book.

FLEISCHER: I do.

MATTHEWS: Because you believe he did lie under oath and he obstructed justice. You believe that.

FLEISCHER: I do.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe he did it at the behest of the vice president or did it on his own?

FLEISCHER: I don't know and I wouldn't try to guess a question like that.

MATTHEWS: Does the vice president today play a major role in the white house? I described, he described. Is the vice president extraordinarily influential over issues of intelligence, war, and peace?

FLEISCHER: Chris, if you're trying to get me back in that same question, I'm not going to do something that I think is irresponsible, which is to answer a specific question, a leading question about, trying --

MATTHEWS: But earlier this afternoon, you excluded the vice president from your denial when you said the president himself wasn't nailed. Did the vice president, Scooter Libby, you put them in a separate category.

FLEISCHER: But I think we've all learned that the facts pertaining to Karl and Scooter Libby...

MATTHEWS: And the vice president.

FLEISCHER: We don't know that about the vice president.

MATTHEWS: Earlier with Norah today, you left the vice president in that group.

FLEISCHER: No, I left them off.

MATTHEWS: You left the president off.

FLEISCHER: That's correct, too.

MATTHEWS: Which is it? The president and vice president were both excluded, or just the president.

FLEISCHER: Norah read to me a passage in which she said that Scott was saying the president deliberately deceived him. If you keep reading, Scott made it clear --

MATTHEWS: I accept that assessment in that reading of it. But you put the president in the same penumbra of not being involved as the vice president.

FLEISCHER: I just continued with what Scott wrote. It was a half a quote. And I filled out the rest will.

MATTHEWS: Is this a story of revelation or betrayal?

FLEISCHER: I'm not going to use words like that about Scott McClellan. He was my deputy.

MATTHEWS: The White House is putting out words like puzzled. They don't know him. You don't know him.

FLEISCHER: I don't think this sounds like Scott. My point here is that this is not, it doesn't sound like Scott McClellan. And if Scott harbored these doubts, if he had any nagging questions inside him, the principled thing to do would have been not to accept the press secretary job. I find this book myself, to be puzzling. I think there is a lot --

MATTHEWS: That's the White House talking point, Ari. You're using the word puzzling. That is White House talking point.

FLEISCHER: Chris I just agreed with what Dana said. What's wrong with agreeing with what somebody says? It's an accurate observation. I think it shouldn't surprise you that people might agree.

MATTHEWS: The exact lingo you're using.

FLEISCHER: You said it and I agreed with it.

MATTHEWS: I find that there is an amazing synchronicity of reaction that sounds like it's regimental.

FLEISCHER: I just copied what you said and what Dana said.

MATTHEWS: So there is no value in this book.

FLEISCHER: No. I think people should read it. They should buy it if they want to and come to their own conclusions. I'm going to read it, I told Scott that yesterday when I spoke to him. I'm looking forward to seeing it in its entirety, in full context. There is a lot, I can tell you already, I disagree with and I disagree strongly with. It does not sound like anything that Scott harbored or thought about privately or had any shadow of a doubt privately. When he took podium, nobody thought that Scott didn't believe the things he was saying. So on the one hand he said it then and now he's saying the opposite now.

MATTHEWS: Well apparently, he's changed his mind. Great having you on. Thank you for taking the time.

Comments

[SiberianRat]

"...doesn't sound like the Scott that I know..." Thank God!!!!! Scott was UNBEARABLE to watch (and I never thought that anyone would be weenier than Ari) and was so openly and badly and off-puttingly covering Bush's ass that I literally could not watch. I'm stunned that he's come forward, and although he should have come forward long ago, he's taking a lot of heat and hanging in there.

"I just agree with what Dana said..." Ick.

[SouthPrairie]

I've watched a couple of these interviews with former press secretaries. It takes courage to take on someone whose profession was asserting the U.S. Presidential talking points.

I sincerely laude all of the journalists who are taking them on--even Mathews.

[lthuedk 1]

Give it up Fleischer.

His knowledge about the Plame/CIA memo he saw and read while aboard AF-1 '03 and his connection to multinational militant socialists that attempted to hijack our country should be a topic of concern to all Americans. No wonder the man is so confused in the interview.

The Project for the New American Century is collapsing, in case Ari doesn't know it. It's time to come clean. Whether he writes a book, gets deposed, testifies at the time of trial, or gets indicted himself, we will hear more from Mr. Fleischer.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/coffee_tea_or_treason.html

Fleischer was there.

[sa]

every republican
is fighting the same war -
let me have my cake, and eat it too.

they all want, strive, fight for,
the blessing, that their ill-gotten goods
are guilt free. they all suspect they have
gotten the goods shadily. and they are right.

so they all go on this war-attack
of all the truth that come at them -
really, what they are doing, is trying to
enjoy the money they've gotten from a wrong system.
they fight hook and nail to pretend their money -
thus, enjoyment of it, is righteous.
maybe they go to church on sunday morning,
and pretend that others who don't are not righteous.
maybe they pretend that the poor are lazy.
whatever it is, they feel uneasy about how they stole their wealth,
and go on the warpath to justify it all.

perhaps they go to work at eight a.m.
and talk on the phone,
and pretend they are working.

willful ignorance is how they survive -
fox news gives them that.
that and avoiding the truth at all costs.

if they made a fortune investing in haliburton,
they love the iraq war.
would they send their children there?
only if the child was a democrat.
and democrats don't go to illegal wars.

but they'd love that as a business card -
i'm a republican, my son died in iraq.
let's do business. (sacrificed for republicans and corporate greed).

[Simone]

Every Matthews' interview is awkward.

[levibatgirl]

LMAO!

Go ahead tweety! For once a bushbot gets called out on parroting talking points.

Could tweety be growing a pair? Time will tell.

[Counterglow]

"Tweety" just sees which way the wind is blowing, and likes the premium booze he can afford on his inflated salary. If McCain was up 20 points in the polls, Matthews would be conducting his usual rude, cut-off-the-thought arguments against any Democrat he could lure onto his show, and kissing the bum of any Republican who would give him the time of day.

[murphysgirl]

When this aired I watched Fleischer very closely. I could swear he thought he could just breeze through the interview and outsmart Matthews..Well it took a minute or two later Matthews caught on to the repetitive talking points and called him out on it. Kudos to Matthews!! Fleischer and the other White House minions are trying pretty damn hard to throw McClellan under the bus, and it's rather pathetic.

[NotMcCain]

Q: How do you know if someone from the Bush administration is lying?

A: You watch if their lips move.

[joecharles]

Officer, arrest those men!

[sugarmoes]

ari fleischer looked the CLASSIC LIAR last night on hardball.

[TexasDem0]

Ari Fleischer looked as if he had aged 30 years, and he wasn"t his old smooth, articulate self. I think he"s one of the very few from the Bush Administration who understands his legal predicament.

[jfor]

This is what you look like when you lie, propagandize and mislead for a living. The money don't add up to much when you end up looking like Fleischer.

[HDR]

That explanation could go a long way in explaining his abrupt departure as Press Sec. He may have smelled the stench and wanted no part of it.

[Mike169]

Well at least he got him to admit to the guilt of Libby. All the rest is Republican stone walling.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

I watched it...It was like watching my Dad fillet a fish! Cut, slice, cut, slice all that's left is a head and bones.

Masterful! Ari looked like he had a bulldog knawling on his leg and he didn't like it.

[jah2008]

Well, I'm "puzzled" by Chris Matthews' reaction. Everyone in the MSM seemed "puzzled" because of the unlikely source - McClellan, and few minutes later they're shocked that Bush & co. are puzzled? What disgusts me more is Matthews' disingenuous reaction.

Instead of asking why the media failed to ask more questions before the war, they're pissed off at having been played and "manipulated" by the White House? Instead of being the first in line to be embedded with the troops before going to Iraq, perhaps they have continued to ask questions?

Sorry, you can't have both. Take responsibility for not asking enough questions instead of pointing fingers at everybody else. We've known this for a while now, so what's so shocking about it?

[Fizzgig]

Has anybody else noticed that so far, no one is saying McClellan is wrong? They're all "puzzled," or they say "this doesn't sound like Scotty," or some other ad-hominem attack. But no one seems to be standing up and saying that he's wrong. Or have I missed something? Wouldn't a simple denial of the charges be warranted if McClellan is inaccurate?

[Kynn]

Of course no one in the White House think it sounds like him. Everyone in the White House treated him like a dumb dog.

Unfortunately, he's a dumb dog that got smacked one too many times and decided to bite back.

[zippywpinhead]

I think everyone has noticed- that's what makes it so fun to watch. For all the character assassination, all the 'kill the messenger' rhetoric, all the concern troll drivel re: "puzzling, just doesn't sound like Scott" code meaning "he's crazy/disgruntled/must have an ulterior motive", no one seems willing to address the substance of his charges. other than a few token attempts to address the most peripheral of the allegations, usually with the lame rejoinder that 'he was out of the loop'. They've steadfastly refused to actually discuss the meat of his charges in the book- because they can't.

I hope the whole bunch of them continue to hang in the wind and squirm- the more they bluster and obfuscate, the more it just confirms the validity of the charges against them. The best part is that this is the kind of story that the MSM can still do somewhat well- get behind a juicy story and run with it. They suck at any real investigative journalism and they'll intentionally ignore or downplay their own complicity in the Iraq war run up, but a good gotcha tell-all is right up their alley...