With a straight face, White House Press Secretary tried reasoning to the media that FBI Director Robert Mueller did not the testimony of Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales that in 2004 he did not heavily sedated and bed-ridden then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to go forward with the warrantless eavesdropping program. He said they spoke about something else. However, yesterday in front of that same Senate panel, Robert Mueller said the hospital conversation between Gonzales and Ashcroft did include the topic of the warrantless eavesdropping program. In other words, Gonzales may have lied under oath.
Today, Tony Snow said Gonzales didn't lie under oath, because Gonzales and Ashcroft had different definitions of the phrase 'terrorist surveillance program.' Unbelievable! Here is the video:
In response, reporter Helen Thomas said to Snow, "." You think?
Fine then. The Senate Judiciary Committee should call Robert Mueller back and ask him even more specifically.
has been all over the commutation story more than any other blog on the internet. They covered the White House Press Conference this morning, in which Tony Snow denied that politics was involved in the elimination of Scooter Libby's jail sentence:
SNOW: The key considerations were... let’s figureout what we think is appropriate, what he thinks is appropriate interms of punishment and let’s also do it in a way that does not doviolence, but in fact shows respect to a system of justice... not goingin and overthrowing the hard work and the verdict of a duly constitutedjury. That, to me, demonstrates just the opposite of politicalconsideration....
I wonder if Bill O'Reilly ever watches his show after it's been aired, becausesometimes it takes hearing yourself in order to realize that maybe you are alittle extreme (or nuts). On the O'Reilly Factor March 30, 2007, Bill, along with MichelleMalkin bullied Roy Sekoff of the . The issue was over a post on the Huffington Post blog when (one of 900 bloggers) wrote a rather nasty piece regarding Tony Snow.Sekoff denounced Bouley's remarks and told O'Reilly "Bouley's post was taken downeight hours after it was posted". He tried to explain to O'Reilly how the blogosphereworks, but Bill was not in listening mode.
O'Reilly said hate comments wouldn't last 15 minutes on hispage. Bill O'Reilly's web page has this disclaimer:
"BillOReilly.com will not be held liable for any user activity on themessage boards. We do not actively monitor user-submitted content.If there is an inappropriate message, please alert us by clicking the"Report This Post" link found above each post."
If you want to join Bill's discussion forum or pretty much do anything on hispage, you need to become a premium member which costs $49.95 yearly or $4.95monthly.
has the complete transcript.
News Hounds point out how Bill O'Reilly just can't get himself to say thewords "Radical Right". On his web page O'Reilly has The O'REILLYPOLL, and this week the question is "In your opinion, who is themost radical right?" Every time he he mentions the weekly poll on TheO'Reilly Factor, he says "Who's the furthest right". He can't seem tospit out the words "Radical Right"
a frequentcontributor for and made a video during CPAC 2007. This will give you a look at Malkin when she is confronted about false information she put in her book
Michelle Malkin goes unhinged and launches a hysterical tirade into the lensof my camera. I ask Ann "John Edwards is a Faggot" Coulter why sheisn't the same person on Sunday morning as on Saturday night. Tom Tancredofanatics lose their cool when asked about connection between race andimmigration, then try to conceal their neo-Confederate paraphenalia. A curiouslypale black Republican explains why black Republicans can't get elected. BobBarr, Grover Norquist and "Flipper," the anti-Romney dolphin, discussthe conservative movement. I receive a special gift from David Horowitz...andmuch, much more!
Before we get to the video, let me just say that this is a complicating matter -- which explains the lack of outrage amongst the public. Though, when you dig deep, you find the usual pattern of lies, followed by scapegoating.
First thing is first: the White House can not get its story straight. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary that it was "her (Harriet Miers') idea only," not Karl Rove's, to fire prosecutors. And then on that same day, White House counsel , "The White House did not play a specific role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys."
What Snow and Bartlett said were lies -- to put it bluntly. According to emails that surfaced via , Harriet Miers was not the only one involved. Karl Rove played a role. So yes, the White House was involved. More importantly, if I were Snow or Bartlett, I would be pissed that someone is not giving me all the information I need to know before I talk to the press:
On Jan. 6, 2005, a White House lawyer, Colin Newman, sent a brief e-mail to David Leitch, then the deputy White House counsel under Gonzales. The subject line read: “Question from Karl Rove.†Newman wrote that “Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) ‘how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we are going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.’â€
It seems pretty obvious that Dan Bartlett, Tony Snow and Harriet Miers are being thrown under the bus. On Scraborough Country, a round table panel underscored the significance of Bush making one of his best friends, Harriet Miers, the scapegoat:
Today, during a White House press conference with Press Secretary Tony Snow, right-wing conservative radio host Lester Kinsolving threw a bunch of softballs at Snow, which came in the form of an editorial about Democrats:
Thankfully, Tony Snow mocked him a bit.
This reminded me of the a few years back. Gannon, whose real name was Matt Guckert, was sent in to throw softball questions at the White House Press Secretary. After who this man was, it turned out Guckert was a male prostitute. So much for the GOP's moral values.
Not to say that Kinsolving is any bit as bad as Guckert. But why all the softball questions?
During today's White House press conference, reporters questioned Tony Snow about whether a former NSA official by the name of from writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times because it would have been critical of the Administration. One reporter asked Snow if this was just part of a growing trend of using the national security excuse as a way to silence critics?
As usual, Tony Snow played dumb by not answering the question, and even had the audacity to say that the Administration has never used the national security card in order to quell dissent.
Watch the video below
-- Partial --
Q Flynt Leverrett, a former NSC official, Mideast expert, also workedin the CIA, has charged that the administration has blocked publicationof an op-ed he wrote in The New York Times simply because it's criticalof the administration's Iran policy.
MR. SNOW: I doubt that. Flynt has been plenty critical and plentypublic in the past. I don't know --
Q And he says that it's now being blocked because he's becomeincreasingly critical at a time when it's politically important for theWhite House to have public support for its foreign policy.
MR. SNOW: I sincerely doubt that, but I'll try to find out. I don'tknow anything about it, except, come on, it's not like Flynt has notbeen out publicly on a number of occasions questioning theadministration.
Q But he says the CIA has cleared this particular piece and the WhiteHouse has blocked it. So my question is --
MR. SNOW: The White House is not blocking his writings.
Q There is no effort to use national security claims to falselysilence critics?
MR. SNOW: We don't falsely silence critics on national security claims.Now, if there's a legitimate national security claim, I'm sure that thatwill be made. Let me -- rather than chasing around, I don't knowanything about this, so I'll find out. And you can call me
Last week on Countdown, host Keith Olbermann put together a of all the times Tony Snow pleaded ignorance by saying, "I don't know." You can add this latest example to the list.
I'll admit, Tony Snow is a darn good White House Press Secretary. He can talk an owl out of a tree -- even if there is no owl. But today he went off the deep end, saying that it to even ask whether President Bush handled the North Korean situation effectively since he came into office:
QUESTION: Looking back, is there anything that the president wouldhave done differently? Does he believe he has made any mistakes in thisregion?
SNOW: Oh, my goodness.
QUESTION: It’s a fair question.
SNOW: No, it’s a silly question.
Saying it is "silly" to ask whether Bush has had a sound North Korea strategy in place is about as Orwellian as last month when President Bush uttered the line, "."
"I know a lot of people have tried to make this areferendum on the president. I would flip it. I think insteadit's a defining moment for the Democratic Party whose nationalleaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with theextreme left in their party, they're going to come after you,"he said.
It's nice to know that the White House just admitted that they don't like Connecticut voters. Contrary to what Snow thinks, taxpaying citizens decide who wins, not "national leaders." These guys -- Ken Mehlman and Tony Snow in particular -- just seem to get easily annoyed with the democratic process, and with the fact that the Republicans are so out of touch with the same voters that will decide their fate this November.
You know, after studying political science at the University of Washington for a few years, including a course on U.S.-North Korea post-Cold War relations, it is easy for me to just sit here and expect people to separate fact from fiction when conservative pundits spew out fiction about the . But the truth is that most television viewers actually believe the stuff that they hear day in and day out on Fox News about Clinton's East Asia policy.
There comes a point where you need to tell yourself, "I'm not going to take this anymore." When you hear things that aren't true over and over again, you need to at least consider the impact that it will have if others believe the same nonsense.
Yesterday, the Bush Administration did the only thing they can do to divert attention away from their failed North Korea policy: blame Bill Clinton. White House Press Secretary :
White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters that Bill Richardson, who served as United Nations ambassador and Energy Secretary under Clinton, "went with flowers andchocolates, and he went with light-water nuclear reactors ... and abasketball signed by Michael Jordan and many other inducements for the'dear leader' to try to agree not to develop nuclear weapons, and itfailed."
Snow added, "We've learned from that mistake."
But as former Clinton official on Meet the Press, if it had not been for Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea would have 50 nuclear weapons today.
Secondly, the Bush Administration's response to the light water reactor that we helped fund for North Korea underscores perfectly the reason why this current White House just does not get it. North Korea has two economies: a civilian economy and a military economy. While the civilian economy did well in the 1960s, it faded in the 1970s and has been in the tank ever since. Every government needs revenue. With their civilian economy in shambles, North Korea developed a military economy to compensate for that lost wealth. Today, North Korea has the , and military spending makes up , according to the U.S. State Department web site. The North Koreans have made a number of military export deals with Iran and other Middle East states , totaling in the billions of dollars.
So, there is a real reason why North Korea is multiplying their military spending -- and it has nothing to do with Islamo-fascism. They are poor. Their people are starving. The only way out of it that, as Kim Jong IL knows, is to build their military economy. If we continue to let without engaging the North Koreans directly, North Korea will continue to build nuclear weapons, and then sell those weapons on the black market -- because, as I said before, they need the money.
There is a severe imbalance between the military and civilian economy of North Korea. Therefore, the only way out of this is for North Korea's civilian economy to be improved. Tony Snow needs to stop blaming the Clinton Administration for doing their research, and start encouraging his own boss to engage North Korea directly. By continuing their run-down policy, the Bush Administration is sending the message to the American people that they care more about being stubborn than taking a new direction to solve this national security concern.
It turns out that Fox News personality Tony Snow is being stabbed in the back by the very person that hired him. White House sources told Reuters late Thursday night that the White House expects to get rid of their current Press Secretary sometime in the middle of next month. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, who was responsible for hiring Snow in the first place, is looking for "a more forceful spokesman on the economy." Reuters elaborated on :
The White House is narrowing its choices for a possible successor,with David Mulford, the U.S. ambassador to India, seen as a strongcontender, the sources said.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrezand ex-Commerce chief Don Evans, a close friend of President George W.Bush, are also among those whose names have been circulating for theTreasury position. Other possible contenders who have been mentionedinclude Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and former Bush economic adviserStephen Friedman.
The U.S. media have been abuzz with speculation that JoshBolten, who took over in April as White House chief of staff, wanted toreplace Snow with someone who could be a more forceful spokesman on theeconomy, preferably someone from Wall Street.
As if the latest round of tax cuts for the wealthy did not push Bush even further into bed with Wall Street bosses, the President now wants to cuddle up to big business even more by making one of them his next Press Secretary.
When it comes to Tony Snow, the former Fox News commentator has something else to worry about as well. DeWayne Wickham of the Gannett News Service is for unknowingly using a racial slur during his first press briefing. The phrase "tar baby," which Snow used to dodge a question about the NSA wiretap program, is a slur sometimes used to describe blacks with darker skin. "I don’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program," Snow said. In his piece, Wickham did not conclude that Snow meant it to be racial; nonetheless, he did want Snow to correctly clarify himself to the black community since a number of blacks were deeply offended by it.
From a personal standpoint, I am actually surprised that the White House would want to get rid of a well-spoken word-smith like Snow. He is the polar opposite of Scott McClellan, whose persuasive ability rivaled "Baghdad Bob." Why is Josh Bolton giving up on his own choice for Press Secretary less than one month after he took the job? Was there a fight between the two? Or, quite simply, is Bolton still tinkering with staff changes to find the perfect team to bring up his boss's poll numbers? If he is still tinkering, then it adds legitimacy to the worry among many GOP strategists that the White House does not have a clearly defined plan for their party heading into this fall's midterm election. That is good news for Democrats.
Recent Comments