Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Brilliant Post: The Mail Box Of The King Of The Wahaboobies

Neil Shakespeare sometimes hits the nail on the head, visually and literally. Today is just the case.

Pop on over.

How To Tell When The Big Dick Is Lying and America's Greatest Mistake

Well, if you ask me, today's interview of the Big Dick Cheney by Larry King proves one of two things: 1) The Big Dick is a cold heartless human being, or 2) He's just flat out lying.

Here's why. After shrugging off again the bad poll numbers that continue to haunt the whole of the W, Rove and Co, Larry asks yet again (the context here is that Cheney actually has the chutzpah to compare his administration with Lincoln and the other great leaders of our nation again):
Q But in all cases they did question themselves. In all cases they said, well, let's look at it this way. Don't you? I mean, the question is don't you ever say maybe I'm wrong?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I think what we do is we look at it in terms of trying to decide what's the right thing to do, and weigh the evidence. And there's a lot of debate and discussion. We went through the exercise at the beginning of this year. You may remember when the President decided to put more forces into Baghdad. That's a time when we evaluated a whole range of options, when we talked to a wide number of people with a variety of viewpoints, met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talked to outside military experts, as well as the politicos on the ground and made a judgment, the President made a decision then. And I think it was the right decision, felt it was the one to go into Iraq.

Q In retrospect you would still go into Iraq?


Q So those 3,000-plus lives have not died in vain?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, sir. Larry, you worry about every single casualty and --
Well, no - you don't do you Mr. Cheney. When admittedly, you actually were wrong (remember WMD),and then don't question if you were right...you see the reason for my first two points at the top of this post.

Even caught with his pants down, hand in the cookie jar, and trying on the his Emperor's new clothes in the forbidden torture chamber we are not supposed know about, the Big Dick lies to us and to himself. He should be saying, "Whoops, you know what? We screwed pooch on the WMD thing, perhaps we were wrong, but now we are in there and we have to do right by Iraq. When you break the items in the china shop, you bought them."

Well, of course, we get none of that out of the Big Dick. He's too much in denial to understand that he may have assisted in the "Greatest Mistake" our country has ever collectively made, which was ironically made by a whole collection of republican baby "boomers" who lay claim on the moniker "The Greatest Generation."

And he continues to shovel the rhetoric to get us to try and by the snake oil:
...And I firmly believe, Larry, that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy.

Q Although there were mistakes.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, sure. Yes, there are always things in war that happen that nobody anticipated; surprises, things that don't go exactly as planned. That's the nature of warfare. But that doesn't mean the strategy isn't the correct strategy, that the objective isn't the right objective.
But simply because you say it is, doesn't make it so either Mr. Cheney.

Here's the good news:
We walk out of here on January 20th of '09, and I think we'll be able to hold our heads high knowing we did the best we could for the country.
The real test is whether or not the strategy that was put in place for this year will in fact produce the desired results.

Q Will those results be in place on that day in '09 when you leave?

But that is not what the President is saying, is he?
Q You don't know what to expect, though, do you? Or do you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's going to show that we will have made significant progress. The reports I'm hearing from people whose views I respect indicate that indeed the Petraeus plan is in fact producing results.

Now, admittedly, I've been on one side of this argument from the very beginning. I urge people to have an open mind, to listen to General Petraeus when he comes back, but also look at what others have to say.
I see, back to that artificial deadline of 15 September....we wait, but I'm not confident that the people who led us into this Iraqi problem are the ones who can get us out.

But what of this General Petraeus?
Q By the way, is General Petraeus the be-all and end-all?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: General Petraeus is a very impressive officer. I know him. I've watched him over the years when he commanded the 101st, when we first launched into Iraq four years ago. And I spent some time with him out at Fort Leavenworth when he had the command out there. He is a very, very highly regarded officer, for good reason. He's a great soldier, and he's also something of a scholar -- a Ph.D. from Princeton. He's a man who's a very thoughtful advocate of counterinsurgency doctrine. He's really the author, if you will, of the current counterinsurgency doctrine in the U.S. Army, who's having a chance to put in practice what he has believed and developed over the years.

I don't want to put the whole burden on him. He's --
...He's a scapegoat in training/waiting.

Of course there are other issues facing the Veep - where does he hang his political hat and how do we hold him accountable:
Q We have an op-ed piece by Walter Mondale, former Vice President, held your job. And at that time -- I guess up to that time, he would be considered the most powerful Vice President. He wrote that after 9/11, "Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the Vice President. He was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the President." He also accused you of having a "near total aversion to the notion of accountability." How would you respond to this?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Walter obviously doesn't know or understand or chooses not to know how I, in fact, have operated. That's just not the case. Fact is, my job has been to serve the President. I've been very clear about that from the beginning to the extent that I've got staff working for me or that I'm actively involved in the processes to pursue his agenda. I've never had a separate agenda. I don't operate -- I don't freelance. In terms of accountability, I'm accountable to him.
What about the American People? Isn't the Veep, an elected official, beholden to the American People? We always knew that he placed us on the secondary back burner when it came to accruing power and asserting authority. This just cements it.

Oh, and what about the AG Gonzales? Is he lying to us too?
Q Moving on to other areas. Alberto Gonzales -- do you stand by him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do. Al is a good man, a good friend, in a difficult assignment.

Q Are you troubled by what appears to have happened -- the appearance of him not telling the truth?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't want to get into the specifics with respect to his testimony and the questions that were asked. I know Al on a personal and professional basis, and I hold him in high regard.

Q You're going to stand by him?


Q No doubt about that?

That figures. When a person's integrity augers well with your own, be it ethical or unethical, you will no doubt support that man.

If nothing else, Gonzales is a good role model for answering questions you don't want to be asked or held accountable for:
Q In that regard, The New York Times -- which, as you said, is not your favorite -- reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President's intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.
But let's mince some words here.
Q So you didn't send them to get permission.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.
That's some mighty fine line drawing isn't it? If he wasn't the one to tell them directly, he's off the hook. But what if he told Libby to tell them to do it? Is that the same thing? A conscience is such as his is easy to assuage in such a way.

But Libby's off the hook and feeling good:
Q I haven't seen him; I know him. How is he doing?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he's doing well. He obviously went through a very, very difficult time, very hard for him and for his family. I think having the commutation of sentence decided has been a huge relief for him, but he still has a very difficult road. He's got -- obviously he needs to find work. He's got legal bills. He carries the burden of having been convicted. All those are not easy problems. But he's clearly in -- he's in good spirits and getting on with his life.

Q Do you keep in touch with him?


Q Did you call him after the verdict?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I've seen him, had dinner with him.
Don't worry about Libby - he's got a lot of pals working on paying those steep bills, Mr. Cheney. He won't be out of work long. I wouldn't employ the man, though.

And, what of Uncle Karl?
Q The Senate Judiciary Committee is subpoenaing Karl Rove in connection with the firing of federal prosecutors. Why shouldn't he appear?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There is a strong tradition that the President of the United States is entitled to have people around him who advise him who do not then have to go before the Congress and testify with respect to the advice they gave the President.

It's different for a Cabinet member, for example. If you're Secretary of Defense, you are confirmed by the Senate, you testify before the Senate, you have some accountability to the Senate or to the Congress for testimony. But when you're a senior advisor to the President, as Karl Rove has been, then you are not traditionally required to go testify before the Congress. So that element of executive privilege, confidentiality of communications between the President and his senior people is a very important one, and it shouldn't be violated. And I don't believe it will be in this case.
Sounds awful squirrelly to me.
Q But the public might say, what have you got to hide? And that would be logical, what have you got to hide?
Nice of Larry to set the Veep up for this reply:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: First of all, there's no charge. What's the allegation of the wrongdoing here? Frankly, there isn't anything. With respect to the U.S. attorneys, there's been, I think, a bit of a witch hunt on Capitol Hill, as they keep rolling over rocks hoping they can find something. But there really hasn't been anything come up that would suggest there was any wrongdoing of any kind. And in the meantime, the President feels strongly, and I do too -- I agree with him -- that it's important for us to pass on these offices we occupy to our successors in as good a shape as we found them. And that means protecting and preserving the integrity of those processes.

Q So he will not appear?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think an offer has been made to work out an arrangement that, in fact, the senior officials would meet with members of Congress, but not under oath, not in public, no transcript, to discuss these issues, and the committee has rejected that.
Sounds good if you can get it. Wouldn't you like to have the same kind of privilege if you were in some kind of trouble? But really, off the record like this really opens up the whole charade to all kinds of different interpretation.

Wouldn't you rather have it on record so that every thing is on the up and up? If it was, they would, wouldn't they? This bull shit about executive privilege is all a hoax to keep us from peeling back the curtain to discover the Emperor has no clothes and the Wizard is really a powerless man.

But now, how about some saber rattling toward Iran:
Q Would you make an overt move on Iran?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: For what reason?

Q For reasons of information you have that we don't.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not going to speculate about prospective operations.

Q How worried are you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm concerned about Iran.
Well, I'm worried and certainly don't trust this Administration to know any thing for certain as a basis of going to war with another country - remember WMD once again.

And what about Gitmo?
Q General Powell says he would close Guantanamo yesterday. Would you?

But here's a concern:
Q Do you have to torture them when they're there?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We don't do torture.

Q How come in the past, though, there's been a question on that? Have you ever said we support certain methods of physical harm?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We support the ability of certain agencies of the federal government to have the capacity to use enhanced techniques for interrogation. We have authorization that we got from the Congress, to in fact do that. And they do it under very careful safeguards and very stringent safeguards. We're careful not to torture. We're not in the business of torturing people. That would not be --

Q What does "enhanced" mean?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We don't discuss specific techniques because the last thing you want to do is tell your potential adversary what your techniques are, because that would allow them to train and practice to resist them.
I don't buy it, do you? Where there's rendition, there's torture. Simply because you turn a blind eye to it doesn't mean we don't do it.

Finally, do you trust a man who answer this relatively benign question thusly?
Q What are you going to do in February '09?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I haven't given it any thought.
I don't. As one of the heads of state that perpetrated what will go down in history as America's Greatest Mistake, I don't think that they will be able to walk out of the Whitehouse in January 2009 and hold their heads high. And it will partially be because they will be pasted with cream pies and rotten fruit.
[tags]Cheney, Hypocrisy, Liar, America's Greatest Mistake, WMD, Larry King[/tags]

Monday, July 30, 2007

I Thought The President Didn't Believe In Setting "Artificial Deadlines:" Isn't 15 Sept. Just Such A Thing?

With the stink members of the W, Rove and Co have been unilaterally making about the nature of setting "artificial" deadlines for departure of troops in Iraq, you would think they wouldn't set some of there own. But alas, it looks to me like 15 September is some kind of political ruse, no?

Unscripted, W reveals himself again in his first "joint press availability" with the new British PM Gordon Brown. Do W's rhetorical arguments reassure you that W's grand democracy experiment is going well?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your own military commander suggests that, in Iraq, the Iraqi forces are not nearly ready to take over security for their own country, and that U.S. troops will need to stay in the region for many months, if not years. Are you prepared to pass on the fate of the war to the next President?

And Mr. Prime Minister, if I may, what do you see as the biggest mistakes in the management of the war, and what do you propose to do to correct them?

PRESIDENT BUSH: David Petraeus, the general on the ground, will be bringing his recommendations back to the Congress on or about September the 15th. And I think it's going to be very important for all of us to wait for him to report. And the reason it's important is, is that I believe that the decisions on the way forward in Iraq must be made with a military recommendation as an integral part of it. And therefore I don't want to prejudge what David is going to say.

I have said this is going to take a long time in Iraq, just like the ideological struggle is going to take a long time. And so I look forward to David's report, and then we'll respond accordingly. There has been some notable progress -- Anbar province being such a place -- where there's bottom up reconciliation, where people are rejecting this al Qaeda vision of the world, and saying there's a better way forward.

There are still setbacks, obviously. We've got these suiciders that are trying to foment sectarian violence. But, Ben, I would ask you and the Congress to wait -- to do what I'm doing, which is wait until David to come back and make his report. And I think you'll find it will be considered and based upon the evidence there on the ground.
Right, like some thing magically is going to change on 15 Sept to improve the course of action in Iraq? Sounds to me like W has set a new target for terrorists to act. What better way to get further publicity and "foment" violence for the jihad by doing something on this artificial 15 Sept deadline. Any one taking bets out there?

But the irony is even more apparent if you dig deeper. First the President stipulates:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Look, people who kill innocent men, women and children to achieve political objectives are evil, that's what I think. I don't think there's any need to negotiate with them. I don't think there's any need to hope that they'll change. They are cold-blooded killers, and we better be clear-eyed when we're dealing with them.
Of course, he ignores the civilians that we have killed in the name of political gain in Iraq and other locations. War is diplomacy by other means anyway, isn't it? Certainly, there has to be a solution to deal with such folks and the W would have you believe it rests with the rhetoric:
In the long run, the way to defeat these people is through a competing ideology, see. And what's interesting about this struggle -
Well, frankly, no I don't see, Mr. President. How does the President's articulated strategy sit with the "kill-em-all" GOP set, or the "fight-them-there-so-we-don't-have-to-fight-them-here" flag wavers?

And really, to put this post to bed, we must insist that W not get a comedy gig after he's done with this current stint. I find his brand of humor to be especially revealing of his overall character, don't you? Here's a couple of examples:
Q Thank you. Mr. Brown's new formulation for what we used to call the special relationship is Britain's single-most important bilateral relationship. I wonder if I could ask him what precisely that means, whether it works the other way for the United States, in terms of their bilateral relationship. And also, Mr. President, what you think has actually changed with the arrival of Gordon Brown instead of Tony Blair?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Besides toothpaste? (Laughter.)

...And so what was your question? (Laughter.)

Q What's changed?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, what's changed? He's a Scotsman, kind of a -- he's not the dour Scotsman that you described him, or the awkward Scotsman; he's actually the humorous Scotsman, the guy that -- we actually were able to relax and to share some thoughts. I was very interested in his family life.He's a man who has suffered unspeakable tragedy, and instead of that weakening his soul, strengthened his soul.
Oh, I see. And so...?

Republican Perversion

Found an interesting article in the LA Times today. Here's a slice:
When a group of 50 high school students visiting the White House in June handed President Bush a letter urging him to stop the torture of suspected terrorists, the president took their letter, read it, then told the students that "the United States does not torture."

By the time a president has alienated even high school overachievers, the cat is out of the bag; it is now general knowledge that the United States of America tortures people. We know that torture rarely if ever works. So what are government officials getting out of it?

...When babies cover their eyes, they assume the world has disappeared because they can't see it; they think they're invisible too and that the world can't see them. Donald Rumsfeld, in Hersh's article, comes off like an innocent child rubbing his eyes and waking in a world he never made. "My God! Did I authorize putting a bra and underwear on this guy's head and telling him all his buddies knew he was a homosexual?" asks the former Defense secretary. Heck, was it all just a dream?

Maybe the reason members of the Bush administration are reluctant to look at evidence of torture is that if they did, they would be forced to admit that, for them, what happened at Abu Ghraib really wasn't torture. For them, evidently, it was sex, and that's why they won't watch.

It's not like government officials have never come right out and said that. In 2004, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) bridged the gap between the painful and the erotic by dismissing the Abu Ghraib abuses as a mere "sex ring": "I've seen what happened at Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops who were involved in a sex ring." When asked to clarify, Shays backtracked and dug himself in deeper at the same time. "It was torture because sexual abuse is torture. This is more about pornography than torture."

Friday, July 27, 2007

P.S. I Thought Rumsfeld Resigned?

In case you were wondering who is really running the Global War On Terror and thought Rummy was pushed out the door as his resignation would indicate, do note the following. At today's function with the Big Dick Cheney presiding, Rummy was sitting there in an official capacity.

So, in the face of an organization that purports to believe in smaller government, we now have two people getting paid at the level of Secretary not the one provided for by Congress. Isn't that interesting?
10:36 A.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Secretary Gates, Secretary Rumsfeld, General Pace, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: It's a privilege to join all of you in this tribute to Edmund Peter Giambastiani, Jr. -- a fine American who President Bush, and all of us, know as Admiral G...
Why we are still paying a man to do a job he resigned from is beyond me. Can any one in the GOP justify this expense? Sounds like social welfare for a man who doesn't need it and a supported by a country of taxpayers who can't afford it.

Draft The College Republicans First

A friend of mine pointed me to this fun little youtube video clip. Enjoy:

Incidentally, on another post over at TPM, also pointed out to me by the same friend, one person was suggesting that if the republicans are intimidated by and afraid of some one doing a little youtube video, how are they ever going stop the terrorists? Or more succinctly:
I'm not sure whether the resistance is rooted is the profound feebleness of the current GOP field or the fact that the current Bush Republican party is so beholden to a worldview based on denial and suppression of evidence that exposure to unpredictable questions presents too great a danger. But if they can't face Youtube how can they defeat the terrorists?

Thursday, July 26, 2007

When "Speaking Consistently" Is Much Like Lying

Take a gander at this rhetorical spew from Tony the Snow job trying to defend the untenable and unbelievable AG Gonzales:
Q On Gonzales, this Negroponte memo shows an apparent contradiction in what he told the committee two days ago about that briefing at the White House. But yet Gonzales' spokesman says that what he said on Tuesday was true. How can that be? Can you explain that?

MR. SNOW: Unfortunately we get into areas that you cannot discuss openly. It's a very complex issue. But the Attorney General was speaking consistently. The President supports him. I think at some point this is going to be something where members are going to have to go behind closed doors and have a fuller discussion of the issues. But I can't go any further than that.
Certainly, "speaking consistently" is an important factor when communicating with the public as an employee who is supposed to be working for the American people. However, I'd prefer the truth. How about you? Incidentally, should we be supporting a President who supports such a man?

Is "Liberty" The Antidote to Terrorism?

The rhetorical battle for the hearts and minds of a people separated from America by half the globe is hard to win. This doesn't stop the W and his crack team of propagandists to pen the following - another rehashing of history from the W, Rove and Co perspective:
And the reason I tell you this story is that if you really look at history, you'll find examples where liberty has transformed regions that were warlike, where a lot of people died, into regions of peace. And that's going to happen again, so long as we have faith in that fundamental principle; so long as we don't lose our confidence in certain values -- that are not American values, but they're universal values.

I believe the most important priority of our government is to protect the American people from further harm. And you just need to be reassured, and so do your constituents, that a lot of good people are spending every hour of every day doing just that. But I would remind you, in the long run, the best way for your children and grandchildren to be able to say that when given a tough task, this generation didn't flinch, and had certain faith -- had faith in certain values -- is that we stay strong when it comes to liberty as a transformative agent to bring the peace we want.
Well, this is a bold prediction from a man who believed there were WMD in a place there wasn't. Do you believe them? Can liberty serve as such a "transformative agent" in Iraq and other places where people don't value liberty as a principle?

Certainly, the Taliban are not standing for liberty, and have not over history. Our values are not their values, and the combination of historical factors that drove WWII, Japan, and even our revolution are not remotely the same as in the Middle East.

Do you think that the brand of "liberty" foisted upon a people (say Iraq) will truly be the antidote to terrorism and extremism that W suggests? Certainly, W's democracy experiment has already cost us an incalculable amount in terms of dollars (real and accrued debt) and dead/wounded GIs. The costs only go up from here.

It reminds me of the recent advertising campaign by MasterCard...you know the one. For the W, Rove and Co it might go like this:

  • Kevlar Body Armor for one trooper - 600 dollars (if you buy 'em).

  • Humvee with no armor (remember, you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had)- ~100K.

  • Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier GHWBush - 4.5 Billion...

  • The Price of Security for America and Liberty in the Middle East...Priceless.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

What Do You Expect To Hear From A Man Running With The President Who Sent Him Into Harms Way?

In order to deflect attention from the tangle W has gotten us into, he tried another pathetic PR attempt to boost his image by running with some recovering GIs.

Again, I'm offended by the W. Unscripted he really does expose himself for who he really is.

You won't see the text of this on the news, I"m sure. Perhaps an image or two to try and deflect attention from Congressional attempts at checking and balancing the W, Rove and Co.

It's short, so, I'm cutting the whole thing here:
THE PRESIDENT: I've been running with Max and Allen -- I mean, Neil. I met these guys at Walter Reed. Neil lost both legs, and he told me he's going to run with me on the South Lawn of the White House. Max lost his leg, and he told me he was going to be jumping out of airplanes with the 101st Airborne. Sure enough, he's jumping out of airplanes with the 101st Airborne, and along with Neil, he's running on the South Lawn.

Running with these two men is incredibly inspirational for me. And it should be inspirational to anybody who has been dealt a tough hand. Sometimes in life you get dealt a hand that you didn't expect to play, and they got dealt a tough hand, and they're playing it with all their soul. And I appreciate you guys being here. It means a lot to me.

Today Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala delivered a report to the White House. I told the press corps that they were going to go out and hold a press conference. They've held their press conference. I'd like to make some comments on that report.

First of all, the spirit of that report is, any time we have somebody hurt, they deserve the best possible care, and their family needs strong support. We've provided that in many cases, but to the extent we haven't, we're going to adjust. In that recommendation, there are things the United States Congress should do, and I call upon them to do it.

In that report, there are a lot of things that the executive branch of government can do, the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense. And I've instructed Secretary Gates and Secretary Nicholson to look at every one of these recommendations, to take them seriously, and to implement them, so that we can say with certainty that any soldier who has been hurt will get the best possible care and treatment that this government can offer.

I'm working with two men who have been hurt, two men who refuse to allow their current circumstances to get them down or to keep them down. I am proud to be with you with guys. Neil, thank you. God bless you, Max. He wanted me to jump out of airplanes with him. I respectfully declined.

Q How does it feel to be with the Commander-in-Chief running around the track?

SERGEANT DUNCAN: Fantastic. It's an accomplishment. It's like the pinnacle of recovery, I think. Being a wounded vet, coming of Afghanistan a little over a year-and-a-half ago, being here, running around this track is just amazing. I couldn't ask for anything better.

THE PRESIDENT: Don't ask him why he outran me.

Q Why did he outrun you?

THE PRESIDENT: Because he's a faster runner. Anyway, thank you guys. It's a proud moment for me, a proud moment.

END 4:28 P.M. EDT
The lack of sincerity is obvious and I wasn't even there. The president's last sentence, for some reason, makes we want to vomit. I sure wish I kept my bag from the air traveling I did today.

Of course, this stunt proves again that the W, Rove and Co is will stoop to using wounded GIs for political gain. It's one of those nasty Rovian political parlor tricks they have mastered over time.

When Do The Impeachment Proceedings Begin?

I won't bore you with the gritty details of my wonderful family vacation. Neither will I barrage you with a hundred plus shots from my camera. I will say this, one thing I really enjoy is spending quality time with my family in my home town. It's truly a splendid place to be and to have grown up.

Meanwhile, it appears that I have not missed much. On the plane back to my town - again, another wonderful place to call home - we were the beneficiaries of some freaks tossing bricks of cheese into the bags at some airports for kicks and giggles. What that meant was that after I most of the passengers had boarded, they deplaned everyone and then did a search of our craft - or at least that's what they said. Following the typical leadership by faith protocol learned over the six plus years of the W, Rove and Co, one never really knows what the folks in charge are really doing.

Of course, safety is a myth when you are boarding an air plane. Rocket launchers aside (which if you had one and stood on any nearby bridge, you could take out numerous aircraft before exploding yourself up to stop from getting caught). Airplanes are relatively safe, but any time one goes down, it's usually not a good result.

Sure the inconvenience of it all aside, it's better safe than sorry. Even better, I learned that there was a celebrity on board (a Food Channel Chef)because he and his family were not able to slip back into the safe confines of the executive class suite they have for VIPs not like me. I only saw one passenger snap a picture with him...but I digress.

As I was watching the in flight television, I noticed Tony the Snow job on CNN - and he is looking weathered and much older after having worked with the W and his pals, not to mention surviving cancer treatment. I don't usually see Tony, by the way. I usually take my dose via the text at the White house web location. On the screen it flashed something about indictments and the like. So, when I landed, I had to pop on over to the url to see what they were shoveling.

I haven't even blogged on over to the usual locations, but no doubt the blogisphere is a twitter about Harriet Miers possibly being brought up on charges for not showing per orders of the President to testify in front of a congressional oversight committee. Of course, today's Whitehouse press briefing delivered by Tony was spent once again trying to deflect any accusations of wrong doing on the part of the W, Rove and Co. And I repeat (from other posts), I don't envy Tony his job. I wouldn't want to try and defend this pack of lairs.

Here's what he had to say:
MR. SNOW: Hello, everybody. As you probably know, the House Judiciary Committee has just voted along partisan lines to have a criminal contempt of Congress referral against White House legal counsel and the White House Chief of Staff. For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation, such as appropriations bills, and to try to work in such a way as to demonstrate to the American people that Congress and the White House can work together.
My view is that the W, Rove and Co spurns responsiblity and hates to be held accountable for their actions. The days of "trust us and we will do right by you" are long over for these knuckleheads. Moreover, "working together" is a two way street.

Even so, this is less partisan and could be more bipartisan than Tony would have you believe:
Q Tony, how can you cite as a sign of cooperation sending the Attorney General to Capitol Hill, when every time he seems to go there he contradicts what he said before, to the point that you have Republicans like Arlen Specter saying they don't think he can effectively serve any more?

MR. SNOW: I will let you do the characterizations. In point of fact --

Q That's what Arlen Specter said.

MR. SNOW: I understand what Arlen Specter said --

Q These are not my characterization.

MR. SNOW: Well, your characterization was, he contradicts himself every time, I think is what you said.

Q But he has contradicted himself repeatedly.

MR. SNOW: Well, no -- I don't want to parse too much here, and I'm not going to serve as the fact witness, so we're not going to get too deep into what he said, when and where. But I will remind you that when one is being called in an open session to talk about classified matters, it becomes very difficult to walk the line about what is permissible and what is not permissible to say in public. We continue to believe that the Attorney General has testified truthfully. He has also testified behind closed doors in considerably greater detail. Neither you nor I have heard that.
Well, simply because you believe something doesn't make it so (remember the WMD thing in Iraq?).

What say you blogisphere? When shall we expect the impeachment proceedings? Shall we start with The Big Dick Cheney first?

Friday, July 13, 2007

"Yes, I'm Idealistic"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a serious difference between healthy optimism and the brand of idealist the President would have us believe he is. Hope that things are working in Iraq isn't enough to make it so.

Have a look at this latest Mark Fiore video for more on the subject. Enjoy.

P.S. I will have intermittent access and periods of time of no access to the "internets," over the next week or so. Thus, regular readers may find me MIA. This doesn't preclude you from surfing the archive or popping over to locations on my blog roll.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Is The President Truthful Or Relying On The Truthiness Of It To Put One Over On Us?

Check out this quote and see if you don't believe the President:
Q Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point -- bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't you understand, you brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam delivered a massive amount of documents that said they had no WMD. We didn't believe him and we were wrong. So, who really chose to ignite the Iraq conflagration?
Q Didn't we go into Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
Okay, it was Saddam's decision or yours? Isn't the W a self identified "decider?"

Oh, and as to if the world is a better place without Saddam in power - nice euphemism by the way Mr. President, we had him executed - it's completely debatable.

But what else do you have for us Mr. President?
My attitude is we ought to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here, and that we ought to defeat their ideology with a more hopeful form of government.
But the British are in Iraq and they just recently arrested some folks for wanting to drive car bombs into various building under their very noses.

So, fighting them there doesn't stop them from following us. As you may deduce, they are already here sleeping and awaiting the green go light. Moreover, by the President's own report, the new Iraqi government really isn't firing on many cylinders, which can't altogether be that hopeful in my view.

What else have you got Mr. President:
THE PRESIDENT: You mean in this interim period? Yes. I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion, but trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.
Can we afford to succeed? That that is a question they didn't consider from the outset is clearly obvious now. Hindsight does us no good, but we certainly can ask the president what does that success look like?

By the way, who is really running the war?
What I tell them is this, just what I've told you, is that as the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military ever, I have an obligation, a sincere and serious obligation, to hear out my commander on the ground. And I will take his recommendation. And as I mentioned, to talk to Bob Gates about it, as well as the Joint Chiefs about it, as well as consult with members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, as I make a decision about the way forward in Iraq.
Doesn't sound like Congress is in charge, not one iota, so why bring that up if but for political reasons?

Of course, if reason and facts don't work, you can always slap the Nine Eleven Monkey one more time for political effect:
The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.
Well, that's not entirely true. The people that did the deed died in the planes they used. Such is the nature of the suicide bomber.

Here's in interesting question:
Q But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?
Of course, the W takes the leadership by faith over fact modus operandi to heart one more time and asks us to believe things simply because he says it's so:
THE PRESIDENT: Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America -- obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.
Any proof beyond rhetoric there? Nope, I didn't find any either. Where is OBL anyway? Dead or Alive?

As evidenced by the WMD smoking mushroom cloud rhetoric that got us into this mess, I don't think that the President's word is as good as he thinks it aught to be. And, that's a darn shame because I really do want to believe the President of the United States. Frankly, he's got a serious credibility problem.

Really, why should we buy his plan anyway?
Q Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam's army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq's government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?
Let the scapegoating begin:
THE PRESIDENT: Those are all legitimate questions that I'm sure historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question, do you need more, to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was obviously in charge, and during our discussions in the run up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.

Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, we've reviewed the plan. I remember -- and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the answer was, yes.
But what of it? If it is working, then the threat of AQ should be down, no?
Q The intelligence analysts are saying al Qaeda has reconstituted in areas of Pakistan, saying the threat to the West is greater than ever now, as great as 2001. What's --


Q Okay, you tell us what --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm glad you asked, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that opportunity to --

Q Thank you for coming back, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm happy to do it. This is not the new me. I mean, this is just an aberration. In other words --

Q It's over next time.

THE PRESIDENT: -- I'm not going to leave and then come back because somebody yells something at me.

Q Like China.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, exactly. (Laughter.) Thank you, David. I appreciate that. Exactly.
Looks like the President left and then came back to answer this last line of query. He continues to try and have his cake and eat it too:
There is a perception in the coverage that al Qaeda may be as strong today as they were prior to September the 11th. That's just simply not the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to September the 11th, 2001.

Secondly, that because of the actions we have taken, al Qaeda is weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. And that is why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else we find them. That's our strategy, is to stay on the offense against al Qaeda.
But if they are weaker, then why would he suggest they are still dangerous? The logic doesn't flow well.

But he continues by the "justify-everything-I've-done-by-using-the-al-Qaeda-threat-and-toss -them-on-the-table-for-good-measure-and-then-leave" technique of political debate:
Elaine asked the question, is it al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes, it is al Qaeda, just like it's al Qaeda in parts of Pakistan. And I'm working with President Musharraf to be able to -- he doesn't want them in his country; he doesn't want foreign fighters in outposts of his country. And so we're working to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda.

But no question al Qaeda is dangerous for the American people, and that's why -- as well as other people that love freedom -- and that's why we're working hard with allies and friends to enhance our intelligence. That's why we need terrorist surveillance programs. That's why it's important for us to keep -- you know, would hope Congress would modernize that bill. And that's why we're keeping on the offense.
But ultimately, who's to say that our way is the right way?
Ultimately, the way to defeat these radicals and extremists is to offer alternative ways of life so that they're unable to recruit; that they can use -- they like to use frustration and hopelessness. The societies that don't provide hope will become the societies where al Qaeda has got the capacity to convince a youngster to go blow himself up. What we need to do is help governments provide brighter futures for their people so they won't sign up.
It's hard to compete with the promise of virgins in the after world, but what is the message of hope that the Iraqis see from us (and most of them have left their country by the way, which is a indicator of what?)?

The president continues
And the fundamental question facing the world on this issue is whether or not it makes sense to try to promote an alternative ideology. I happen to think it does. They say, he's idealistic. Yes, I'm idealistic, but I'm also realistic in understanding if there is not an alternative ideology presented, these thugs will be able to continue the recruit. They'll use hopelessness to be able to recruit. And so it's -- thank you for asking that question.
Oh, Mr. President, when you suggest that people say you are idealistic, I now know for certain that you only surround yourself with a certain brand of people. The folks I know would come up with a few alternative choice words to describe you...but, I'll leave that for the flogging in the comment box.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Bush Can Video Blog, Too You Know

A friend of mine shot this link to me. Enjoy:

Bush's Blog

Aren't Community And Faith Based Programs One And The Same?

In the odd event that you didn't know "Parent's Day" is coming up. I'm just wondering why it is the President parses out and lists Faith Based before Community programs in his proclamation today? Are they not one and the same?
My Administration is committed to strengthening American families by supporting Federal, State, and faith-based and community programs that promote healthy marriages and responsible parenting.
Just two questions for the President: What exactly defines a "healthy marriage," and why is it any of the Government's business to what my marriage is like?

Of course, like everything the W, Rove and Co does, they use the proclamation as a political device to drum up support for their faltering Iraq Democracy Experiement:
On Parents' Day, we pay tribute to mothers and fathers and celebrate the special bonds of love between parents and their children. We also express our deep gratitude to parents who serve in the Armed Forces and those whose sons and daughters have answered the call to defend our country. Our Nation is grateful for their honorable service and for the sacrifices family members make as their loved ones work to advance the cause of freedom.
What about the parents KIA for this "Noble Cause?" Dragging parents into harms way doesn't sound like supporting the institution of parenthood, nor healthy marriage.

Of course, a legit question is what shall we do while regarding Parent's day?
I call upon citizens, private organizations, and govern-mental bodies at all levels to engage in activities and educational efforts that recognize, support, and honor parents, and I encourage American sons and daughters to convey their love, respect, and appreciation to their parents.
How about bringing them home from Iraq. Sounds reasonable, no? Or even better, letting GLBT families to officially get married to legitimize them? Some of the most positive and great families I know are headed by people of the same sex. Even so, gays getting hitch must frighten the GOP faithful too much. Is it that to do so would mean they would have to acknowledge that heterosexuals don't have a corner on the healthy family market?

Good News: Now It's Only 20 People A Day Lost For The "Noble Cause"

Found this interesting quote:
"If 20 people killed a day is good news, that tells you how bad things were previously."AMBASSADOR RYAN C. CROCKER, the U.S. envoy to Iraq.
I wonder how that compares with the Good Ol' U.S. of A. Sure, it's a big country, but I know we have weekly killings in my town (big city that it is). These all seem to be drug or gang related targeted assassinations rather than indiscriminate murder, but there are some of both. I suppose our war on crime on the home front is mixed success-wise as well.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Humor Unbecoming Of A President

There is a saying my father engraved on my psyche:

What is said in jest is oft meant in leisure

Certainly, W has proven himself as a bad jester often revealing his true character in plain view. Unscripted, he's astonishing.

Have a look at this playful banter he exchanged with some members of the MSM as he cut the ribbon on the newly renovated Whitehouse press room. I'm curious as to your reaction:
Q What, do you think I'm going to ask a question?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I did think you were going to ask me a question, yes. (Laughter.)

Q I am. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, maybe some other time.

Q Oh, but do you think you open --

THE PRESIDENT: See what I'm saying? (Laughter.)

Q You can't come to the press room, especially a modern press room --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, let's do this -- let me cut the ribbon, and --

Q You think anything has changed?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me cut the ribbon -- are you going to cut it with me, Steve -- and then why don't you all yell simultaneously? (Laughter.) Like, really loudly. (Laughter.) And that way you might get noticed.

Q It doesn't sound like you're going to answer --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I will. I'll, like, listen --

Q And leave?

THE PRESIDENT: -- internalize, play like I'm going to answer the question, and then smile at you and just say, gosh -- (laughter) -- thanks, thanks for such a solid, sound question.

Here we go, ready? I'm going to cut the ribbon. (Laughter.) Then you yell. I cogitate -- and then smile and wave. (Laughter.)

Are you going to come, Laura? Here we go.

(The President and Mrs. Bush cut the ribbon.) (Applause.)

Q -- (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: Brilliant question.

Q -- (inaudible) -- cogitating that, right?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. See you soon.

Q We look forward to seeing you come and do a little --

THE PRESIDENT: I will see you soon, thank you.

Q Y'all come back. (Laughter.)
I'm not particularly sure why I find this exchange particularly appalling, but I do. Could be that this brand of humor administered by the supposed top GOP dog is unbecoming a president. More likely, it's because the truth that is laced within it is rather disheartening.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

"I Have Never Been As Ashamed Of The Department And Government..."

Here's an interesting point of view. From a US Attorney, no less:
As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.

The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.
I'm not a legal expert, but this person is qualified to weigh in here on the matter.

Powell Unsucessful Talking W Out Of Going Into Iraq: Now All We Are Doing Is Putting "A Heavier Lid On This Pot Of Boiling Sectarian Stew."

This is an interesting opener to an article you won't find in the US rags. A friend pointed this url out to me and suggested the comments were scathing. Enjoy:
THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”

He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.

What Are You Doing For "Captive Nations Week?"

Hoist your flag high? I thought W was for smaller, not bigger government. Have a gander at his newest proclaimation:
Liberty is the path to lasting peace and the unalienable right of every man, woman, and child. During Captive Nations Week, we underscore our commitment to protecting human rights, advancing democracy and freedom, and ending tyranny across the globe.

Expanding freedom is a moral imperative, and today more people are free than ever before. Freedom is reaching around the world, and America is working side-by-side with new democracies in Liberia, Mauritania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. The people of Kuwait held elections in which women were able to vote and run for office for the first time, and the elected parliament is exercising real influence with the government. We continue to stand firmly behind the citizens of Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq as they defend their democratic gains against extremist enemies. Many are making great sacrifices for liberty, and they deserve our steadfast support.

While there is progress in freedom's advance, nations such as Belarus, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe still oppress their citizens. My Administration recently created the Human Rights Defenders Fund to provide grants for the legal defense and medical expenses of democratic dissidents arrested or beaten by repressive governments. In addition, we have nearly doubled funding for democracy projects throughout the world. The American people believe that the flame for freedom burns in every human heart, and that light cannot be extinguished by governments, terrorists, or tyrants. During Captive Nations Week, we remember that human freedom is the key to achieving respect for all human rights.

The Congress, by Joint Resolution approved July 17, 1959 (73 Stat. 212), has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week in July of each year as "Captive Nations Week."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 15 through 21, 2007, as Captive Nations Week. I call upon the people of the United States to reaffirm our commitment to all those seeking liberty, justice, and self-determination.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

Excuse me, Mr. President. How are we paying for those things mentioned in this proclamation? And dear reader, what do you plan to do to commemorate this "captive nations week?"

Must Be Nice To Be Related To W, At Least For Now

I've got three questions:
  1. Why would some one appoint one's nephew as a dignitary to participate in diplomatic adventures because it sure looks like nepotism to me?

  2. What the hell is the N3 Opportunity Fund?

  3. What do they invest in?

Got this all from a minor personnel posting over at the Whitehouse web location:
President George W. Bush today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to attend the Opening Ceremonies of the XV Pan American Games on July 13, 2007.

Head of the Presidential Delegation:

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

The Honorable Clifford M. Sobel, United States Ambassador to the Federative Republic of Brazil;

The Honorable Donna Richardson Joyner, Member of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports;

George Prescott Bush, Chief Operating Officer of N3 Opportunity Fund;

Luis Tiant, Former Major League Baseball Player.

The President Still Loves Alberto, No Matter That The FBI Blew Their Own Whistle

IT seems like the AG still has the full faith of the president, not that it means much at this point in time. Another Whitehouse spokesmodel has a hard time defending his administration. Have a look:
Q Scott, can you respond to The Washington Post story today on -- that Attorney General Gonzales received multiple reports from the FBI about lapses in the procedures safeguarding the use of national security letters and other procedures of that sort? Should Gonzales have acted on those reports from the FBI?

MR. STANZEL: I would refer you over to the Department of Justice on that. I've certainly seen that story and I know they've had comments in it, but I don't have any information for you on that.

Q Is it appropriate for a Cabinet officer to ignore reports from below about wrongdoing within his agency?

MR. STANZEL: I'm not aware that that's the assertion. But maybe that's the assertion you're making, but the President has said repeatedly that he has great faith in the Attorney General, and that has not changed.

Q Will the White House be looking into and evaluating his performance in this regard?

MR. STANZEL: With response to the story, you mean?

Q With response to these reports that the FBI had --

MR. STANZEL: What reports?

Q The FBI reports about improper following of procedures, safeguards on national security letters and other things.

MR. STANZEL: That's -- you know, Maura, that's all I have for you on that. We'll continue to -- I'll try to gather some more information for you on that, but I'd refer you over to the Department of Justice for more facts about what reports they may have received --

Q But he still has --

MR. STANZEL: -- about this story.

Q He still has faith in the Attorney General, despite the fact you're just -- I mean --

MR. STANZEL: The President's views on the Attorney -- the President's views on the Attorney General have not changed.

Q So it doesn't matter about this story, or they don't want to look into it before you make a statement like that?

MR. STANZEL: I'll leave the comments where they are, Martha.

Q Thank you.

MR. STANZEL: Thank you.
Well, if I was as inept at my job as the AG is at his, I don't think I'd still have a job. What about you?

Stacking the Deck, And Rigging Questions: Honesty Burried In The Humor

The President shouldn't dabble in humor and leave that to his speech writers. Unscripted, we see W reveal himself in Cleveland one more time.
Q Well, this may seem like it was rigged, Mr. President, but there are --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. There have been a few rigged questions in my day. (Laughter.) I'm not telling you which way they were rigged, though. (Laughter.)
Really, the people that attended today's lecture from the W in Ohio deserve an endurance medal. It would have to be a big medal for enduring one seriously long dish of propaganda from a man that would rather have us believe the varnished rather than unvarnished truth. Today's speech was even replete with the usual Nine Elven Monkey Slapping (you think that the speech writers would grow weary of putting that reference into every PR opportunity, but they don't).

Interestingly, it looks like the W, Rove and Co. continue to find choirs to preach in front of. Have a look at the questions and see if you think they were difficult or unfriendly? Not one question about Libby? None about Uncle Karl or Harriet Meyers? Nothing about why there were no WMD found in Iraq or what about OBL? What about the charade that his no tax and spend anyway fiscal policy is leading us to National bankruptcy?

Based on the questions asked by the citizens of Cleveland, you would think that they didn't get enough propaganda delivered at the front end of the speechifying. I've removed the President's responses so you get all the Qs without the A propaganda. If you'd like to have a look at W's responses, click on the above link.
Q Mr. President, like this world-class health care institution, NASA Glenn is one of the crown jewels, along with the talented people there, in our new economy crown. As you know, we recently won the crew exploration vehicle contract. We're very happy about that. Given all the competing demands for resources in Washington, what kind of funding do you see for NASA and its mission going forward?

Q Mr. President, I'm originally from Pakistan.

Q When I travel there, my friends over here say that I'm crazy to go back --

Q And when I'm there, the people over there say I'm crazy to go back. (Laughter.)

Q That's right, that's right. My question for you is, what are we doing with public diplomacy to change the minds and the hearts of a billion and a half Muslims around the world?

Q Mr. President, I know immigration has been a big problem in the U.S., and what is your next step with the immigration bill?

Q Mr. President, I have an organization that has supported the captive nations of the world for 48 years. And our members are sincerely interested in this visa waiver program for friendly countries --

Q -- so people could visit their relatives and friends on a shorter basis, like 30 days, 60 days. Are you in favor of this?

Q Sort of. I'm of Polish decent.

Q Mr. President, first of all, as a fairly conservative talk show host, I'd like you to please tell Congress to leave the fairness doctrine in the ground where it is.

Q Second of all, going back to Iraq, sir, you mentioned Muslim mothers want their children to grow up in peace. The children of extremists, however, are being trained right now. We've seen the videos. We have seen the indoctrination -- schoolchildren being indoctrinated to hate Americans and to hate Jews.

Q The next generations of terrorists are already being bred. Isn't is true that regardless of how long it takes to win in Iraq or Afghanistan, the war on terror will never, ever truly be ended?

Q Mr. President --

Q -- Republican Presidents, going back to the Nixon administration, have strongly favored Indian self-determination.

Q American Indian self-determination and first-nation communities. And it seems like the conservative court, however, has been consistently eroding that self-determination. What has your administration -- what position does your administration take with respect to sovereignty and Native American rights?

Q Sorry about that. Mr. President --

Q -- I'm a pediatrician at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital across the street.

Q Pediatrician, yes, sir.

Q Yes, sir. Returning to a domestic item --

Q It is, sir. Thank you. Good to serve. One of the things that we're passionate about in pediatrics now, both at Rainbow and across the nation, is disaster preparedness and disaster response, specifically the needs of children. Could you comment, Mr. President, on how well-prepared we are as a nation for, God forbid, the next Katrina, or pandemic flu, or some such calamity?

Q Thanks, Mr. President. If you talk to a lot of neighborhood folks here in Cleveland, they'll say that there's a war on terror brewing in our neighborhoods with an increase in crime over the past few months.

Q What are your thoughts on how we can improve opportunity, and decrease crime in urban areas to make Cleveland an international metropolis?
Softballs, each and every one of them. Where were the protesters? Probably bared from attending the speech. More importantly, how many of today's questions were rigged and by whom?

Monday, July 09, 2007

Parsing Opinions With Tony: What's the Difference Between Lugar and Reid?

Tony the Snow job had a difficult time trying to explain that the Whitehouse was not having a debate with itself today. Moreover, he tried to paint Lugar as some one friendly to the Whitehouse, but we all know W got Lugar-ed a while not too long ago.

Have a look at how Tony tries to set up the Dems as worse than Lugar and ask yourself the following question: What's the difference between Lugar and Reid's position on the W, Rove and Co Iraq Democracy Experiement and why does it matter to Tony?
Q He said most U.S. troops can be pulled out by the middle of 2008, specifically. Do you agree with that?

MR. SNOW: We'll see. I mean, I'm not a general, I'm not going to try to play one.

Q He also said, "Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interest." Do you agree with that? Does that really show --

MR. SNOW: I think it's tied up with our vital national security interest. But I'm not going to -- again, I'm not going to get into a fight with --

Q But how can you say, as you did this morning, you're saying again that Republicans like Lugar are not necessarily opposing the White House when they're saying "our force in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interest" -- how does that agree with what you're saying?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, what you've done is -- we went through this last week, where you take one sentence, I'd cite another sentence -- I didn't bring the whole speech with me this time.

Q Well, he's got a speech -- it's 45 minutes. Is there a line in his speech that agrees with your policy?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think there -- the whole series of lines in there. Again, ask yourself what Dick Lugar wants to see. What he wants to see is an effective and integrated diplomatic effort within the region, which this administration has been trying to work through and has been working through. What he wants is more political progress on the ground with the Iraqis. What he wants is better training and capability on the part of the Iraqis. He wants al Qaeda to lose. He wants the Iraqi people to win. I think there are substantial areas of agreement here.

Q Sure, but he's saying that the course you're taking is not succeeding in those endeavors, so --

MR. SNOW: No, he's -- again, we have just started the course. The course has just begun.

Q He is saying time is running out. But he's not a Democrat, he's a Republican, a very senior one saying --

MR. SNOW: I understand that --

Q -- time is running out.

MR. SNOW: I understand that, Ed.

Q But is the White House in denial about that, then?

MR. SNOW: No, the White House is not in denial about the fact, but I think you're in denial about the fact that in the overall contours, there's just not that much disagreement. If you want disagreement, you compare what he's saying with what Harry Reid is saying. If you want a disagreement, you take a look at what Dick Lugar has been saying and what Democratic leaders have been saying, by and large.

What Dick Lugar is trying to do -- and I think this is a sensible thing -- is to try to lower the temperature and find a way where you can get some bipartisan conversations, because in many cases, people have dug in their heels, saying, the President is for it, we're going to be against it. And he understands that if you try to look at this through strictly a political lens, you run a very high risk of ignoring the fact that our national security really is under assault by the forces of terror, and it's important to succeed in Iraq because, as I pointed out this morning, what begins in Iraq, whether it is a Democratic renaissance or a victory in the war on terror, does not end there. And what we want to make sure is that the seed that gets planted is the seed of democracy and not the one of terror and tyranny.

Q I need to correct the record, Tony, because you quoted me and you quoted me incorrectly.

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry.

Q You said that I said everyone agrees with what the President said. I didn't say that.

MR. SNOW: No, no, I didn't say that. You said everybody agrees with those benchmarks. I did not have --

Q I didn't even say that.

MR. SNOW: You didn't?

Q What I said is that everyone agrees what the President said, not that they agree with him.
Oh, and who is playing partisan politics if it's not Tony? Dems bad, GOP Good no matter how much criticism the GOP Senator slings at the W? I see.

Protecting the "Fundamental Interest of the Presidency?"

Found an interesting letter from the President's hired gun, Fred Fielding. In it he asserts that the President is acting out of good faith and trying to protect a
...fundamental interest of the Presidency: the necessity that a President receive candid advice from his advisors and that those advisors be able to communicate freely and openly with the President, with each other, and with others inside and outside the Executive Branch.
But this really just cements for me the suspicion that the President has great heaping piles of manure to hide under his fancy oval office carpeting he had his wife design for him.

If he really had nothing to fear about what they would say, he would let them testify on the record. It appears to me that the President is hiding behind "executive privilege" not to save the presidency, but to save his own shiny white ass that most can see through his new clothes.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Fred Thompson; "Dumb As Hell!"

Apparently, Nixon didn't think too highly of Fred Thompson. Sure we can go to the archive ourselves and find the out takes, if you like. But here's a snip or two:

Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called "dumb as hell." The president did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee's Democratic counsel...

..."Fred (Thompson) and Baker carried water for the White House, but I have to give them credit — they were watching out for their interests, too," Kutler said. "They weren't going to mindlessly go down the tubes for this guy.
Nice GOP contender, eh?

Tax and Spend Vs. No Tax And Spend Anyway

The President is busy deploying his usual smoke and mirror magic when it comes to propagating his claim of fiscal responsibility. But with the news that the number of Contractors on the government dole in Iraq out number the GIs this week, it's obvious why the W segments his speeches the way he does.

It's all about "truthiness," isn't it? But we've learned that as in the past, even if it sounds true doesn't make it so.

In today's Presidential Radio Address (come on, you know you listen...admit it...in a closet under the stairs so no one knows), W and his crack team of propaganda writers will have you believe that if Congress controls the purse, it's a bad thing. Moreover, he suggests, one more time that tax and spend is the wrong way to go, versus what? Borrow and spend, which is the de facto practice for the W, Rove and Co.

Fiscally we are so far down the toilet, I don't know how any one will be able to pull us out with rusty plunger without taxing the crap out of the people.
Next week, my Administration will release a report called the Mid-Session Review, which will provide you with an update on our Nation's progress in meeting the goal of a balanced budget. We know from experience that when we pursue policies of low taxes and spending restraint, the economy grows, tax revenues go up, and the deficit goes down.

Democratic leaders in Congress want to take our country down a different track. They are working to bring back the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past. The Democrats' budget plan proposes $205 billion in additional domestic spending over the next five years and includes the largest tax increase in history. No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity. And I have made it clear that I will veto any attempt to take America down this road.
Simply because the president says something doesn't make it so. Ask the man for proof that tax and spend is a failed policy and then see if he can deliver. I'm not taking W on faith and neither should you, because leadership by faith over fact has gotten us into Iraq with no means of extraction.

Accordingly, the American people and any one who wishes to lead them will look bad according to the rubric set up by the President - paying your way as you go, it seems, is less responsible than borrowing your future. But ask any person who has to file for bankruptcy how shameful that practice really is. If I ran my household budget like the W runs our country, I would be in the poor house and on the street so fast, the screen door would have slapped me on the ass on the way out.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Do You Accept The Whitehouse's Definition of Success In Iraq?

I was searching the Whitehouse web location for any comment on the recent court decision that landed in their favor, but could find none. Even so, I found decent comment from yet another of W's spokesmodels. See what you think:
Q Tony, what's the definition of success of the surge? And what's the next stage if the surge is not successful?

MR. FRATTO: The definition of success of the surge is that there is a sufficient amount of breathing space. And by that, we mean basic security and basic delivery of services in Iraq; that the political leadership can make the reforms that they need to make in order to move Iraq to a more functioning society.

And so that means that for -- to give them the opportunity to make the political reforms that they need to make. A lot of the benchmarks that we talk about passing -- passing the oil law, de-Baathification, and training Iraqi forces to do more work on the ground -- now, we're seeing an incredible amount of progress on training up Iraqi troops. And what we're hearing from our generals on the ground is that some places there are mixed results from that, but in more places than we have seen in the past, we're seeing Iraqi troops who are willing to fight and die for this government.

Now that's a pretty important factor in this equation. If Iraqi troops are signing up to join Iraqi defense forces, they're getting trained and they're willing to fight and die and work to hold the areas that we're clearing, those are important factors and we want to see that continue. And that's a measure of progress.

So there won't be one crowning event that says, okay, now we are finally successful in Iraq. I think it's going to be a little bit more of an evolutionary process. But you know, you'll know it when you see it. And I think you'll know it when your colleagues, who are out there on the ground reporting out of Iraq, are able to go down the street and do walking tours of a neighborhood and talk to residents in some degree of safety, and talk to Iraqi officials outside of the Green Zone. And it will be those kinds of things. So I think we'll know it, but we're not going to know it on one specific day. That's not going to work --
How's that for a definition of success? Seem atainable?

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Statutes, Laws, and Technicalities: W's Crack Team of Propagandist Drag Clinton Out of Mothballs Again As a Basis Of Comparison

Statues, laws, and other technicalities are important for most Americans, at least those who get pulled over by the cops for what ever minor (or major) transgression. But for the W, Rove and Co, these things appear to be minor inconveniences to be usurped if it's what they want. Certainly, the Libby commutation is not going to wash clean here.

If you were trying to circumnavigate the following legal technicality, do you think you would get away with this? Have a look:
Q So he's issued a new one on July 3rd. Have you read that?

MR. STANZEL: I have not.

Q Okay, it says: "Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should only occur after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment."

MR. STANZEL: Well --

Q He didn't serve in any prison time, right?

MR. STANZEL: Correct. But the judge -- it's our view that the judge, the attorneys and the probation office can work out the reporting date, and whether it is technically regarded as probation or supervised release in light of the commutation. So the President has been clear in this. He believes that Mr. Libby should serve two years under probation office supervision, pursuant to the conditions and all other components of the June 22nd order.

Q But you're saying, technically, it could be probation. The President didn't say any technicalities. The President clearly told the American people at Walter Reed --

MR. STANZEL: He did.

Q -- this is going to be probation.

MR. STANZEL: Correct.

Q His judge is saying, hmm, maybe not.

MR. STANZEL: Well, we believe the attorneys and the judge and the probation office can work out those details.

Q But, work out details -- I mean, the President is making the case it's not a slap on the wrist because there's going to be probation.


Q And the judge is saying, no, if you look at the statute, that's not what's going to happen.

MR. STANZEL: Well, it's our view that in the reading of the law and the order on the 22nd, that that is the way it should be.
Ah, who cares if the statues don't allow for what a president wants. Make is so! Hi, ho...but if this were you or me, would this fly for us? Doubtful.

Of course, the W, Rove and Co is busy trying to compare themselves to the Clinton administration again. Come to think of it, if you really don't aspire to be like the Clinton's why do they always drag him out of mothballs as a standard by which they should be measured?

Have a look:
"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

In his commutation decision, Bush left a $250,000 fine. Libby paid the fine on Thursday.

Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby's name.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.

"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Conyers said the hearings would include pardons made by Clinton, former President Bush and possibly other past presidents. "We won't need to review each and every one of them, but the whole idea is to examine to what use this part of our criminal law is being put and whether it's being used adequately or are their other changes necessary," Conyers told Fox News Radio.
Come on Tony, the "compare us to Clinton" excuse is really getting stale as a means of arguing a point. Statutes are statutes, and laws are laws...for you, me, and the president, and especially his buddies, of whom should be held to a higher ethical standard, no?

Nothing New Coming From The Big Dick

I popped over to the Veep's (The Big Dick Cheney) web location to see if he had anything "public" to say about Scooter being hand delivered a "get out of jail free" card by the W. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

I did, however, find this short sentence provided in the opening paragraph on his home page:
Throughout his service, Mr. Cheney served with duty, honor, and unwavering leadership, gaining him the respect of the American people during trying military times.
Thus, we have proven once again that the W, Rove and Co. is completely out of touch with the American people and that simply because something is stipulated on the Big Dick's web location doesn't make it true. Don't you love leadership by faith over fact?

Good News For W's Iraq Democracy Experiment?

I know folks are mainly down on the war in Iraq, and the Global War on Terror, but here's a bit of good news:
The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government's capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.

More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq.

The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq — a mission criticized as being undermanned.
Let's do the math real quickly. If we are paying 180,000 contractors, and 160,000 soldiers, that makes 340,000 employees of the W, Rove and Co just located in Iraq. Thus, job employment numbers are up! This is good news, right?

But, I have a few questions. First,how are we paying these people? And, if we can't tell who is a terrorist and who is an Iraqi contractor, how do we know we are not paying terrorists disguised as contractors who may walk in to mess halls with the proper credentials and blow themselves up surrounded by "good guys?"

Oh, and I have another question, at what number do we out-size the available workforce in the entire country? In other words, how can we expect them to "stand up so we can stand down" if they only have X number of natives willing to do the same work and that number X is substantially smaller than 340,000 and filled with crippled people who are victims of the violence?

At some point, the "occupation" itself is proving that there is no hope at all left for Iraq. There is no way the original notion of the Iraqis taking care of themselves can ever be realized. Sure, one can wish and hope for it, but the reality is particularly dim in my view. This, once again, is part of the bait and switch ruse perpetrated by the W, Rove and Co providing further evidence that this Iraq Democracy Experiment is not worth the investment.

Even so, this doesn't prevent W from standing in front of another military audience and try to twist the situation to his political advantage:
For the past six and a half years, it's been a privilege to be the President of such a good and decent nation that inspires and holds out hope to people all across the world. It's an awesome experience, and a humbling experience to hold a powerful office like President. It brings with it the great honor of being the Commander-in-Chief of the finest military the world has ever known. (Applause.) Because of the service of our military men and women, because our nation has got a military full of the bravest and most decent people that I've ever met, America remains a beacon of hope for all around the world; America remains the place where peace has the best chance to be encouraged.
Excuse me? "A beacon of hope?" If that were true, why is it that so many people want to kill us?

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Who Need Activist Judges When You Have A President In Your Pocket?

Of course, The W was trying to avoid his Libby decision today by pasting purple hearts on wounded GIs while attempting to soothe his damaged conscience. Even so, the decision by W to commute Libby's sentence brings up several questions, not the least of which is who has whom over a barrel.
Q Mr. President, are you willing to rule out that you will eventually pardon Scooter Libby?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I had to make a very difficult decision. I weighed this decision carefully. I thought that the jury verdict should stand. I felt the punishment was severe, so I made a decision that would commute his sentence, but leave in place a serious fine and probation. As to the future, I rule nothing in or nothing out.

Q Mr. President, federal sentencing guidelines call for jail time in these kinds of cases of perjury and obstruction of justice. Why do you feel otherwise, and are you worried that this decision sends a signal that you won't go to jail if you lie to the FBI?

THE PRESIDENT: I took this decision very seriously on Mr. Libby. I considered his background, his service to the country, as well as the jury verdict. I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand, and I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand. But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe; made a judgment, a considered judgment that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it.
The reason why W didn't pardon Libby is quite the conundrum. Perhaps, they need to have some kind of leverage over Libby to keep him from telling all or spurring that faulty memory that seems to plague all W, Rove and Co appointees as they testify in front of various panels.

Or conversely, perhaps it's Libby who is managing a quid pro quo arrangement so that he stays out of jail in exchange for taking his secrets to the grave. In another plausible scenario, the Big Dick Cheney may be playing political hardball to keep from being impeached. And still another scenario might be that Rove is pulling all the political strings trying to stop him and his boss from getting hung out to dry.

Whichever way; it's a tangled web. Who is the spider? Who is the fly? Where does that leave the American People?

Of course, Tony the Snow job spent the greater portion of today's Whitehouse press briefing trying to explain his master's decision. Have a look:
Q Is the President's decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby -- is that the final word in this case, or does he leave the door open for a pardon later?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way. The President thinks that he has dealt with the situation properly. There is always a possibility, or there's an avenue open for anybody to petition for consideration of a pardon. As far as we know, that's not been done; we don't know if it's contemplated by Scooter Libby or his defense team. But this is -- the President has put together what he thinks is the proper approach and the proper way of dealing with this case.

Q Tony, did the Vice President weigh in?

MR. SNOW: My guess is that -- I don't have direct knowledge, Ed. But on the other hand, the President did consult with most senior officials and I'm sure that everybody had an opportunity to share their views.

Q Why didn't he consult with Justice Department officials? Officials in his own Justice Department say normally someone would at least serve some jail time before a sentence is actually commuted. Why didn't he consult with his own Justice Department?

MR. SNOW: Well, a couple of things. First, quite often when you're dealing with sentences of this sort, they also have to deal with, as you point out, sentences that are ongoing or sometimes cases that have gotten a bit stale and people are trying to refresh their memories about the particulars of the case. The same would be true of the prosecutor, because they're quite often consulted for the same reason. Here you have a case that's still ongoing in the court system. It's not like people's memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances. The Attorney General, himself, was recused, as you know, in this case.

But the answer, Ed, is that it is certainly -- in some cases, people do such consultations. In this case -- and they do it for the reasons I've just cited. These tend to be, can you go back and fill me in on what happened in that case. If you take a look at the rash of pardons and commutations at the end of the Clinton era, a lot of that was people running around trying to find paperwork to figure out what the facts were. So let me just --

Q Well, why no jail time, though?

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, what?

Q The jail time issue -- normally, somebody at least serves a day in jail, a week in jail, a month in jail.

MR. SNOW: Because the President thought the jail time, in fact, was inappropriate, and therefore, he decided to --

Q I thought he said the jail time was excessive, the sentence was excessive. He didn't say it was inappropriate.
Of course, it's all politics. They are still trying to smear Joe Wilson, for no particular reason given that the case against the W, Rove and Co is about the outing of a CIA Agent, not whether Joe Wilson was correct in his accusations (which by the way have not been proven false, and the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq, notwithstanding).
Q Why not? It's over now. You didn't want to talk about it then. Let's talk about it now. Do you think the American people are owed something because of the breach?

MR. SNOW: Number one, there is still considerable controversy about the facts of the case, including Joe Wilson's veracity. Number two, there is also --

Q What's in question about his veracity? Detail that, please.

MR. SNOW: There is also -- just, very quickly, you take a look at the Senate reports, his characterization of who sent him over and what he told people when he was in Niger is at direct odds with what he attempted to tell the American public.

Q That has nothing to do with leaking the name of --

MR. SNOW: I'm just --

Q She's making a good point.

MR. SNOW: I'm answering her question, which she raised --

Q But she's making a good point.

Q You're arguing a different case.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm arguing --

Q The apology that the American people may want -- some may want --

MR. SNOW: I understand.

Q -- has to do with the fact that the White House allowed for a breach. And doesn't Libby owe the President an apology?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not -- this is -- number one, I believe the investigation found that the White House was not the source of the breach. Number two, the President has said that it is --

Q But it's part of the Bush administration.

MR. SNOW: -- the President has said it is inappropriate to have such breaches, and has apologized for them. So beyond that --

Q When did he apologize?

MR. SNOW: I think he said to the American people -- gave an apology, but --
We aren't getting apologies, but I think some kind of harsh penelty should be issued rather than just asking for an apology. And what of Uncle Karl?
Q Tony, one point that is not in dispute is that Karl Rove was involved in the leak, in some way he was involved. He talked to at least two reporters who ended up publishing this information. In 2004, the President said -- he didn't talk about convictions or anything -- he said he would fire anyone in this White House who was involved in the leak. We now know Karl Rove was involved; he did not fire him.

MR. SNOW: There are two things to note. We have also said that we do not -- we are not going to make comments in detail until the legal process is over. And it is not; there is still an appeal through --

...Q Tony, you didn't answer the question about Karl Rove, though. So why wasn't Karl Rove fired?

MR. SNOW: The reason I said that is because you're asking a question that still may be arising -- may be a subject of inquiry and ongoing --

Q How many years is it going to take? I mean, the President made that statement in 2004....

...Q How does this square with the President saying, anybody who leaks in my White House, anybody who doesn't follow the law, is not going to work for me?

MR. SNOW: Well, once we get -- once we get final determination on that, we'll deal with it. By the way, Karl was not accused of breaking any laws. He was not, in fact, indicted on anything. So you've got -- there's a lot of contention in this, but you also need to stick with the fact record.

Q The President set a lower standard first. He didn't say about breaking the law, he said involved in leaking the identity. So you've changed the standard --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I was just -- I was responding to that particular question. Again, when we get final clarity on this through the judicial system, I'll answer the question.
And here's where the veneer of the President's moral character cracks for me:
Q How does this square with the President saying, anybody who leaks in my White House, anybody who doesn't follow the law, is not going to work for me?

MR. SNOW: Well, once we get -- once we get final determination on that, we'll deal with it. By the way, Karl was not accused of breaking any laws. He was not, in fact, indicted on anything. So you've got -- there's a lot of contention in this, but you also need to stick with the fact record.

Q The President set a lower standard first. He didn't say about breaking the law, he said involved in leaking the identity. So you've changed the standard --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I was just -- I was responding to that particular question. Again, when we get final clarity on this through the judicial system, I'll answer the question.
What you find is a double standard, exposed for all to see. That is, if you are friends with the President or the Big Dick, you get your "get out of jail free" card. But if you are any one else, you get some jail time. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is:
Q Does he think prison for perjury is excessive?

MR. SNOW: -- as did a parole board. As did the parole board. So I'm simply telling you that -- what you're trying to do is to set up a false distinction here as -- acting as if this were not the sort of punishment that would be meted out in a perjury case. It is.

Q I'm asking you, if someone else perjures himself --

Q -- say that it was excessive.

MR. SNOW: It said that, in fact, the -- consistent with the guidelines that it talked about, for the general use of guidelines in mitigated circumstances, and it goes in some length into those considerations.

Q I'd like to know, if someone else perjures himself, someone unknown to the President, does the President believe that prison time for that offense is excessive?

MR. SNOW: It depends on the circumstances surrounding the case.

Q And so what is it about these circumstances that --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get you -- beyond what we've said, I'm just not going to play the game.

Q But is one day, even one day in prison excessive for this kind of a crime? I mean, people have spent time in prison for --

MR. SNOW: No, no -- this crime. This crime.

Q This crime, yes.

MR. SNOW: Not this kind of crime; this crime.

Q One day is too much for this particular crime?

MR. SNOW: The President decided that it was too much for this one.

Q Why not some jail time served, as was --

MR. SNOW: Tell me why.

Q I'm asking you.

MR. SNOW: No, it sounds to me like --

Q -- obstruction of justice, is why --

MR. SNOW: You don't think --

Q -- convicted of obstruction of justice.

Q For lying, perjury.

Q Perjury.

Q He was convicted of -- am I right? He was convicted of obstruction of justice.

Q He was convicted of perjury. He lied about leaking.

MR. SNOW: -- running high in the press room today.

Q No, you're trying to take the logical and change it around and make -- you're insulting our intelligence.

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. What I've tried to do is to insert a little nuance into a conversation that continues to try to create broad generalizations that can be used, frankly, to twist the case out of context.

Q Does Scooter Libby owe the President something now?

MR. SNOW: What Scooter Libby is doing is paying a debt to society.

Q Does he owe the President not to give -- ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to try to get into what he owes or doesn't owe. I mean, that's -- ask Scooter Libby what he thinks he owes.

Q Should he just be happy right now that his sentence was commuted, and he should not come back and ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: You know, again, I am not going to get in -- tell somebody their business. I will remind you that this is a guy, again, who has a felony conviction, a $250,000 fine, two years probation, and basically has lost the way he has built a living in his entire life. That is pretty significant punishment.

Q Book deal, right?

MR. SNOW: I love the fact that everybody thinks folks get rich off books. I like Scooter, but I'm not sure that's one that's going to go flying off the shelves.
I'm not making this shit up. It's astonishing the pedantic nature of how Tony twists the rhetoric to his advantage and mockery laced through out his commentary. He must think the American People are absolute morons and depending on the fact that we don't know what kind of trickery they have going on here.