Tony Snow Presents: Catch-22
By Lee Russ
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 08:36 PM
White House spokesman Tony Snow had a doozy of a news conference Wednesday, mainly about the House Judiciary Committee's vote to refer contempt charges against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten.
In his introductory remarks, he actually had the gall to say this (emphasis added):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.That's pretty clever alliteration--insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations indeed--but the rest is pure Snow job. "[N]obody has cited or recited anything that they think they've been denied" is as Catch-22 as they come. You can only have the material if you can describe it, and you can't describe it because we won't tell you what it looks like....
Now, this White House remains committed to the principle that we are willing to accommodate members of Congress. They have legitimate oversight interest, and we have made available any individuals and any facts that would be necessary for them to conduct their deliberations. Interestingly enough, nobody has cited or recited anything that they think they've been denied. Instead, there has been constantly, and it seems, a desire to provoke a confrontation.
The White House happily acknowledges that reams of stuff (not to mention people) have not been handed over because it's protected, they claim, by executive privilege. And you can't disprove it, because we don't have to tell you what it involves--no privilege log, nothing. And if you think that this itself means there's something suspicious, well, then, you're engaging in distrustful innuendo and insinuations.
The rest of the press conference didn't go much better. Here are some of the more notable Snowisms (again, emphasis added):
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?In a public forum, in front of cameras and microphones, an official representative of the President of the United States said congress has not been denied a shred of evidence, despite: White House refusal to hand over hordes of documents because of executive privilege, White House refusal to describe the withheld documents in a way that would demonstrate why they fall under the privilege and allow a court to determine if the privilege claim is valid, and despite the loss of God knows how many official communications in the form of e-mails that, so far, have disappeared altogether.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.
Q -- he testify under oath last year, under oath, and say that there was no disagreement within the Bush administration over the terrorist surveillance program, and yet, James Comey, who was the acting Attorney General, come out and say, actually there was a major disagreement.
MR. SNOW: James Comey did not mention the terrorist surveillance program. ...
Q On the citations, rhetoric aside, you all will have to choose a response. And so is that response going to be to enforce them, or to go to court?
...
MR. SNOW: -- the decision-making authority in this falls to the Department of Justice. They'll make the decision.
Q With absolutely no input from the White House? We can hold you to that, when that decision is made, that the White House will have zero input into it?
MR. SNOW: Well, at this point it's being done out of the Department of Justice. ...
MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is that there have been all these hearings on the Attorney General and yet nobody has really laid a glove on him. What you do is you have complaints, but there is yet to be any specific allegation. Instead what you have is a demand for more and more intrusive looks into the internal workings of the White House. Again, look at all the pages here, look at all the hearings. It is as if they keep throwing mud against the wall, hoping something is going to stick.
Frankly, if you have something solid and you think you do, invite the people up, ask the questions. Everybody has been made available. You have not been denied a shred of information. I've yet to hear anybody say any piece of information that they have been denied.
Gall. That's spelled S N O W.
Comments
OMG! "Partisanship* on Capitol Hill!" Say it ain't so!
Next week TS discovers gravity.
*Partisanship: when Dems and/or reality contradict Gooper constructs. (definition from Prescott Bush's protean tome "I Love Me Some Fascists")
"*Partisanship: when Dems and/or reality contradict Gooper constructs. (definition from Prescott Bush's protean tome "I Love Me Some Fascists")"
It always fascinates me, when partisans demonstrate hatred for their political opponents; with the effort to elevate their party using sneering euphemism(s) to describe their "enemy". Wry and bitter irony.
I think Bush was negligent when he became president, this time around, because he did NOT fire all of Clinton's appointed prosecutors, again after the first in 2000. Bush has a lot of such criticism against his presidency; e.g., allowing Brady to remain in effect, failing to fulfill his promise for tax reform (not its rate), and permitting some of these prosecutors to attempt constitutional infringement by zealously attacking 2d amendment defenses. Thank heaven that one was fired!
All 8 are partisan hacks, and the Leftist/Democratics know it, and that is why they fulfill Snow's claims -- by attacking the messenger in this case -- and avoiding the truth that it is all about partisan efforts to force public confrontation. To belittle political opponents in order to elevate the partisan gang uber alles, and no limit to the sneering calumny used to do so.
This thread is an unconscious, prime example!
"All 8 are partisan hacks, and the Leftist/Democratics know it"
How nonpartisan of you! And fully supported by facts, right? If they were partisan hacks, they were Republican partisan hacks, all 8 having been appointed by Bush.
"I think Bush was negligent when he became president, this time around, because he did NOT fire all of Clinton's appointed prosecutors..."
Really? That's not what Kyle Sampson himself said:
In a March 4 memo titled "Draft Talking Points," Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, "The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?"
That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said.
Lee gets obvious, "How nonpartisan of you!"
Unreal! Of course, any response in the face of your partisanship (watching the watchers my buttocks) could be characterized as partisan! Even though I criticized Bush's presidency in several instances!
"If they were partisan hacks, they were Republican partisan hacks, all 8 having been appointed by Bush."
Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush, does that make him a Republican; non-partisan? Obviously NOT! Indeed, they actively defied the president in not pursuing voter fraud cases which they had been told to go forward on . . . The *facts* support their partisanship -- not their loyalty as faithful members of the Republican party.
That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said.
This is specious to my comment, and since I meant at the time of his election, and as you know very well . . .
The fact remains -- the president can appoint and remove these attorneys for any reason, and any reason given is sufficient to accomplish that reality. Gonzales is just another target for the Democratics to use to elevate themselves by destroying an opponent. Any "excuse" for them to do so, real or invented, is sufficient, and that is because ...
The Leftist/Democrats have adopted the philosophy, not seen in such blatant use since Krystalnacht when the Jews were made public enemy number 1, that the ends justify the means . . .
People's Progressive Democratic Party uber alles!
Now try to thnk for a moment.
You said "All 8 are partisan hacks." All 8 were appointed by Bush. You claim (with your usual zero support) that they refused to pursue legitimate voter fraud claims. How, even in your world, does that make them "partisan." You think they're undercover agents for "the left?" Or are you on your Nazi kick today?
"since I meant at the time of his election."
And what did Sampson mean?
Just for the record, if I was the editor of this site, you wouldn't be allowed on it unless you made sense. You add nothing but a sad, cloying distraction, all while attempting to portray yourself as the victim of attacks by either commies or fascists.
ADOWE, TADOWE,
it's off to work we go,
with an insult here
and no logic there,
TADOWE, TADOWE, TADOWE.
Adios amigo.
Lee says, "... How, even in your world, does that make them 'partisan.'"
I didn't say that alone did, but that can certainly be presumed from the mutinous behavior they displayed. However, the president doesn't need an excuse to fire these attorneys -- that is the lying claim of you on the Left. Not pursuing the cases that were emphasized to be accomplished provides an excellent REASON to dismiss them. A situation you can't deny or refute. Instead, you attempt to attack anyone who might mention that you are virtually lying in your claims and hysterical expostulations.
"You think they're undercover agents for "the left?" Or are you on your Nazi kick today?"
I'm on a show facetious leftists-up-for-the-liars-they-are kick
"Just for the record, if I was the editor of this site, you wouldn't be allowed on it unless you made sense."
I posted the law, and where there are no restrictions to firing these presidentially appointed attorneys. All your efforts to revile and dehumanize this administration and Attorney General is calumny; plain and simple (and in its most pejorative sense).
This is playing politics with the MOB, in order to gain advantage by literally lying about this effort. That's it, that's all . . . and it is your side (Leftist/Democratics) which is making no sense and applying the tactics of personal destruction, and the-ends-justify-the-means philosophy so well used by NAZI Germany.
I know you would ban my commentary because that's what Leftist tyrannists do - ban speech they don't approve of!
Watching li'l Taddles go from...
It always fascinates me, when partisans demonstrate hatred for their political opponents; with the effort to elevate their party using sneering euphemism(s) to describe their "enemy
one minute to this in the next...
People's Progressive Democratic Party uber alles!"
And then he wonders why nobody ever takes him seriously.
Of course, that's all kinda appropos fer this Phoney Baloney Tony Snow Job thread. Taddles has about as much credibility as Tony Snow and neither of them deserve to taken seriously. Jon Stewart had a field day with this one, of course. Poking fun at Snowjobs absurd alliterative nonsense. Spud's favorite part is when Stewart does that split screen thing where a Tony clip from a coupla weeks ago contradicts a Tony clip from today. That some funny stuff. The hubris of these guys is over-whelming at times. Hundreds and thousands of missing e-mails in the Gonzogate investigation alone and they claim they've handed over all neccessary records and people. Do they think we're that stupid? Really? Wow just wow.
Be Well.