Does it ever astound you that Snow doesn't actually gag when he lets those whoppers out of his mouth? I mean, last time I had a serious cold, I horked up some ugly things, but it was always a noisy and unpleasent process - and Snow does it in public, with a bunch of folks watching, and barely seems embarrassed.

Do you think he lacks a gene, or something?

Colbert did a better job with this rif on Wednesday.

Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; Atthepleasureofthepresident; and Atthepleasureofthepresident.

Aren't they just digging a really, really, really deep hole for the president with all the "serves at the pleasure of the president" comments?

I mean, if it does come out that some prosecutors were pushed out because of certain politically touchy criminal investigations regarding Republicans, then the president is going to have lots of 'splainin to do about how those cases displeased him.

Of course Tony Snow doesn't mind telling so many great big whoppers of lies. His previous job was with Fox News Channel.

did you read carefully, and keep count of the categories of importance...?

didja get 'em all...?

covering bush's ass and kissing it as required...

1) [W]e all serve at the pleasure of the president
2) We're loyal to the president in that sense
3) [We] follow the principles and priorities of the administration (see #'s 1 & 2)

serving as stewards of the commonwealth...

1) [P]erform the public trust

are we clear...? good...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

"At the pleasure of the president" repeated ad nauseum clearly came from the same mind that thought up "cut and run," "stay the course," bring 'em on," "mission accomplished," and all the rest of their verbal manure that passes for thought in this WH.

Let's be clear what ATPOTP is really intended to do - just like all those other meaningless phrases, the sole takeaway is to remind the masses that Bush can do whatever he wants. So Dems are really overstepping their bounds here. Sad to say, but if Rove, et al has determined that the public can only think in three to four word phrases, how's about the Dems start tossing around phrases like, oh I don't know, "impeachable offense," "abuse of power," and "plea bargain."

That also means to follow the principles and the priorities of the administration.

Mr Snow the principles and priorites of the adminsitration is LOYALTY above all else. Thats the re-occuring problem.

>> But if somebody has difficulty, or somebody decides, for reasons of conscience or whatever, that they disagree with the key priority, whether it be like something like the death penalty <<

Imposing the death penalty is a *key priority*? Does that seem weird and out of proportion to anyone else but me?

Hmmm, but then again, I guess I shouldn't have underestimated the talent this crew has for getting the priorities the wrong way around:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/10/10_405.html

Didn't Snow just come out and say exactly what the administration was doing, exactly why they did it? If an AG won't work the way the pres wants, that AG gets fired. The law's not important, the system of checks and balances isn't important, only fealty to the president's agenda.

Snow was being very upfront about what's going on. This is a dictatorship that Bush is running and you're either with him or against him.

I think that "death penalty" priority thing is bogus. I looked it up yesterday, there are only fifty federal death row inmates, one or two per state. (Fifty may be fifty too many, depending on point of view). But federal death prosecutions are exceedingly rare to begin with, it seems to me, so how come it's such a priority? Maybe just so it can sound super-duper serious?

I like the differences in the 3 spokesman so far.

Fleischer probably didn't like lying to the press every day, and probably got sick of it.

McClellan might not have liked it, but he got used to it, and got good at it.

Snow loves lying to the press!

Given Tony Snow's comment:
"But if somebody has difficulty, or somebody decides, for reasons of conscience or whatever, that they disagree with the key priority, whether it be like something like the death penalty or pornography statutes or whatever, that's certainly a suitable basis for review."

I'm sure that this means that he, and the administration, would support the firing of pharmacists who "for reasons of conscience or whatever" refuse to fill legal prescriptions. Right?

Of course, normal people use the term "competent" to describe someone who is "doing their job" adequately.

Perhaps this statement is truly revealing, as it shows what we all know: as far as this bunch is concerned, "loyalty" has always been used in place of "competence."

Use of the technical legal term "covert" is a mistake. It plays into GOP hands. They are arguing the fine point of whether Valerie Wilson was "covert," which involves 5-year terms, etc. That is beside the point. I suggest using a layman's term that is easy to understand, such as "secret" or "undercover." Then it becomes clear that White House and State Department officials took the disgusting, treasonous act of disclosing the secret, undercover identity of a CIA operative in order to push back on a political argument and hide Cheney's role in the hyping of false intelligence in order to sell us the Iraq War.

theexog:
I think you are so right-on with your comment, I hope someone picks up on it. They are *supposed* to be PUBLIC servants, not Bushie's servants. The ones who were fired were clearly in the minority in understanding that and should be praised for it.
Bush better be carefully because he ultimately serves at *our* pleasure We may just have to impeach his sorry a$$.

the ol' "death penalty/pornography defense...nice!

what a bunch of tools...

'Loyalty = Performance, and Performance = Loyalty'

It's like surreal, dude.

Orwell is looking down on what fools we mortals be.
Recall "1984": Love = Hate War = Peace

He knew. He knew.
Did we listen?
Noooooooooooooooo!

Does anyone else think this whole Plame thing was intentionally created to divert attention from the real problems we have going on with this administration??

It's helpful, I think, to frame these discussions with a quick glance at what happens in the real world. It's a single, anecdotal account, but illuminating nonetheless.

As a uniformed Honolulu police officer working the streets of Waikiki almost 30 years ago, I was part of a team which caught an armed suspect exiting the museum at Fort DeRussy, the US Army's rest and recreation center. This property is controlled by the Department of Defense, and a subject to what is termed joint jurisdiction: both the Federal government and local county and state authorities have responsibilities regarding law enforcement, with primary responsibility ceded to the Federal government, and application largely determined by the status of an offender. In this case, the offender was a civilian committing a felony offense on Federal property, armed with a handgun no less, and putting up a good deal of resistance to his apprehension.

In a short telephonic meeting with a representative of the US Attorney for Hawaii at the time, a declination of prosecution was offered. They chose not to pursue an investigation or prosecution, and recommended that we deal with the offender. When I sarcastically posed the question of what we should do with the handgun, the recommendation was to return it to the offender then in custody! He was remanded to our custody, and ultimately indicted for burglary and tried before the state court system. Needless to say, he did not get the firearm back at any point.

I offer this to illustrate the freewheeling nature of matters handled by US Attorneys, and as an introduction to how far things have swung the other way. The present US Attorney for Hawaii less than two weeks ago tried to intervene in a purely local felony assault matter which occurred nowhere near Federal land, on the dubious basis that this serious assault was racially motivated and a hate crime.

It's ironic that state-rights traditionalists who historically frowned upon Federal intervention into state, county or local matters, now routinely do so. Laws have been passed which make it a Federal crime to possess relatively small amounts of marijuana or other drugs, to 'deal' in drugs at any level within short distances of a school, to treat virtually any combat between individuals as a hate crime, and US Attorneys suddenly are selectively emboldened to grab purely local matters out of the hands of local authorities. Local authorities likewise shop their non-Federal cases to the Department of Justice in order to insure longer prison terms for offenders, primarily drug offenders.

The entire system has become unbalanced and corrupted, particularly under Republic control at the Federal level. And why is this important, beside the fact that individuals are being inappropriately prosecuted and punished? It's because the decision to pursue criminal cases has effectively been shifted from local authorities and local offices of US Attorneys to the Department of Justice in Washington DC, which clearly has it's own priorities. One of those priorities, as you have doubtlessly become aware, is the snatching of local matters by US Attorneys at the direction of the Attorney General in a clumsy effort to lift the number of death penalty cases, and impose more death sentences under Federal guidelines.

Criminal justice at the Federal level has largely run amuck, cherry-picking cases for Federal intervention in accordance with the twisted 'priorities' of the Bush administrations Department of Justice. At the same time, it's clear that efforts are being made in Washington DC to quash legitimate actions by US Attorneys because those actions don't fit the approved prioritization scheme.

I will say it again: justice at the Federal level has become unbalanced and corrupted. It appears well on its way to becoming unhinged. And, this from conservatives, who apparently only value the rule of law when it's a convenient bludgeon to hammer their political opponents with. At least from the perspective of public safety and criminal justice, these are dark times that we live in.

You see, the problem with all this is, there's no penalty for lying. None. There is literally nothing tony snow could say that would get him in trouble worse than being fired. Then he just goes back to fox and collects more rnc money. There's no nervousness in constant stream of lies because he has nothing to worry about. If he tells the biggest whopper out there and tomorrow, it's proven unequivocally false, no big deal. No jail time. Certainly no grilling from the media (ok, maybe tersely worded question or two) but in essence, the man is, and should be given the circumstances, saying anything he pleases.

If Tony Snow was a prostitute, I'll bet he could charge a LOT.

Tony Snow...

....learned his "lyin' sack 'o shit" lessons very well, but then he was a star at Fox so that sorta 'splains it...Huh?

Nuncamas21:
of course, the death penalty issue is specious, just a buzzword for the true believers. Makes it sound like they were only trying to root out some damn liberals. Same applies to "not aggressive enough on immigration". Maybe in his first term, Bush made the mistake of appointing hordes of "compassionate conservatives", and now wants to take it back.

Tokyo Tony....

Bahgdad Snow

Please label this what it is: THE DAILY SNOWJOB

The thing that seperates Tony Snow from previous White House press secretaries is that he REALLY seems to enjoy the lying.

The firings of US attorney Carol C. Lam and Daniel Bogden were connected through one case that just so happened to be the first time the Patriot Act was used in a non-terrorism related case. The investigation, and the subsequently comprehensive search for financial records ended up getting Sheldon Adelson, the 6th richest man in the world and fervent Bush supporter, involved by highlighting $190,000 of contributions he gave to the now convicted ex-County Commissioner and Lobbyist Lance Malone. It is a highly complicated case that demonstrates that Mark Corallo, who has worked as spokesman for both Karl Rove and Attorney General Gonzales, and also at the Republican National Committee was most likely the go-between to help spur these firings on behalf of Sheldon Adelson.

Visit my blog for the story and for future updates: http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/2007/03/bogden-lam-gonzales-rove-corallo.html

As heavily noted, for the last two weeks, the number one comment that I have heard from the Republican Spin Machine has been (drum roll please...), "We serve at the pleasure of the President."

While this indeed may have validity per the letter of the law, what frustrates me is the inability of the Democrats to attack this comment head-on in a political fashion. Every time I consider this debate I am reminded wholeheartedly of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre," and dismayed by the Democrats' inability to place Bush in the same bright political spotlight that Nixon received from Congress in his dark days. The similarities in the two incidents are striking to me, and it blows my mind that no Democratic pundit or politician has clearly pointed this out in a mass media outlet so as to influence the conversation in the Democrats' favor. (To their credit, fine blogs like TPM have made this connection.)

For those of you who are a little young to remember this, first, a little background: in the Fall of 1973, Archbald Cox, the special independent prosecutor in charge of Watergate, subpoenaed Richard Nixon for copies of his taped conversations. After endless stonewalling and meaningless offers (remember the "Stennis Compromise"?), Nixon abruptly set into progress the events of October 20, 1973. Get this: based on his obvious frustration with Cox (who could be considered at the time certainly someone who "chafed against administration initiatives"!), Nixon ordered his then-Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Cox. Richardson refused to do so and then resigned in protest. Next, Nixon ordered then-Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He refused and was fired. The dirty job of firing Cox was left to the Solicitor General Robert Bork (yes, *the* Robert Bork). So on Sunday morning, the nation learned that it had lost its Attorney General, its Deputy Attorney General, and the Watergate special independent prosecutor.

Similar to the events in the US Attorney Purge Scandal, in my opinion the events of the Saturday Night Massacre were not illegal in and of themselves. According to the letter of the law, in my opinion, in each case the President had the right to do what he did.

What differs, however, is the ability and will that Congress had in 1973 to use this incident to further their agenda of admonishing an unpopular and untrustworthy President. Today, amidst a similarly dismal presidency and with a similarly deep arsenal of evidence, the Democrats and a few brave Republicans have been more or less ineffectual in imbuing the American people with the appropriate level of shock and concern?

On Meet the Press, when Tim Russert says parrots the old "pleasure of the President" line, where is Chuck Schumer saying, "Hey, look at the Saturday Night Massacre. These people served at the pleasure of the President but had their own ethical standards to follow too"? Then you turn the channel, and where is the next Democrat saying the same thing? As it relates to the media, the Democrats need to say, over and over,

1. Specifically, the US Attorney Purge = the Saturday Night Massacre (for the reasons noted above).

2. Generally, Bush = Nixon.

Look at the similarities: making unpopular decisions in an unpopular war; making unprecedented grabs at consolidating political power; viewing any attempts at debate as unambiguously unpatriotic; surrounding oneself with yes-men; and the unceasing lack of self-awareness. Seriously, an astute college senior majoring in political science could write a bang-up thesis on this.

For seven years, the White House Spin Machine has effectively hypnotized the American public by keeping the message short, simple, and repeating it often, thereby giving the casual observer of American politics something to hold on to. It is about time for the opposition to do the same thing.

Say it with me, Bush = Nixon, without nuance, and over and over.

Hopefully they will meet the same destiny.

hello