« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Snow: "How Would You Define 'Political Decision-Making'?
Tony Snow fielded more questions on the U.S. Attorney firings during the White House press briefing this afternoon.
He seemed to get caught on one question in particular:
Q The President said, "I've heard those allegations about political decision-making; it's just not true." How can he say that when he hasn't seen all the emails, emails continue to come out, and of those that have already come out, some of them clearly seem to show that at some level, at least, there was political decision-making?MR. SNOW: I'm not -- how would you define "political decision-making"?
Q Well, decision-making that involves politics.
Q How would you define it, Tony?
MR. SNOW: Well, it's a loaded term. I mean, I think what the President -- what the President is saying is that there is no -- that in evaluating U.S. attorneys, this is based on performance. And the important thing to do -- and furthermore, the Department of Justice made recommendations that the President has accepted. Also keep in mind, the President has the authority to remove people and put other folks in the job. That is at his discretion. That's presidential power.
Q But is he saying that he was so in the loop, then, that he definitely knew there was nothing political, or was he, in fact, removed, as you indicated this morning?
MR. SNOW: No, I think -- again, what the President has -- the Department of Justice has made recommendations, they've been approved. And it's pretty clear that these things are based on performance and not on sort of attempts to do political retaliation, if you will.
Update: There was also this:
Q Do you think the White House made any mistakes in this whole matter of the discussions over the firings? And particular, I'm wondering if Attorney General Gonzales was making statements to members of Congress, beginning in January, that later proved to be not exactly in line with the facts, weren't people in the White House aware of that?MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into extensive sort of fact witnessing....
Comments (21)
EH wrote on March 15, 2007 3:42 PM:That he even has to bring up "fact witnessing" means he knows he's walking subpoena'able line.
gcs wrote on March 15, 2007 3:48 PM:I think it's pretty clear the WH is terrified of this story for a very simple reason: It's easy for the average Joe to understand. Big involved complicated intrigues based on little understoof rules are easy to get away with because the public doesn't get it.
But firing prosecutors because they didn't do the political bidding of the WH by bringing Democrats up on bogus charges? Oh, man that's so easy to sell to an angry electorate. An angry electorate that voted loudly and clearly that it was done with Republican leadership.
The arrogance of the WH shouldn't surprise anyone on this though. They refused to listen to Congress, or the UN, or our allies, or Bush senior, or his people, or the Iraq Study Group. So what makes anyone think they're going to listen to the people?
cfaller96 wrote on March 15, 2007 3:58 PM:gcs, I don't know if "terrified" is the right word to describe their behavior on this. I think they're getting their first taste of a hostile, Democratic Congress with subpoena power. They've never had to deal with that before, so, naturally, they're walking around making a ton of mistakes, and getting quite irritable about having to answer all these "inconvenient" questions.
Personally, I'm nervous about any proclamation about how "easy" this will be to sell to the American public. I really thought the warrantless wiretapping would get everyone going, but, so far, I'm wrong. So as outraged as I am, and as clear as it is to me that this is flat-out wrong, I've lost a little faith in the MSM and the American people.
Could somebody just flame me as a defeatist and put me out of my misery?
ahem wrote on March 15, 2007 3:59 PM:Surprisingly, it was Kate '60 Grit' O'Beirne how came up with the best way to respond to the 'Clinton did it!!!' whine: you can replace US Attorneys for good reason, or no reason, but you can't replace them for a bad reason.
The White House is spooked in a way I haven't seen. Perhaps it's just knowing that they're going to be subject to Congressional scrutiny. Perhaps it's that this goes deep, and it's only a matter of time before the depth becomes clear. Which makes the firings even more curious, given that they were done after the elections.
bated breath wrote on March 15, 2007 4:00 PM:He's not going to get into any fact witnessing.
EH wrote on March 15, 2007 4:02 PM:Everyone in the White House is blind to the facts, so how could they do any fact witnessing?
Warrantless wiretapping didn't get everyone going because it's only a miniscule portion of the population (bad people) who have to worry about it. Everything else is law&order.
That said, I don't think "hostile and Democratic" is how I'd describe it either. I just think this administration got too far ahead of their power. Perhaps a Republican Congress is so rare that they just didn't know how to handle themselves during one-party rule.
From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 15, 2007 4:05 PM:I have heard it said that politics, like football, is a full contact sport. WRONG! Basketball is a full contact sport, football is a collision sport. The Republican White House just collided with a true co-equal branch of government run by Democrats and they will be answering questions. No more dissembling. No more obfuscation. No more lies. Or Scooter is going to have a few familiar cell mates. Subpoena power can be a bitch.
Dem-agog wrote on March 15, 2007 4:08 PM:"This is the big one, Edith", as Fred Sanford used to say...
It's no coincidence that the carefully calculated news of the day is Khalid Sheikh Muhammad's "confession". It's pushing this story off the front burner - or at least it's trying to.
But AGPurgeGate has the scope and potential to open up to the light of day to the average person out there just how mendacious and dangerous this administration was and is. I hope TPM continues to expose it to its bloody conclusion. I'm beginning to think that the ONLY thing that will stop all this insanity is the will of the American people in 2008 giving the Dems the Presidency and decisive, vote-proof majorities in the House and Senate.
cfaller96 wrote on March 15, 2007 4:13 PM:Well, to counter your 'too far ahead of their power' theory, EH, I wonder if there is an Enron parallel, in the sense that itty bitty little decisions (that were mistakes) sort of accumulated, and became very big and very corrupt decisions (that were criminal mistakes).
Let me boil it down thusly: there is a line between making decisions with the underlying thought being "let's help out our fellow Republicans in this election" and making decisions with the underlying thinking being "sweet Jesus, we MUST get Republicans reelected, or we're doomed!" Now, who knows WHEN the Bush Admin actually crossed that line (my guess: 2004), but I think this USA story will at least prove to the American people that the Bush Admin, in fact, DID cross that line.
kentuck wrote on March 15, 2007 4:16 PM:Yes. Everything is weighed by whether or not there is "political" advantage. There is nothing that is not "political decision-making". They weighed whether or not it was politically advantageous to fire the US Atty Lam if they fired a few more in the process. It was a political decision to get rid of her. They only needed to figure out the best way to do it.
She was obviously not a "loyal" Republican - at least, she was not loyal to the President and this White House. She actually had the gall to prosecute Duke Cunningham, a fellow Republican. She was going after Jerry Lewis, the powerful Republican chairman. It was obvious to this White House that she could not be trusted and had to be disposed of, one way or the other.
"Political decision-making" meant that they would define any opposition to their plans as "political" in nature. Never mind that their plan was to shut down the investigations. If they were charged with obstructing an investigation, they would simply accuse their critics of playing "politics". No big deal. It has worked everytime up til now. Why should this be any different?
Who are you going to believe? The emails or your own lying eyes? Are you going to ignore the facts or look at what this White House is telling you?
The laws are for the little people. They are only speed bumps for those that are looking to accumulate power in every branch of government. They add by division. They subtract by multiplying. They add to their power by dividing every branch and every person into Democrats vs Republicans. They subtract from their opposition by multiplying the number of voices defending their illegal actions.
Those that cannot comprehend their illegal grab for power are naively doomed to suffer at their evil machinations. From US Attorneys to US Appeals Courts, they fill all the positions with loyalists. If they are charged with any crimes, all they have to do is appeal and are assured that they will never be punished for any transgression or illegality.
Not only in the Courts and the US Attorney positions, but control of the Legislature, as they have done for the last six years. The only purpose for having a Congress is to rubberstamp and to legitimize the illegal workings of a criminal and Machivellian White House.
A Democratic Congress only means they need to change the way they "define" the rules and the "political decision-making". It doesn't mean they have to change their criminal ways.
As the naive opposition and an uninformed public citizenry are fed distortions and lies, they continue to shred the Constitution and to ignore the laws of the land. Just as they create their own "reality", they create their own laws.
As a confused and divided nation is slowly led into a dark jungle of no return, the lawmakers argue and point fingers, with not one shred of rationality, reason, or responsibility. And all we have left to fight these criminals are these small words furtively printed in anonymity on this computer screen...
J.Goodwin wrote on March 15, 2007 4:37 PM:Certainly these aren't the actions of a group of people who are watching their backs.
I don't think there has yet been any fear of oversight. The administration genuinely believes that the law simply does not apply.
John wrote on March 15, 2007 4:53 PM:cfaller96
Not flaming you. I think you skepticism is very healthy, especially when it comes to rovian tactics.
However, one major difference between this case and the wiretapping case is that this one has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. These attorneys were not asked to go after terrorists. The administration can't claim any sort of a national security defense when trying to block investigations. I think this, combined with the simplicity of the scandal, makes it a pretty easy sell to the public.
bubbajoebob wrote on March 15, 2007 5:02 PM:notice how scotty sounds more and more like shrub when he talks now? neither one can form a complete sentence or thought from end to end
john bennett wrote on March 15, 2007 5:19 PM:You should call this "Today's Snow Job". Let's get the labels right.
dzman49 wrote on March 15, 2007 5:26 PM:"This is the big one, Edith", as Fred Sanford used to say...
It was Elizabeth. Edith was Archie Bunker's wife
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 15, 2007 5:40 PM:One day, the Republicants will figure out that the single thing Congress has the power to smack ya about for is lying or hiding crap to them. Everything else has to be handled by passing a law - which takes time and can be blocked by a handful of true beleivers. That will be a truly sad day. That day they will just take over and force their facsist down our throats and say squat except "Yeah. So f**king what!"
Until then thank the deity of your choice that FOX opinion-casting has burned away their long-term memories and reveal in their repeated follies.
Context wrote on March 15, 2007 5:47 PM:Many of the posts I've read indicate that this is will raise the ire of the American people sufficiently to throw the bums out.
I truly hope so. I would love to see it happen. I wake up every morning wishing it had happen the day before. But IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
These people are running this country like their own G-D fiefdom and the majority of the American people roll over and - currently - either check to see if their brackets are still viable or if their American Idol candidate is still alive.
If this was 1967 instead of 40 years later you'd have people screaming at the top of their lungs. But back then people cared about their country and even the Republican Party had men of integrity, e.g., Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson.
Now we have a man affectionately called "Turd Blossom" by a frat boy who's the poster child for arrested development and an A.G. who is the kind of man who will set back Hispanic progress in this country at least 20 years.
By the way, where's the Hispanic Bar Association in all this? I'm sure there is one. Do they condone the ass-kissing, sycophantic behavior of Alberto Gonzales? I doubt it, but right now, no one knows.
Is this going to be the point where the American people simply catch fire and run these venal thieves and criminals out of town? Sadly, I don't think so.
fred dodsworth wrote on March 15, 2007 6:10 PM:Why does anyone care what this lie-disseminating White House puppet spouts? Why is this news? Tony Snowjob never was credible as a journalist, nor is he credible as a propagandist.
Mark Richards wrote on March 15, 2007 9:41 PM:It will truly be glorious, and appropriate, when each and every question asked of the current mal-administration is answered with the 5th Amendment equivalent, "It's our policy to defer questions having to do with the current investigation into [fill in the this space with name of scandal]".
Summing the tally to date, there are no jail terms long enough to provide the proper justice, so at the least 'Murca ought to receive sufficient and satisfactory entertainment from out court jester and band of criminal misfits the nation, wildly mistaken, allegedly put in charge.
Anonymous wrote on March 15, 2007 9:51 PM:Dem-agog:
"This is the big one, Edith", as Fred Sanford used to say...
Edith was Archie Bunker's wife, Fred Sanford used to say "This is the big one, ELIZABETH:,
Know your '70's
olo wrote on March 15, 2007 10:56 PM:Even though there is so much of it, my advice is still the same:
Don't eat he Yellow Elephant snow