The White House defense:
By on Oct 26th, 2005 at 10:00 am
The White House defense:
“If [Fitzgerald] indicts, they will have no choice but to attempt to demonize him. I think that is going to be really, really tough.” — Top right-wing strategist Frank Luntz.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does Luntz have a special section in his handbook entitled “how to defend the indefensible”?
October 26th, 2005 at 10:03 amPLEASE PLEASE PLEASE demonize this guy!! Oh jesus, for this I pray! NOTHING will make these f#cks look worse, childish, immature, desperate, and guilty-as-hell that some smear campaign, especially after all the praise Bush has given him…
I think most Americans are wised-up. They understand. If they go this route, it will galvanize the idea that the Repubs are really the pompous, childish assholes we thought…
October 26th, 2005 at 10:08 amThe truth is a terrible cutting sword. And the words I am guilty, I’m wrong,to seem never to come from the lips of the self-righteous!!!
October 26th, 2005 at 10:12 amDemonizing Fitsgerald is going to make the Repubs look even worse. They already have a reputation for being character assassins, and going after an apolitical prosecutor, who has a stellar career, and has voted Republican in the past is going to be slim-pickins’ for the slime-bags like Luntz.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:23 amExactly, Punchy. Its too late to start poison the well after every major right wing player gave Fitzy glowing praise. Smearing Pat right now is closing the door after the horse got out.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:24 amThe White House’s smearing Patrick Fitzgerald and the war on Joe Wilson are not the exceptions to the rule, but the rule itself.
Hopefully, after five years of savage and baseless attacks on the likes of Richard Clarke, General Eric Shinseki, Paul O’Neill, Jim Jeffords, and Richard Foster, the small, mean-spirited, venal and vengeful George W. Bush will pay the price.
For the full story, see:
“Blowback: Bush, Plame and the Politics of Payback.”
October 26th, 2005 at 10:45 amThe White House defense:
The defence has got to be getting tired by now,
October 26th, 2005 at 10:51 amthey’ve been on the field the entire game.
Time to put in the bench warmers.
It’s too late to spin & smear. Bush needs to accept that some folks have screwed up, take what’s left of the high road and dismiss them, and get back to his agenda quickly.
“He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation.”
October 26th, 2005 at 10:57 am“I’ve already said too muchâ€
“Information will be declassified soonâ€
-Karl Rove, traitor, talking to reporters
October 26th, 2005 at 10:58 amthey have no choice? gee, I’m thinking they can choose to take the high road this time… they can, but they won’t, because they don’t even know what that means… even if Rove was caught on tape revealing Plame’s name (a la ABSCAM), they’d find some way to blame the left…
Luntz’s statement is an admission of corruption…
October 26th, 2005 at 11:13 amThey will not demonize Fitz. Kay Bailey gotten taken to the woodshed by conservatives for her perjury comments the other day.
IF there are indictments, conservatives will deal with Bush, not Fitzgerald. However, Joe Wilson will be brought back into the mix because he is a partisan liar and liability to the Bush hating left.
My question to liberals – say Fitz doesn’t indict Libby or Rove – will you people then start smearing Fitz?
October 26th, 2005 at 11:13 amNED, this isn’t about you, or your question to liberals.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:44 amNow, back on topic.
I think they do have other choices.
They can admit they’ve lied to the world to gain support for an invasion, then resign.
But NeD, Wilson was right.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:08 pmWilson seems to be the only one who had balls enough to tell the truth and speak out against this bunch of fake righteous nation builders. THE TRUTH WILL OUT. Karma reigns supreme.
BTW, is Larry Wilkerson a liar too?
October 26th, 2005 at 12:11 pmThey will not demonize Fitz. Kay Bailey gotten taken to the woodshed by conservatives for her perjury comments the other day.
IF there are indictments, conservatives will deal with Bush, not Fitzgerald. However, Joe Wilson will be brought back into the mix because he is a partisan liar and liability to the Bush hating left.
My question to liberals – say Fitz doesn’t indict Libby or Rove – will you people then start smearing Fitz?
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma — October 26, 2005 @ 11:13 am
That “woodshed” is all of the people who e-mailed her, accusing her of putting party loyalty above loyalty to country, not conservatives.
Smearing is YOUR side’s favorite tactic, classic transferral!
And you say “Bush hatin’” like it was a bad thing!
Whenever I read or hear a republican say the phrase “Bush hater”, I just substitute the word “tumor” for Bush. “Why do you freakish TUMOR-HATERS HATE CANCER SO MUCH – ITS IRRATIONAL!
October 26th, 2005 at 12:12 pmclassic republican technique. Change the topic of discussion to something less than complimentary about your precieved opponents.
You see neddy, you are doing EXACTLY what this thread said your chosen side will do. I guess the apples don’t fall far from the tree.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:57 pm#12 NED… we appreciate the question… however, we can’t comment on an ongoing investigation… we’ll be happy to answer any questions once the investigation is complete… go ahead, Jeff…
October 26th, 2005 at 1:41 pm#18 – nice.
#16 – I don’t mind the Bush haters. They’ve kept the GOP govt in power. But, I am legitimately concerned about some things I have seen from the White House. However, I don’t want to re-fight the reasons for war….. AGAIN. That appears to be your wishes and I find that troubling.
We have fought over the reasons for war enough. Sorry, liberals lost. It would be better to discuss how we move forward and not try to smear your political opponents the way you accuse Republicans of doing so. AND this is more important for liberals to understand since you’ve had such a bad track record when we all play in the mud. But hey, if those your wishes, I can be forced to play along.
PP – you’re not relevant. It’s sad – go vote for Freddy Ferrer or something.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:51 pmPP – Wilson was NOT right. He couldn’t even be honest about how he was sent Niger, let alone what he found.
Look, if Bush LIED about WMD, so did Clinton, Gore, Hillary, Kerry and the whole damn lot of spineless Democrats that used Sadam to their convenience (like say, on the night of impeachment). So I feel sorry for liberals who feel lied to. I feel sorry for liberals who would slander a President that claimed the same thing as the man they voted for last fall.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:34 pm#19 Wrong Ned. By definition, the victory of being liberal is to have the freedom to be liberal.
Civil governance is the only thing protecting the weak and wealthy from the strong and populous, and when the President foregoes logical debate for passionate revenge, we all lose.
Remember this isn’t even about 9/11 anymore. Four years ago, the world cried on our shoulder and held our hand in friendship. Where has that support gone? That support wasn’t won in an election, and it wasn’t the posession of one political party. When I ask you if we are better off than we were four years ago it’s now a post-9/11 question!
Even if you want to forget the reasons why we went to war – how about the ability to conduct it without alienating the entire world?
This President sucks. Pick any stick to measure by and he comes up short.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:47 pmFine Drew – refight the reasons for war and call Bush a liar. You will only make liberals look weaker.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:17 pmNED, will you take your head out of your ass for a moment. A crime has been committed and there should not be an apology or minimalization. The same Republcians who wanted an indictment for perjury on Clinton, now are quickly defending criminal behavior. It is amazing what a double standard the Repubs have. Also, don’t say it criminalization of politics because it won’t work. The only thing criminal in politics right now is the fact that some of our elected officials decided to commit a crime political gain.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:24 pmReally, Ok! Three cheers for weakness: We went to war because the Bush Administration pitched a slanted view of contrived evidence to a bullied and partisan Congress that preyed on American fears and desire for revenge to wage war on a country that had less connection to 9/11 than Zimbabwe!
Hmm. I sure don’t FEEL weak…
October 26th, 2005 at 7:29 pm