Snow Responds To Executive Privilege Flip-Flop ‘Making Its Way Through The Left-Wing Blogs’
Snow Responds To Executive Privilege Flip-Flop ‘Making Its Way Through The Left-Wing Blogs’
Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told the National Review’s Byron York that “[w]e feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument” that White House officials don’t have to testify under oath to Congress about the prosecutor purge.
But as Glenn Greenwald first noted, Snow had a much different view of executive privilege in 1998, when President Clinton was using it to resist having his aides testify in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky saga. On 3/29/98, Snow published an op-ed titled, “Executive Privilege is a Dodge“:
Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
During today’s press briefing, a reporter asked Snow about the inconsistencies between his flip-flop. Snow said that “this is not an entirely analogous situation” and that he would “let others do the legal arguing.” Watch it:
Wondering how the reporter heard about his 1998 op-ed, Snow snidely asked the reporter, “Is it making its way through the left-wing blogs?”
Transcript:
REPORTER: Tony, back when President Clinton was citing executive privilege to keep internal deliberations in that White House from being talked about in Congress, you wrote — now famously — that taken
SNOW: I didn’t know it was famous. It didn’t that kind of coverage at the time.
REPORTER: It’s become more famous.
SNOW: Is it making its way through the left-wing blogs?
REPORTER: But you wrote quite eloquently about this. You said, “Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.” So why were you wrong then and right now?
SNOW: Because you’re — this is not an entirely analogous situation. I just told you what we have in fact offered to make available to Members of Congress. What we’re doing is we are holding apart confidential communications between advisers and the President. And that is pretty standard practice in the White House.
REPORTER: But in the Clinton administration –
SNOW: I’m not so sure. I’ll let others do the legal arguing on that.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
129 Responses to “Snow Responds To Executive Privilege Flip-Flop ‘Making Its Way Through The Left-Wing Blogs’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Damn right Tony,
We’ve learned not to trust you any farther than we can throw your slimy ass.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pmIt’s certainly not making its way through the “right wing” blogs.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pmDoes everyone on the Bush Admin have to be incompetent. I did’nt know that their was such a pre-requisite.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pmYouuuuurrrr’eeeee busted!
Although, Snow is right in that the two issues aren’t analogous — the Clinton matter was, by any measure, a political witch hunt, while this case involves people who may have broken the law (perjury and obstruction of justice).
So, yeah, there’s a difference …
.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pmDamn those left wing blogs bringing up documents and proof of myh 180 degree turnaround. How dare they use my words in factual context to show the world what an ass I am.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pmincredible, not surprising that the idiots that run this site are more interested in Tony Snow flip-flop than in the Democrats flip-flop on the same issue.
typical liberal stupidity, if you are going to complain about one sides flip-flop make sure you show the other’s sides flip-flop….
I know, I know my bad, asking a Democrat/Liberal run blog to be honest, fair, logical and educated. too much to ask.
funny enough Liberals say that Democrats flip-flop on Executive Privilage is irrelevant since it happen 6 to 10 years ago, but they sure care about Tony Snow’s which also happened about 10 years ago.
can’t care about one and not the other one idiots.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pm“Gone with the Wind II : The Fall of the House of Bush”
(watch for the next exciting Impeachment episode!)
March 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pmWhy in the world would you respond at all to the insane tinfoil hat crowd?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pmhow concieted is that? …
or worse, it’s like “did he ask about me?” in jr. high…
March 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pmYes Snowflake, it is.
Now answer the question.
MELTING! MELTING! SNOWFLAKE IS MELTING!!
What a world, what a world…..
March 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pmFor the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Those damn tubes and internets!
-chimpy (3.21.07)
March 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pmA civil suit / Independent Counsel IS different than Congress — sorry you guys don’t see that — do you also think Congress can subpoena, and more importantly, force the President of the United States to testify on this matter?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:49 pmYour crib is on fire, Tony…
March 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pmThose “Left wing Blogs” are seriously kicking some White House butt.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pmhowsad your head is up your ass. I didn’t accept any flip flopping 6 to 10 years ago and I don’t accept it now. Do you? Because if you do I’d like to see the appology to Sen. Kerry. So are you in favor of flip flopping or not. Stand some ground and show a pair.
Face it, Snow is shown he defended the exact opposite position and there is no way around it. Quit with the “they did it to” you sound worse than one of Bush’s canned speeches. Although I don’t get tired of the letting the doctors practice their love and the search for WMD’s in his office. Now that’s good stuff.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm7 - Patty, if that’s what you think we are, then you’re begging your own question there. Do yourself a favor and boycott us - that’ll teach us fer sure!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pmThis is not an entirely analogous situation. This has nothing to do with sex.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pmI don’t usually respond to trolls but there is only so much I can take :
force the President of the United States to testify on this matter?
Why the hell not. He is a Public Servant. Bush is as guilty as sin (and everyone else in his admin). He should testify : transparent he is not.
The U.S.S. Unaccomplished is going down.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm“A civil suit / Independent Counsel IS different than Congress — sorry you guys don’t see that — do you also think Congress can subpoena, and more importantly, force the President of the United States to testify on this matter?
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 2:49 pm”
WHAT???
You are right in one area though….. It is different….. Congress is ABOVE those others, as they MAKE the laws that those others use for thier cases….
So YES, Congress CAN call the president in front of them if they have reason to!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pm#6 Kay
March 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pmThe fall of the House of bUsher II?
Throw another lie on the fire, Trolls. Your self-immolation is really heating up now. Pinned down by the past, by your own words and video, you’re running out of room to squirm.
You and your President are dead men walking and just don’t know it.
Buh-BYE!
Alas, remember, Progs, the beast is most dangerous when near death, as it’s final, wounded thrashings harm friend and foe alike.
Howsad? Jake? Patrick1?
THANKS FOR PLAYING! Now, Gene, what do we have in the way of parting gifts?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pm“I’ll let others do the legal arguing on that.”
I bet he will, although he was certainly willing to offer his legal argument during the Clinton administration, wasn’t he?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pmFunny thing how those “left wing blogs” keep scooping the “liberal” media, isn’t it?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pmYou know how they hate it when you hold up a mirror to them. Not quite as much as they hate the stake and the garlic, but close.
Tom, I think he forgot to close the snark tag.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pmp.s. That was a pretty feeble attempt at deflecting the question, Tony. You’re slipping!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pmDamn, karma bites…
March 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pmHere’s one commentator, Tony, doing the legal arguing: “the Judiciary Committees in both the House and the Senate have a pretty clear right to demand information that relates to the propriety of the running of the Department of Justice.†— Republican Bob Barr.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pmJesus Tony, bite the bullet already.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pm#15, i am not talking about you hellinabucket…
I am talking about your typical run of the mill Liberal that support Clinton when he said he had Executive Privilage and now have turned around and said that that Privilage is non-existant.
get it. if you haven’t fliped-floped, good for you, you are one of the few and far between.
what i find amazing is that I constantly hear from the left, who cares what happened in politics 10 years ago, we are in the here and now. yet they are the first ones to run to the past and use something 10 years old to attack their opposition.
once again, what is good for the gander, is good for goose.
you can’t talk about Tony Snow’s flip-flop without talking about the Democrats flip-flop on the same exact issue….
get it hellinabucket?
March 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pmSpeaking of flip-flops, Jake, who for days argued that nothing illegal has been done, has flip-flopped to argue that Bush is above the law.
Nice try, Jake. Very lame.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pmWhat’s with howsad, and his little whine-fest?
Good lord man, pull it together. It’s a down right uncomfortable desperation you’ve got going on…
I’m starting to feel sorry for you.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pmWhat’s with howsad, and his little whine-fest?
Comment by alp3 — March 21, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
You evidently missed howsad’s frenzy this morning. I am surprised he has been able to rouse himself to post some more. I figured he would be unconscious at least until tomorrow.
How pathetic.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pmThe U.S.S. Mission Accomplished
is
going
down
down
down
down
March 21st, 2007 at 3:09 pmJake, you should complain and demand that they give you better talking points. How could any decent troll work with what they are giving you now?
March 21st, 2007 at 3:09 pmTony, are you here? Did you pick a winner in the caption contest yet?
March 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pmhowsad, it’s been you these last few days touting the past. They may have defended their positions about the past but didn’t bring it up. You did. So are you for flip flopping or against it?
I can talk about Tony Snow flip flopping and will continue to do so. If it concerns you so much about past flip floppers then write the book but don’t stand in the way of this circus tent falling down on these flip floppers.
Do you get it howsad? This is what is current and he’s flopping. Big time.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pmoops. meant “Unaccomplished”
March 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pmI am talking about your typical run of the mill Liberal that support Clinton when he said he had Executive Privilage and now have turned around and said that that Privilage is non-existant.
How ironic that the old “but Clinton” excuse has been turned around, and used now to bite wingnuts on the ass.
But since most wingers understanding of history is non-existant, it was to be expected.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pmDance the little sidestep…
March 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pm#28,
Very weak attempt at a strawman strategy.
Why do you hate America?
Why do you have a problem with Democracy and open government?
Why do you hate freedom?
Those are the questions that YOU need to answer about yourself instead of throwing out baseless and moronic generalizations and then expecting others to defend against them.
Dolt.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pm#34: hilarious! Bush must’ve been at the helm.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pm…change the subject any way you can…
…THIS is why one has to have unrelenting, dogged determination…
…when dealing with hypocrites, liars, and TRAITORS…
…one cannot be civil with Bushite scumbags (hired or otherwise)…
…the Repulsivescum have taken this type of deceptive tactic…
…”reframing and redirecting the focus of a subject so as to control the context of the conversation”…
…to a new level, with them it has become their MO…
…”create the reality” and you control the issue…
…the sooner Dems grasp this concept the sooner they’ll be able to DESTROY it…
March 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pmNo Kay, I like the Mission Accomplished idea going down better. We all know it’s unaccomplished but it has to be proven to the other side.
This is going to stick to Snow.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pmYa gotta almost feel sad for poor Tony the Snowball.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pmNobody should be trotted out to take the heat for this administration.
I’m expecting to see a sign hung around his neck saying
Don’t ask the dummy, he doesn’t know nuttin.
#38 ~ Darn it Tuber, you’re using the term strawman again, now Jamie will think you are calling him names.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pm#35hellinabucket,
errr, no, i haven’t flipped-flopped about the past, it is YOUR liberals that are flip-flopping about using stuff from the past.
I could careless, if Tony Snow flipped-flopped, then he can be called on it just like I am pointing out the flip-flop from Democrats who defended Clinton when he said he had the Executive Priviliage.
I haven’t flipped-flopped on anything, it is you Liberals who have.
you always whine and cry about Republicans bringing up what Clinton did, you say it is irrelevant since it happened 10 years ago, so why would you go against what you are argue against and you bring up a 10 year old thing? I could careless that Tony Snow was shown that he flipped-flopped, I am glad he was shonw he flipped-flopped, we need more consistancy from our public servants, on both sides of the eisle. it is YOU liberals who always chastice conservatives from bring up the pass, so why do you do it now? why?
if it is bad for me to bring up what Democrats said 10 years ago about Executive Priviliage, why is it not also bad for Thinkprogress.org and other Liberals to do it?
it seems that the rules you want to debate with only apply to Republicans and not you Liberals/Democrats.
furthermore, what is ALSO current is the Democrats flip-flopping on this same issue, so while you are talking about Tony Snow’s flip-flop, will you show that you aren’t partisan and a Democrat (as you ahve constantly told me) and piss on Democrats for taking a different stance on this than they did 10 years ago? will you? c’mon prove me wrong.
show me that you aren’t a partisan hack and that you attack all politicians regardless of party, creed or belief when they flip-flop on an issue regardless of the time that has gone by.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pmhellinabucket,
just like you said, it is in the here and now, Democrats that are attacking Bush on Executive Privilaged are flip-flopping since they defended Clinton on the same issue.
Join me on attacking Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy, Pelosi, Hillary, etc, etc, etc, who all defended Clinton’s Executive Priviliage and now are attacking Bush’s Executive Priviliage. This is in the here and now.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pmAt this point, “howsad” is more like a sneeze - an annoying expulsion of infectious bile. So, I think I’ll just respond “God Bless You” .
March 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pmWhy isn’t Snowball using the old dodge, “We’re not commenting on an on-going investigation”? Hhhmm, maybe the administration does not want to admit to the public that that’s what this is.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pmThis is not a flip-flop. In my op-ed in 1998 about President Clinton, I wrote, “…any communications that take place within the White House…contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration…He would have a constitutional right to cover up…Most of us want…a president…to use the majesty of his office…”
March 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pmSmack - that cleared it up for me. I guess I can’t see how ‘data is exaggerated’ - data is data. They are observations, measured and peer checked… Now when you start messing with statistics - most people have no clue how to deal with stats and its easy to bandy about stuff - but now you are dealing with the interpretation. That and what to do is how the politicians get involved. Still seperate from the theory and the observations which support it. Day After Tomorrow? Propaganda. Great Swindle… reviews I’ve now read also say propaganda.
Big companies - you mean how the ethanol industry simply enriches ADM and Cargill at the expense of food consumers all the way to Chiapas? Yes. But now you have yet another problem to think about - even more unrelated to the AGW debate. How to set the market conditions to ensure fair play for entreprenuers who are the real solvers of complex technical problems…
OK look at this then: http://www.apolloalliance.org
March 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pmThere he goes again… It’s like Jake, only shrill.
What’s with the hysteria, man?
The only message you’re getting across, is an overwhelming
March 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pmendorsement for decaf.
How sad it is indeed that the entire White House now looks more and more like Moe’s tavern.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pmHowsad - of course we are partisan here! That is why we are on a left wing blog! What the hell are you doing here is what I am wondering? Go troll on lucianne.com you will feel much more at home there.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pmCrap - wrong thread. Should be on Al Gore thread post #50.
Hey Tony over to the Flip-Flop thread dude - you’ve a caption contest to judge.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pmFrom another thread:
and do you think i care about your insults guy, honestly please. i am sure you know they are just words on a silly little blog. grow up.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
For being just “words on a silly little blog.” you sure are typing a lot of them.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:33 pmTo be honest with you, howsad. Many of them were just nasty and bumbling.
Tony Snow is right about the situations not being analogous. In 1998 the President was a Democrat.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pmHmmm, to follow Tony’s logic, since the conversations are sancrosanct, how does it follow that Rove and Meirs can kinda sorta divulge the contents, but not fully? Either the are privilged or they’re not.
Pretending that, disclosing the conversations in secret and without the benefit of a transcript, is somehow preserving the sanctity of the office of the President, doesn’t fly.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:36 pmIs it making its way through the left-wing blogs?
#1 rule for any semi-intelligent person seeking to direct a conversation - never ask a question for which you do not already know the answer, and for which you are already prepared to reinforce or discredit.
Tony only asks, because Tony knows. Folks, these guys know what’s being printed in the press because half they time they personally source it. It’s the unknowns that they like to keep an eye on ;)
March 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pmI feel sorry for Tony Snow having to try to defend his own positions in this analogous situation. Eh, on second thought … I don’t feel sorry for him.
This is what happens when the WH hires an ex-FOX opinioneer to be their press secretary.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pmhowsad - read the Glenn Greenwald article.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pmHow about:
“The president serves at the pleasure of The People.”
March 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pmDoes Schumer have executive priviledge? I sure hope so because he is on record interfering with an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, he demanded that they speed up an investigation and he applied political pressure. This crowd always says the Dems went to Washington to clean it up and their primary focus was looking out for the people and ridding Washington of corruption. Since this is what they stand for, I can assume Schumer will be investigated and they will have public hearings that he will be mandated to attend and speech only under oath. Lastly, I can assume they will be calling for him to leave the Senate even before they start the investigation. This is what they are doing with administration officials afterall. If they truly stand for these things and this isn’t just a political show trial like Snow says, they better step up and ask Schumer to leave the Senate.
If they don’t, no one should cooperate with them as it proves this is a Show trial or if you like, SHOW HEARING.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pmPeople, do not talk about “revolting” or demanding that the President of the US should be held accountable as any public servant, cuz Jake would stop as all as long as he has breadth in his body.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pmHowsad asks me:show me that you aren’t a partisan hack and that you attack all politicians regardless of party, creed or belief when they flip-flop on an issue regardless of the time that has gone by.
eh? or how about what the f%ck? I stand by my own words and actions. I never did vote for Clinton and even voted for the current sack of shit in office on his first term. Regretted it after watching the Supreme Court instead of the American public decide but I didn’t hold it against him. I became convinced this current president was a mistake after his push towards Iraq without evidence and without provication. My number one concern has always been with the troops and they have not been led well. In fact, they have been led to needless deaths.
So I am no partisan hack that blindly obeys talking points. Do you now understand that you sniveling pile? I believe that both sides of the aisle have good and bad amongst them. I also believe power shifts and that is a good thing so one side doesn’t get too drunk with power. I also know that the current batch of neocons have been pushing for a permanent republican majority even at the risk of loosing all what republicans stand for.
If that’s not good enough for you, like I said before, I don’t care. You don’t add to any argument. Your only purpose here, whether you want to believe this or not, is to sharpen the viewpoints and facts on the side of truth. And in this case, you are on the wrong side.
So bitch and moan away on how clinton did it and remember in 4 years when there is nothing close to resembling the republican party you can still say “but clinton did it before Bush” good for you. It doesn’t make it right and your an ass not to see that.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pmJuan C ~ the Trolls are revolting
March 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pmHas anyone proposed a countdown for Snowjob’s remaining days as chief obfuscator?
Gonzo should be gonzo by Friday, and I give Tony until mid-next week before he cracks.
Rove and Bush were rather snippy yesterday, but a countdown to Bush’s Bunker Moment seems premature.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:50 pmTony’s on the hot seat.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pmAin’t life sweet?
Juan C ~ the Trolls are revolting
Comment by RUCerious
I cant blame them. Snow´s threads are like coffee plants to sheeps from Yemen.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pmI live for “Bush’s Bunker Moment”
March 21st, 2007 at 3:56 pmDoes everyone on the Bush Admin have to be incompetent. I did’nt know that their was such a pre-requisite.
Comment by Matt Sanchez — March 21, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Well nobody can be more competent than the President sooo….
March 21st, 2007 at 3:56 pmA civil suit / Independent Counsel IS different than Congress — sorry you guys don’t see that — do you also think Congress can subpoena, and more importantly, force the President of the United States to testify on this matter?
Comment by Jake
Strawman, thy name is Jake.
Pay attention. Karl Rove is not the President of the United States. Neither is Harriet.
Check #156 under “nasty and bumbling”; I’ve taken the time to try to fill you in on what you apparently missed in Civics class.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:57 pmdo you also think Congress can subpoena, and more importantly, force the President of the United States to testify on this matter?
YES
March 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pmI hate to tell you, but it’s not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails.
You know, look, again, I reiterate my point. I think it’s important to protect these kids and make sure that they have a good experience.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:02 pmThe ‘left-wing blogs’ have a good chance of going down in history as having saved this country.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:02 pmJoin me on attacking Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy, Pelosi, Hillary, etc, etc, etc, who all defended Clinton’s Executive Priviliage and now are attacking Bush’s Executive Priviliage. This is in the here and now.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Can I join you, can we be best friends now?
March 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pmit’s making its way through snow’s ass
March 21st, 2007 at 4:04 pmOver their crimes
Put through the blogs
To the big house they go
Ney knows the way
And Rove and Delay
Are ready now to follow
Oh…
March 21st, 2007 at 4:04 pmShow trials? Travel gate, Christmas card list, No the GOP would never investigate or holding hearing into thing that weren’t a crime. Hypocrites!
March 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pmMaybe if Congress had done some oversight in the first 6 years of Bush the Dem’s wouldn’t have to now!
Howsad - of course we are partisan here! That is why we are on a left wing blog! What the hell are you doing here is what I am wondering? Go troll on lucianne.com you will feel much more at home there.
Comment by Mark_TheWildEyedLiberal — March 21, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Howsad why didn’t you tell me this was a left wing blog? I thought you said these people would love me? They’ll learn to believe our side won’t they Howsad? You and Karl promised me they’d understand.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:06 pmwill thinkprogress.org put this up? of course not…..
read and educate yourselves libbies….your hypocrisy is actually being unmasked…
from CNN news….Soledad O’Brien inteviewing sad of an Congressman Emmanuel.
SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: “You worked in the White House, the Clinton Administration, where they claimed executive privilege for Bruce Lindsey and for Sidney Blumenthal in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, essentially. Why that time around was the efforts you made — it failed, but there was an effort to say executive privilege. Let’s protect these guys. They shouldn’t have to go testify before Congress. It failed. But that was what was claimed, so why this time around does it not seem fair?”
you bad, bad hypocrites….can’t show Tony Snow without showing the Democrats hypocrisy.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pmcuz Jake would stop as all as long as he has breadth in his body.
Comment by Juan C — March 21, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
You like me, you really, really like me!
March 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pmsnowjob is really the only kind of person that could be this group’s spokespiehole. he is farther removed from the truth than your average sociopath, and he is being ordered to lie! how could he ask for more but to have his old job back? He must be having a lot of fun getting to do what he did as a joke at fux, and it being information the american public is being told is the truth!
March 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pmtruly depressing that humans that deal in this type of work exist
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 21, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
I didn’t know Schumer was the topic, you, Karl, and howsad have to keep me updated.
I’m so confused.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pm“I’ve been led to believe there’s a good response to itâ€
= I’m waiting for Fox Spews to give me a script, get back to ya after I hear from them.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pmStill waiting for the announcement from TP demanding Schumer step down from the Senate…. ANYTIME>………
March 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pmFired U.S. Attorneys: a brief rundown on the 8:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ graphic/ 2007/ 03/ 06/ GR2007030600062.html
March 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pmStrawman, thy name is Jake.
Pay attention. Karl Rove is not the President of the United States. Neither is Harriet
Comment by gummitch — March 21, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Strawman, what do you mean? Karl isn’t president, since when? Nobody tells me anything.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pmRe: the report that Clinton’s failed use of executive privelege (”shouldn’t have to go testify before Congress. It failed.”)
Good. It should fail now. No hypocrisy from this end. Next.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pmWant to hear some REAL news? If you BLOW IT OUT YOUR F*ING ASS, TONY, maybe we can better understand what in the hell you are talking about. It’s apparent you don’t know what to say, in all truthfulness, at all. I know, I know… the logic simply escapes you.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pmI made a protest sign a few months ago that reads,
“IS BUSH’S BUNKER MOMENT SOON?!”
It should see some new use!
March 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pm3. Does everyone on the Bush Admin have to be incompetent. I did’nt know that their was such a pre-requisite.
Well,…. Competence serves at the pleasure of the President and he has the right to fire it at any time he wishes according to executive privilege.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pmIt’s The Exorcist 2007:
The power of Congress compels you!! The power of Congress compels you!!
SOMEONE needs to exorcize the demons in the House….
March 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pmDemocrat Leaders endorse Iraqi “Oil Theft†Law
http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/
bookmark this site it keeps you informed
March 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pmIt is starting to look like Tony the Snowman is in meltdown. He was so funny in the briefing today that I am hard-pressed to top his performance and I earned about $250,000.00 on about 1100 hours of gig time as a nightclub comic in the hustlings of upstate NY. When I did an emergency fill-in in NYC, they paid $5-600.00 per hour plus a free room on Friday and Saturday nights. That was from about 1963 to 1979 when that kind of money meant something.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pmI wonder what Tony gets for his routine.
The point is that whether Dems tried to claim executive privilege or not, they were unsuccessful, as the repukes should and will be. the wingnut idiots here are just throwing their feces into the fan, as usual. monkeys in cages.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pmSOMEONE needs to exorcize the demons in the House….
Comment by loudmouthtruthsayer — March 21, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Wow libruls found out about the demons at the white house!
March 21st, 2007 at 4:58 pm“this is not an entirely analogous situationâ€
You’re absolutely right. In the case of your comment in 1998, you were talking about aides being asked to testify to congress on Clinton’s blow job. That’s way more serious than an administration using the Justice Department as it’s own personal attack machine on the opposition party.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:00 pmA cursory review of the posts from the reichwingnut trolls explains who we have in the 28%…morons who cannot think for themselves and who know nothing about the constitution or our government.
Reichwingnuts are morons…just like their hero…Dubya the drunken AWOL Chimp.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pm#7 Patrick1:
Why in the world would you respond at all to the insane tinfoil hat crowd?
Oh, I dunno. Seems pointless. We wish you would stop.
Cheers,
March 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pmSOMEONE needs to exorcize the demons in the House….
Comment by loudmouthtruthsayer —
Can we get the Mayan priests at a discount?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:44 pmCan we get the Mayan priests at a discount?
Comment by RUCerious — March 21, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Are you kidding they want double time for this evil.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pmShorter Snow: “Damn right its different, I didn’t work for Clinton.”
March 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pmhowsad..”I am pointing out the flip-flop from Democrats who defended Clinton when he said he had the Executive Priviliage.”
Would you like to point us to something that shows that the Democrats defended Clinton when he tried to pull executive privilege? Have you learned “the Google” yet. If you have, you should be able to come up with a link pointing us to some news item or something that says that the Democrats supported Clinton. If you can’t provide any proof to what you are saying, then STFU!
March 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm#62 hellinabucket….oh, you are foaming at the mouth again kid. breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out, come on kid you are going to pop a vein…
now you want me to believe you aren’t a silly, mindless partisan hack after you write….“…So bitch and moan away on how clinton did it and remember in 4 years when there is nothing close to resembling the republican party…”
you are only fooling yourself my young padwan, you are only fooling yourself.
you aren’t man enough to stand up for the truth and what is right, you are the typical run of the mill Libeal moron that is too blinded by partisan politics, if you weren’t you would have responded with such hate and anger after I asked you to join me in condemning Democrats who just a few years agon were defending Clinton when he hid behind Executive Privilage and today are attacking Bush for doing EXACTLY the same thing.
you are a coward, you are a liar, you are a partisan blind hack….
now I await your typical uneducated, ill-informed, pretend to be non-partisan respond.
kid, young padwan, you are too transparent like most silly little liberals.
and I have news for you kid, both parties will be alive and very strong in 4 years, BOTH. you see this is what is called a none partisan comment….get it now.
not the rants and raves that you spew out my young padwan.
but thanks for proving me right as always.
love playing with the mind of simple minded liberals like you, so easy to step on your mindless, illogical, partisan “arguments”.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pmI don’t care how much effort the RNC is putting into having morons post here, it ain’t changin’ any minds.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pm#100Kate Henry…
err, you might want to check CNN.new, Soldedad O’Brein showing Congressman Emmanuel how he and other staffers of the Clinton administration, along with Clinton himself put out the argument during the 1990s that Clinton staffers didn’t have to testify because of Executgve Priviliage….
have you learnd to take off the partisan glasses? do you read anything else besides propaganda from the left wing blogs?
here it is…Soledad O’Brein inteviewing Emmanuel….
SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: “You worked in the White House, the Clinton Administration, where they claimed executive privilege for Bruce Lindsey and for Sidney Blumenthal in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, essentially. Why that time around was the efforts you made — it failed, but there was an effort to say executive privilege. Let’s protect these guys. They shouldn’t have to go testify before Congress. It failed. But that was what was claimed, so why this time around does it not seem fair?â€
now where is thinkprogress.org showing us Congressman Emmanuel’s flip-flop on his comments, where?
dumb, dumb, i mean dumb and partisan liberals….how stupid can you guys get?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pmYou’ve become hysterical, howsad.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pmJesus Tony, bite the bullet already.
Comment by Xenon #27
Tony attended the…
…Baghdad Bob School of Journalism…
…on a full-ride scholarship…
…graduating magna cum laude…
March 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pmSnowjob was against ‘executive privilege’ before he was for it.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:19 pmalp3,
i know, you poor libbies call anything hysterical when you are shown the truth. I know, so thanks for the complement.
will thinkprogress.org be honest and put up the Democrats flip-flop on this issue?
c’mon thinkprogress.org, show us how much you care about America and not about politics, put up both the Republican flip-flop on this issue and the Democrat flip-flop on this issue….or for that matter, i dare anyone here that claims not to be a partisan hack to do it.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:24 pmWell, why don’t you send them an email, howsad.
I think it would do more for your cause, than littering the
threads w/ you non-stop two day whine-fest.
grow up.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:27 pmhowsad; I still have a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book reserved for you.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pmIt’s certainly not making its way through the “right wing†blogs.
Comment by Douglas Watts — March 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Facts cannot infiltrate right wing blogs.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:58 pmTobey, thanks for the link. It’s terrible that we have to keep such a sharp eye on what BOTH sides of the aisle are up to.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm#109 - Uncle Ho,
March 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm‘Mien Kempt’ would be more appropriate!
“Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.”
–Tony Snow
If he hasn’t obstructed justice, he’s got nothing to worry about. If they haven’t lied about why prosecutors were fired, they’ve got nothing to worry about.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pmhowsad, every one of your posts is just a silly rant on your delusional view of “liberals.” Do you have anything of value to add to any of these discussions, or are you just going to continue stamping your feet, balling your hands into little fists and crying bitter tears? I’m starting to get embarassed for you. It’s just so pathetic. You’ve got a real jones for Clinton. That’s obvious. Many of your posts show clearly that you have fantasies about Clinton. Look, that’s fine. Just try to get a hold of yourself. Clinton hasn’t been president for over 6 years now. This is about the Bush administration. This issue, in particular, is about the possibility that the President and/or the VP may have obstructed justice through political manipulation of the department of justice. Do you have any thoughts on that, or do you want to say something else about Clinton’s cock?
March 21st, 2007 at 7:52 pmWalt; you are right, but he complained on another thread about all us ‘dirty hippies’ and our ‘little red books’ the other day.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:02 pmBTW Walt, the correct spelling is; Mein Kampf (My Struggle)
March 21st, 2007 at 8:03 pmFirst Snow claims the prez was never consulted about justice decisions to fire prosecutors - then in defending the refusal to allow sworn testimony, Snow says Bush needs to preserve the freedom of his staff to come to him and talk about matters.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:26 pmWTF?
AT THIS VERY MINUTE, Mr. Tony “Colostomy-Bag” Snow-JOB-Man, ME E-MAILED FIST IS BUSY SMASHING YOUR SHIT-EATING GRINNING GHOUL FACE IN AND MOPPING UP THE FLOOR WITH YA WORTHLESS CARCASE—-HOW DOES IT FEEL TO HAVE YA ASS KICKED ONLINE BY AN E-WARRIOR, Snow, YA MISERABLE LACKEY OF Bushland Uber Allies????? SO MUCH FOR YA SNIDE COMMENTS, Snow—-REMEMBER, I CAN BEAT YA UP VERBALLY WITH ONE SIDE OF MY BRAIN TIED BEHIND MY BACK A LA Rush Limburger!!!!! AN EFFORTLESS TASK IN TAKING CARE OF A WIMP LIKE YA!!!!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 9:08 pmTo Tony Snow:
Making its way through the lrft-wing blogs?
Fcukin’ A, Biotch.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:17 pmPerhaps it’s time to purge Congress.
Become a Purger; start your own Purge Team.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:33 pm#116 - Uncle Ho,
March 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pmYou caught me! My spelling made it past the MS Office spell checker. The verb base for the word is kaempfe(n) where the ae is the umlated a.
i know, you poor libbies call anything hysterical when you are shown the truth. I know, so thanks for the complement (SIC–look up the meaning of “compliment” as opposed to “complement.)
will thinkprogress.org be honest and put up the Democrats flip-flop on this issue?
c’mon thinkprogress.org, show us how much you care about America and not about politics, put up both the Republican flip-flop on this issue and the Democrat flip-flop on this issue….or for that matter, i dare anyone here that claims not to be a partisan hack to do it.
Comment by howsad —
First of all, TP has already let you put up what you call “the Democrats’ (apostrophe is needed) on this issue.” Secondly, can you prove you are not a partisan hack by posting the Repub flip-flop on neo-CON or other rightwing websites? I have heard that such websites usually ban contrary views.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 amFinally, it would be a waste of my (and probably other people’s) time to try to argue with a biased jerk who ridiculously claimed on another thread that all liberals go around with Little Red Book by Mao Zedong (with the name spelled incorrectly) and cherish it above the Constitution.
Passing strange that Tony developed cancer again. I guess it will keep him out of press conferences for awhile. Yes, passing strange.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pmI’d like to lay out a couple of very simple ideas to see if some of you can be reasoned with.
First of all, executive privilege is a constitutional device designed to protect the executive branch from exactly the endless fishing expeditions that one party seems determined to carry out. There has been no crime, only actions carried out by one branch which the powers in another branch don’t like. Perfect example of the need for executive privilege. Obviously, if you grill someone, anyone under oath long enough (and endlessly, boringly enough) you will uncover inconsistencies. Did he lie? sounds like he did. It seems to me he lied rather than just say (as he should have) “that’s none of your business” or “of course I had involvement in this process, I’m the AG”
Second, how in the world can you change your moral attitude from “there has been no evidence” (even after there is clear evidence) to beleiving every conspiracy theory presented. 9/11- a Bush plot (that would require unbeleivable logistics and the cooperation of our enemies. and this from an incompetent idiot), WMD’s -Bush lied (let’s ignore the fact that these “lies” were foisted on us unanimously by every US official on both sides of the isle, during Democratic party regime, and every other country that cared about it before anyone outside of TX even knew who GW was. ) Regardless, “Bush Lied”.
No WMD’s? Let’s forget for a moment that Saddam had plenty of time to do something about that, or the fact that some were found, (how many WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION do you need to be a threat?)
The most simple way to state this case is through pure logic.
A) if you have them, you may or may not use them
B) if you don’t have them, you can pretend that you do and pretend to be in position A
C) (most important) if you don’t have them, even if you pretend that you do, you CAN’T use them (you don’t have them, remember?)
So the question to those of you who will not see is, if there was no WMD’s, how did Saddam manage to use them?
Third, I have to beleive that (most of) you guys know all this to be true, yet you choose to beleive the irrational. Why?
Because, I think (hope) that if you could just honestly answer that we might have a chance of meaningful dialogue, not just mean (useless)
Also if, as I suspect, you are simply playing political hardball, the consitution protects us all from what our gov will become w/o it, don’t be so willing to change it according to political winds as they always change direction.
Please don’t answer with psycoanalysis or cherry-picking certain phrases, but rather, please try to honestly answer all the above ideas,
April 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amI remain hopeful and curious for intellectual (honest) but not hateful, paranoid debate, have no fear the constitution protects us all. Thanks.