Tony Snow Scrambling Around Like A Poodle On Linoleum!

[K8-EEE]

I heard that on Stephanie Miller show once, boy, sure applies to this question!! Right after this was asked, Fox News cut away to BREAKING ANNA NICOLE BABY'S DADDY NEWS! It was HUGE! It seems DNA HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM HOWARD K. STERN, REPEAT, THE DNA HAS BEEN TAKEN....LOOK OVER THERE IT'S ANNA NICOLE'S BABY!

Transcript is up now on whitehouse.gov -- lots of good parts, but this my fave.

==========================
Q Just to follow up on one point earlier, yesterday the President said, and you've repeated, that the principle at stake here with executive privilege is that the President needs to get candid advice from his advisors, right?

MR. SNOW: What the President has talked about is privileged communications with close staff members, that is correct.

Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.

MR. SNOW: Correct.

Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn't looped in, you're saying, on this decision? So it was other people --

MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category.

Q But, I mean --

MR. SNOW: No, you're asking -- you're asking me to -- look, Ed, there are a number of complex legal considerations in here, and I'm not going to try to play junior lawyer. These are the sort of things that people are going to have an opportunity to talk about.

Q But aren't you having it both ways? If you're saying the President wasn't in the loop, but we need to cite executive privilege for the President's communications --

MR. SNOW: No, what you're -- what you are saying is, are conversations that didn't take place privileged? Well, no -- they didn't take place.

Q So what are you protecting, if they didn't take place?

MR. SNOW: Well, no, we're not -- what we're trying to do is to protect the ability of the American people to see folks in Washington get at the truth without, in fact, engaging in the kind of unseemly partisanship that has too often been a factor in recent political life.

[BOSSHOG]

1. If bush doesn't talk to anyone, that nonconversation is protected

by executive privilege.

We had a 12 pound poodle who could get those legs going like egg beaters on the linoleum. But he was actually going somewhere.

Wow, I didn't know partisanship was a recent phenomenon.

[MUAD_DIB]

13. Subpoena them, Indict them, Incarcerate them...for a very long time.

[onethatcares]

33. A fukking men.

it is about time this entire misadministration had to go through it all, investigate, investigate some more, indict, indict and indict some more. But don't let them walk away on anything.

[K8-EEE]

20. Yes, they have an AVERSION to any kind of partisan politicking

I hadn't noticed that....

[Vincardog]

2. I loved it. Mr SnowFlake is spinning sooo fast I expect him to fly off the dias

[central scrutinizer]

3. intriguing question category???

I'll take Intriguing Questions for $200, Alex. Bwah hah hah

[Democrat 4 Ever]

4. Did this come from the White House transcript? SnowJob didn't

say "play junior lawyer" he said "playing junior detective" very snarky like. Don't know that it makes much difference other than in SnowJob's teeny tiny brain - he likes playing an attorney on TV.

[annabanana]

7. funny.. I heard "junior lawyer" when I watched. . . n/t

[Democrat 4 Ever]

31. I was listening live and then watched the replay. I would have sworn

he said detective. I remember because it was such a juvenile, snarky thing to say. When he said that I immediately thought Snow Job thinks he is a Hardy boy book character. Whatever he said was pretty good. Especially since Ed Henry was pointing out the incongruity of his statement that no one said anything to Chucklenuts while asserting they couldn't talk about presidential conversations about the firings.

[K8-EEE]

16. Yes, it's a transcript from the whitehouse.gov site

Of course, Junior lawyer & Junior detective both make no sense in response to a perfectly legitimate question about him contradicting himself -- it's like they've given up any premise of making sense.

[maddezmom]

5. thanks for the post, I saw everything up to that answer

looks like Tony stepped right into it. :evilgrin:

[Old and In the Way]

6. Orwell would approve.

" what we're trying to do is to protect the ability of the American people to see folks in Washington get at the truth...."

Thanks for trying to protect us Tony. We'll take a chance with putting these people under oath to get at the truth, though. For some reason, I think that will protect us a whole lot better.

[quiet.american]

8. "...poodle on linoleum...."

:rofl: :spray:

[Duer 157099]

9. Countdown to "..not going to comment on Ongoing Investigation"

Any day now

[sendero]

39. LOL....

.... yep. pretty soon he'll just shut his lying yap. :)

[bluethruandthru]

10. Thanks Tony!

It's nice to know you're protecting our "ability to see folks in Washington get at the truth without, in fact, engaging in the kind of unseemly partisanship that has too often been a factor in recent political life"? :wtf:

What exactly does that mean? I don't want you to protect me from anything..just get Rove and Harriet on the stand under oath!

[uppityperson]

11. Nice subject line, very descriptive, thanks

[K8-EEE]

18. Credit To The Stephanie Miller Show AND

to poodle Tony for scrambling so amusingly. WOOF!

[whistle]

12. Yes Tony Snowjob was scrambling and also pissing uncontrollably down his pant leg

[yellowcanine]

14. Well Mr. Snow, if the communications were not with the president, then executive privilege is not a

valid claim, is it? And the perogative of congressional oversight takes precedence over any squeamishness about "unseemly partisanship". Anyway, by electing a Congress of the opposite party as the President, the American people have already weighed in on that one and will weigh in again in 2008. So, not to worry, buddy, it is covered. Now go back and have a privileged converaation with George or something.

[K8-EEE]

19. There you go, being intriguing!

Stop making sense, the terrorists are getting comforted from it!

[jayfish]

15. Thanks For Posting This.

I was just about to do so myself and setting up the intro was a real bear.

K&R


Jay

[Spazito]

17. ROFL! Perfect description of what happened re Snow and

the WHP. Thanks for the laugh!

:rofl:

[Jacobin]

21. Apparently those 8 AG's still have their jobs!!!

Bush is the only one who can fire them, and he knew nothing about any firings!!!!

Oh this is getting good.

[K8-EEE]

23. Hey that's another question!!!

How is it possible that they are serving "at his pleasure" when he's not even in the loop with the decision?

[Jacobin]

27. none of it makes any sense at all

on the one hand, they contend he can fire AG's at will and doesn't have to have any excuse. then he says, I fired them because they were incompetent.

Then tony says Bush didn't have anything to do with it and didn't talk to anyone at the AG office about it and wasn't in the loop.

Huh?

[IDemo]

22. "Luposlipophobia"

from a "Far Side" cartoon by Gary Larson: The fear of being chased around a dining room table by wolves, while wearing socks on a linoleum floor.

sorta fits Tony Snowjob about now!

[stevedeshazer]

34. Like that a lot

Good one

[Cabcere]

24. Great subject line! n/t

[H2O Man]

25. Tony Snow

IS a poodle. He showed a willingness to humiliate himself today that was beneath contempt.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Executive privledge to stop unseemly partisanship in political life? ha ha ha

[JDPriestly]

28. Actually, Snow stuck his foot in his mouth on a couple of points.

First, he admitted that Congress is rightfully trying to determine the truth with regard to the firings of the attorneys:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070321-4.html

Q Tony, Senator Feinstein said today that the White House is in a bunker mentality, can't listen, won't change because it won't be more forthcoming about documents and testimony. Is there any room for compromise?

MR. SNOW: Again, we have made our offer. But let me address the bunker mentality. I can't think of anything that's further from the truth. Here you have the White House having made an offer to Capitol Hill that's designed to do one thing, which is to enable the House and Senate, in reviewing decisions made on U.S. attorneys, to get at the truth, and the whole truth; to make available to them key people at the U.S. Department of Justice, to have full access to emails there. We have already made available email traffic between the White House and the Justice Department.
. . . .

Second, Mr. Snow admitted that it is Congress job to investigate the issue of the firings of the attorneys. That contradicts the White House's prior statements that these attorneys serve at his pleasure and he can do what he wants.

I mean, this is -- it's really -- it's a reasonable and extraordinary effort on our part to help Congress do its job, and also to do it in a way that is consistent with dignity, respect between the two branches of government, and getting at the truth.

Once the White House has admitted that Congress is doing its job and trying to get to the truth, how can it balk at having its employees testifying under oath. Isn't the next logical question; Assuming Congress is doing its job, why isn't Bush cooperating by allowing his employees to testify under oath? Snow's admissions destroy Bush's arguments for not allowing his minions to testify.

This is not going to end well for Bush. If it is Congress' job to investigate this and find out the truth, then why is Bush obstructing their effort? It would seem that Bush's only reason for preventing Congress from doing his job and finding out the truth is to cover a lie. Bush can argue separation of powers and principle, but he has admitted that Congress is doing its job. Besides, that argument will come back to haunt him when Congress asks for a special prosecutor to enforce its subpoenas based on separation of powers and a conflict of interest in the Justice Department. Wow, first 9/11, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Katrina, then Plame and now this -- blunder upon blunder. What idiots. They just cannot think straight. ---- Of course, if they could, they would not be Republicans in the first place.

[yebrent]

29. Another problem they have saying Bush wasn't involved...

is that the USAs serve at the "pleasure of the President", and can only be fired by the President. So, are they saying that Bush didn't actually fire the USAs? Or, almost as bad, Bush fired the USAs without any understanding at all as to why he was firing them? Either way, Bush is not immune from this scandal.

[renate]

37. bing bing bing bing bing!

I just can't see how Bush won't be dragged into this eventually, if it's really true that only the president and not the attorney general can fire them.

I haven't heard many people (well, none, but I missed part of Countdown yesterday so maybe Keith said it) lay it out as clearly as you just did. If only the president can fire them, either Bush was the one responsible or he wasn't. Maybe they'll try playing the sleepwalking card... he didn't really know he was firing them.

[emulatorloo]

30. "unseemly partisanship that has too often been a factor in recent political life"

Yeah right Tony. We know how Bush and Karl Rove hate that sort of unseemly partisanship.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

32. was "not looped in" a reference to poppy

being "out of the loop" during iran contra?

[Morgana LaFey]

35. Yeah, Tony, testifying under oath is about nothin' BUT partisanship

you idjit.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

36. He said all that? Without tapshoes? Wow!

Mr. Snowjangles... dance.

[TheBaldyMan]

38. k&r worth it for theadline alone