Comments (54)

Bush LIPS sink ships. wrote on April 16, 2007 2:10 PM:

Security Code: snake.

az5762 wrote on April 16, 2007 2:13 PM:

I don't mean to sound stupid, but what does it matter if he did or did not? Is there anything other than him loosing another point or two off his 33% approval? Gonzao is a goner, but what about Lam and Duke Cunningham and all that? Isn't that what is more important? Obstruction of justice or something like that. It seems like we may be getting side-tracked from any CRIMINAL activity to the more nebulous political stuff.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 16, 2007 2:14 PM:

The sham of Oz has been exposed, but the WH con men in the are still in denial that their smoke and mirrors antics behind the curtain are now in full view of the world.

this guy wrote on April 16, 2007 2:14 PM:

i bet she was pretty excited when tony snow had to take medical leave. not that he was hurt, but that she got to be "the man" for awhile.

i bet she's not so glad anymore.

profmarcus wrote on April 16, 2007 2:19 PM:

she's so lame... the building is going up in flames and she stands there and babbles like a total ignoramus... wait 'til after tomorrow...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

drational wrote on April 16, 2007 2:19 PM:

"i bet she was pretty excited when tony snow had to take medical leave"

I can't imagine anyone wanting to shill for the administration at this point in time.....

thersitz wrote on April 16, 2007 2:22 PM:

I didn't ask.

I don't remember.

I can't recall.

I don't know.

I wasn't involved.

I wouldn't think so.

I believe so.

You'll have to ask him.

That's a partisan question.

The President is an honorable man.

The President thinks so.

The President believes debate is important.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 16, 2007 2:29 PM:

In simpler words . . . "I've got a job. I'm collecting a paycheck. Asking crap like that will get me termed. Anyway, the answer is farging obvious."

Bigbadjohn0708 wrote on April 16, 2007 2:32 PM:

Don't forget"We can't discuss this from this Podium.

powkat wrote on April 16, 2007 2:46 PM:

Fembot - sooner or later her circuits will blow.

jtzhang wrote on April 16, 2007 2:50 PM:

So what does it matter if Bush talked to Domenici?

Did they technically do anything illegal? Don't USA's "serve at the pleasure of the president?"

I understand that bringing politics into DOJ decisions is a no-no, but I don't see why this is such a big deal. I'm hardly a Republican, but I think most Republicans and Independents will agree.

infoshaman wrote on April 16, 2007 2:50 PM:

Somebody hand Ms. Perino a cell phone and tell her we'll wait until she gets an answer from the man behind the curtain.

No, really. No hurry. We've got all day and night.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 16, 2007 2:59 PM:

jtzhang,

If it's not such a big deal, why all the secrecy and the obfuscation? Apparently, it may indeed be a very big deal.

litigatormom wrote on April 16, 2007 3:02 PM:

jtzhang: Why yes, they may very well have done something illegal. First, they may have fired some of the US Attorneys in order to thwart ongoing criminal investigations against Republicans. Even Alberto Gonzales says, in his pathetic little statement, that such firings would be illegal. Second, it appears that several high-ranking DoJ officials may have lied to Congress during testimony -- which is a crime. It also makes you wonder why they felt they had to lie. Third, it appears that relevant e-mails and other documents responsive to Congressional subpoenas may have been destroyed. That, too, would be illegal.

And then there is the possibilty that some US Attorneys were fired for being unwilling to disenfranchise minority voters or pursue weak criminal investigations against Democrats in order to influence elections, and while one was allowed to stay on in return for bringing baseless prosecutions against Democratic officials.

Now of course, it's possible that none of those crimes were committed. But don't you think it's worth investigating?

God wrote on April 16, 2007 3:03 PM:

i bet she's not so glad anymore.

Are you kidding?

As a `loyal-Bushie' she's probably ecstatic!!

Perino probably downs the so-called Purply Kool-Aid from Boy George's Beer-Bong on a regular, probably bi-hourly basis.

C'mon....

One of her jobs is to make people IGNORE the solid hard fact that Sunnis and Shias have been at each others' throats for +1400 years and then to BELIEVE that they are going to stop fighting each other and form a pro-American govt.

That's seriously de. lu. sion. al.

Can't you see the FIRE in her eyes?

Angel wrote on April 16, 2007 3:04 PM:

Code word "snake" is up again.....must be an omen or something.

Anonymous wrote on April 16, 2007 3:05 PM:

Remember how often the Ashcroft Terror Alert would go up whenever the Admin. wanted to distract us from looking too closely at them?
( Whatever happened to that chart, anyhow)
A few minutes ago came a breathless report on tv news
" Terroists could be targeting YOUR child's school bus"..
Despte the Va Tech shooting, the news had time for a speculative bs terroist warning...

sheesh..

MO Blue wrote on April 16, 2007 3:14 PM:

I have to admit to being a little confused. Isn't her job to answer press questions about current events involving the President and his administration? As part of her job duties wouldn't that mean she is responsible for obtaining the information necessary to answer the questions whether that requires getting it from the President or anyone else.

Be nice if the WH Press Core quit letting WH spokespersons just fly by the seat of their pants and make things up as go alone. Maybe, wishful thinking on my part expecting them to get real answers.

thersitz wrote on April 16, 2007 3:22 PM:

they don't answer questions; they deliver talking points; the stenographers in the room relay them to other stenographers in newsrooms across the land; from there the talking points enter the echo chamber; the echo chamber enters the american rectum and that's where b.s. comes from.

anonymous wrote on April 16, 2007 3:45 PM:

Wait, how is she suddenly not sure what communications the President had with Gonzalez?

On March 13, Dana said, "At no time did any White House officials, including the president, direct the Department of Justice to take specific action against any individual U.S. attorney."

So, is she saying that statement is no longer operative?

Did she not know the facts at that time, or was she lying? Based on what knowledge did she make that statement?

Has she spoken with the President?

What has changed since March 13 and today that now makes it impossible for her to make this statement again? Does she have knowledge of the President's interaction in the Iglesias case? In any other case besides Iglesias?

bobh wrote on April 16, 2007 3:50 PM:

"At no time did any White House officials, including the president, direct the Department of Justice to take specific action against any individual U.S. attorney."

Isn't this what Tony Snow did his best NOT to say?

Something tells me a subpoena and contempt citation is in her future.

Because if Drunky mcStagger is NOT involved ALL the attorneys were fired illegally as they do indeed serve at the pleasure of the President, not AGAG.

code: poison

Nancy Irving wrote on April 16, 2007 3:56 PM:

At least they can't say they "can't comment on an ongoing criminal investigation"--yet.

Anonymous wrote on April 16, 2007 4:01 PM:

Here's a hint:

If you don't like your Security Code word, keep hitting refresh until you do.

DF wrote on April 16, 2007 4:02 PM:

Prediction Time:

Which Senator will deliver the KO punch to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?

My money is on Specter. His questioning of Sampson was masterful and showed that he understands the difference between an interrogation and appearing on Bill O'Riley. Schumer needs to cut to the chase and leave the theatrics at home. Leahy was a prosecutor and it showed, but I think the coup de gras is more likely to come from a Republican. My Money is on Specter.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 16, 2007 4:07 PM:

Mr. Gonzales is NOT a goner if the President doesn't ask for his resignation and there aren't enough votes to convict on impeachment. Which means the only way he'll go is if enough dirty laundry gets washed in public that the Republicans start screaming to Rove that they are worried about being re-elected in 2008. Mr. Gonzales certainly won't go because Democrats are screaming that there has been a systemic miscarriage of justice; Mr. Bush likes what he's doing to the Justice Department. So, keep looking, and get out the soap.

Mike wrote on April 16, 2007 4:09 PM:

As a crisis manager and formerly employed in government, I know one of the tactics some like to employ is to keep the front person out of the loop so they can 'honestly' deny events. Most people do know this technique, so I don't know who Ms. Perino thinks she is fooling. It only delays the inevitable.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 16, 2007 4:11 PM:

Ms. Perino is a "'dear' in the headlights", put there precisely to slow down the Democrats' sedan.

When the Press Korps starts asking her direct questions, and won't let her go until they get an answer, Mr. Rove will find another garden gnome to replace her. Her job, as Mr. Snow made clear when doing it, is not to answer questions, but to imply that they shouldn't be asked.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 16, 2007 4:14 PM:

Ms. Perino is like a fundamentalist expert on evolution. She has the answers, but doesn't feel it necessary to ask any questions, much less get the facts.

Woobot wrote on April 16, 2007 4:32 PM:

Perino: "I just can't say that Senator Domenici and the President ever had a one-on-one conversation about it."

Interpretation: It was a three-way conversation w/ Prez, Domenici and Rove.

Security word: turn as in twist slowly in the wind

smoore wrote on April 16, 2007 4:44 PM:

Security code: "glove" As in OJs farce of pretending his hands didn't fit in the glove. No one is owning up to anything in Purgegate. "Hey look, they don't fit."

Miss Butter wrote on April 16, 2007 5:28 PM:

If the true answer to the question were "No, there was no Bush-Domenici phone call," how quickly, and how hyper-aggressively, do you think that position would have been hammered at by now?

bobh wrote on April 16, 2007 5:45 PM:

"Mr. Gonzales is NOT a goner if the President doesn't ask for his resignation and there aren't enough votes to convict on impeachment. Which means the only way he'll go is if enough dirty laundry gets washed in public that the Republicans start screaming to Rove that they are worried about being re-elected in 2008. Mr. Gonzales certainly won't go because Democrats are screaming that there has been a systemic miscarriage of justice; Mr. Bush likes what he's doing to the Justice Department. So, keep looking, and get out the soap.
Posted by: mbbsdphil"

Hey, Inherent Contempt (jailtime for gonzo) would only require a majority in the House. Fory ANY one.

Inherent Contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years.

feel free to read up on it mbbsdphil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

spudbuster wrote on April 16, 2007 7:01 PM:

it don't matter anyway. it's time to buy vaseline stock, cuz they are getting away with 'purgegate' and every other corrupt action they've been involved with. stall till the election and it will go away.

James wrote on April 16, 2007 7:17 PM:

jtzhang and litigatormom: Good posts.

The phrases that come to mind are "obstruction of justice" and "conspiracy to obstruct justice." Both Federal felonies (see US. v Libby).

But Nixon believed that "when the President does it, it's not a crime..." Bush and Cheney appear to agree with Nixon. Most other Republicans disagree with Nixon (see Impeachment of Clinton).

Mooser wrote on April 16, 2007 7:34 PM:

If you don't like your Security Code word, keep hitting refresh until you do

Only a Republican would stoop to that! The idea does you no "credit"

Whistler wrote on April 16, 2007 9:15 PM:

(quoting DF, from a previous comment:)

> Which Senator will deliver the KO punch
> to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?

He'll do it to himself. They never learn.

Does anyone else remember the end of one of the early Pink Panther movies - when the Inspector, on the witness stand, pulled The Phantom's handkerchief out of a pocket, to mop his brow; thereby incriminating himself? Expect similar.

When I was working in the military under Reagan and Bush Sr., I saw so much obvious lying that I had a mental system worked out, to determine the skill levels of the people telling untruths.

A level one basically announced their crime out of internal guilt; but claimed they "didn't do it". (All you had to do was change that to "did do it" and you'd arrive at the truth, intact.) At the most unskilled sub-level here, you didn't even know a cookie was missing until they blurted out that they didn't just steal one. You'd go to check the cookie jar; and the crime was solved.

A level two basically stuck with the story that a cookie and a jar were involved, somewhere ... but threw in some finger pointing. A burglar stole it, they'd claim. But a cookie was still missing; so it's inevitable that suspicions would remain even if you couldn't solve the whole crime, fast.

A level three threw in so much B.S., that you had a hard time even remembering cookies were the main subject matter. The Bush people are trying hard to be Level Three's ... but failing, in the eyes of all but their deluded "base". In fact, in throwing out more B.S., they end up incriminating themselves in multiple other crimes. Pathetic!?

A level four was undetectable. No one even knew that anything had happened; let alone who did it. Rare, and hard to prove the existence of ... but I did meet a small amount of these, ages back. (I only caught one, when -- for a split second -- he glanced around the room, to see if all bought into his baloney. Fascinating, to meet a four.)

In summary: the Bush Crime Family aren't even technically good liars. Level Two's, at best.

The sad part is that the public accepts that this always has to be the case. Guess growing up with memories of crooks like Nixon, caused all that?

> My money is on Specter. His questioning
> of Sampson was masterful ...

Did anyone else get the impression that the only person that Sampson was genuinely fearful of, in terms of disappointing that person, was Specter? The look in KS's eyes, whenever he was had to talk to Specter -- and the slow, angry burn that Specter's eyes had, pretty often -- said much.

As to Sodomici -- he's toast. Can't wait to see what skeletons he has in his closet; considering that he had three decades to fill it up with.

Ah, sunlight. What a wonderful, welcome thing!

As to the possibility that Gonzo's hearing won't happen until Thursday ... that's actually good. If Rice goes up on Wednesday, and falls into the Inherent Contempt category -- and how could she not? She's probably already there, many times over -- then there goes the only person who is able to accept a Presidential resignation.

If she goes bye-bye, first; then Gonzo goes after, then both running away and standing their ground goes bye-bye, with them.

People who live in glass houses, located at the bottom of rock quarries, ought to be very, very nice to their neighbors! These people weren't.

SocraticGadfly wrote on April 16, 2007 10:01 PM:

Ahh, the old Air Fleischer defense... don't ask.

noen wrote on April 16, 2007 11:00 PM:

Whistler:
" (I only caught one, when -- for a split second -- he glanced around the room, to see if all bought into his baloney. Fascinating, to meet a four.)"

Who was the four?

Candace Kautzer wrote on April 17, 2007 1:10 AM:

Seems like I saw her name listed on some of the e-mails (from last Friday's doc dump) as a recepient(sp?). Semms like she's not as dumb as she pretends to be. Why would she be getting these e-mails? I don't remember seeing Snow's name on any of the previous ones.

All that may mean nothing.

Unemployed wrote on April 17, 2007 1:29 AM:

Reports of Senator Domenici's demise will not be believed in New Mexico until it happens. There are a lot of old pols in the state who owe him--and many of them are nominally Democrats. Won't be any tears here, though--Iglesias is not the first to lose his job because of Domenici's office, on a shady deal...

Whistler wrote on April 17, 2007 5:16 AM:

(quoting noen:)
> Who was the four?

Some random guy I never saw again, after that. Or before. I wished I'd have had the opportunity to study his methods, over time. Up until then, a four was a thing I'd only speculated MIGHT exist. Level Two's, however, were a dime a metric ton.

Various "lying related" stories ... with a moral.

I worked in a USAF office situation. Lots of reports made. Lots of lies being told, at several levels, before they came to our office ... where we formatted them nicely, and prettied them up.

Example: time cards, or their equivalent. We'd get these handwritten forms in, with what was clearly a "1" written under "crew size," by the person actually doing the aircraft maintenance. The person over that one -- some more than others, of course -- would get greedy, and write a "2" over the one. So obvious, once you're aware of the trick; and have seen it, many many times.

This wasn't the end of it. One shop never had enough work to do; so, by the rules allegedly in place in the USAF, some of those not-hard-working crew types should have been transferred, to help shops that had fewer people than they needed. The catch was political: the higher-ups wanted that shop to stay as it was. So, when they would not only change a "1" to a "2", but go farther than that -- long story; take my word for it, but it involved taping a punched-out hole back into the form -- we were just supposed to fake blindness.

So, in that one (admittedly small, rare) shop's example, the "crew size" went from one person to two; then got resubmitted and re-entered; for 4.

Fraud, waste and abuse? Systemic? You betcha! (And all happening on Reagan and H.W. Bush’s watch.)

Another example: I was tasked -- once and only once! -- with a "Maintenance Study". I was too naive at the time to realize I was being told to blame Supply (another organization) instead of Maintenance ... and I told the truth, when I filed the report: it was our (Maintenance's) fault, all along. I was never given another one of the maintance studies to do. (Too honest?)

Some low-ranking person was blamed; moved to an office way away from anyone else; and had most of her official duties stripped from her. Meanwhile, the problem itself had been lingering for three years ... I found that out, once I talked to the shop involved. They'd quietly rebelled, to let an issue fester; until it got looked at, and fixed. (Not fixing nose radomes, which had too often been damaged due to negligence ... which is why it was being hinted that Supply was at fault. If they'd been following Tech Regs -- which had the force of law, supposedly -- none of the "stand damage" would have been able to occur.) Cost to the public would have been about $4,000,000 to buy MORE spare nose radomes than they already had -- 80+ aircraft, times $50,000 per part -- if they'd assigned someone less stupid / honest to the investigation. (And after that, they did!)

I always hated the job, on moral grounds. One big reason I left was not liking having to lie all of the time; or rather, to tell other's lies well. I loved parts of it ... but the dishonesty sucked.

Here's where I throw in a (weird, twisted) moral of sorts:

Third example: at one point (late 80's) someone from a foreign military was paraded around our office building, by a Lt. Colonel, whom I knew well; liked and trusted. I'm gonna say this more or less "exchange student" was a Saudi ... but my memory of that specific detail is pretty foggy. I just took the Colonel's word for who he was, etc. (I do remember being told this guy was from a country that was an ally of the United States; and he was definitely a middle-Eastern type.)

Anyway, he went from office to office; person to person. He was there to get the Official Version of "what we do," job-wise; so he could go back to his country, and tell them how we do things. With most people, he spent a polite (but bored) five minutes, max -- listening to B.S. that I don't believe he even remotely believed, or filed away anywhere important, in his head.

With me, he listened for about an hour. Why? Timing was part of it. I was ticked off, then, about being forced to report figures I had no faith in. It was something that really didn't matter much, in any improper way – no money or lives were at stake. (So why not tell the truth, was my unsuccessful argument. Sigh.) So I told him the full truth. And he was fascinated: I was probably as rare in my way – truth telling – as a “Level Four liar” is, in their way.

Backstory:

Were the "Plans and Scheduling" folks able to, essentially, predict a detailed future with perfect accuracy, a month in advance? No. Of course not. It was a stupid thing to have expected, in the first place. But due to the usual "you'll never rise higher, if you don't look on paper like you're superior to others (who are also puffing up all they do)" baloney, that office had long allowed themselves (a) to be the foxes that guarded that particular henhouse (instead of we “outsiders” doing those reports, as called for in the written rules of the USAF, then) and (b) had gotten, over time, so carelessly greedy that they consistently said they had 100% efficiency, every month ... yada, yada. A drop to even 97% or 95% claimed efficiency looked like a disaster, on paper ... and all the while, 80% was likely the truth.

... short story being, I told this foreign national – there to learn the way the USAF did things -- that we were keeping double books. Or, at least that I was.

The twist? The secret "books" I was keeping was something I'd assigned myself to do, without anyone having told me to; and it was intended as the "probably much closer to what is really happening, out there" version of things.

In other words -- and this is why I'm telling this story -- I kept secret, HONEST books in addition to the DISHONEST ones I was forced to keep by various and sundry career military types who wanted to "go along and get along" or who had aspirations for promotions, medals, whatever.

My conscience felt much better, just by keeping track of the "what's really going on" version of things ... even if all I had done with them was to set them on top of a shelf above my desk, and left them there, to gather dust.

Had anyone high up ever gotten sick of being told lies, on that issue, I'd have been able to say "here's the truth, sir" and hand him a multi-month backlog of the Real Story.

I am hoping beyond hope that I'm not the only man, woman, or civil servant that ever rebelled in that way.

However secretly and/or quietly the Real Story might have been preserved, in this current (much worse, I feel) government ... I hope it was.

If there was anyone like me, keeping quiet little notes out there, without telling others ... future hearings will be a mega-treat!?

Johann wrote on April 17, 2007 9:19 AM:

Ignorance is BLISS.

bibimimi wrote on April 17, 2007 10:05 AM:

that POOR girl.

Whistler wrote on April 17, 2007 11:51 PM:

Last comment from me, in regards to the (loose) science of lying, etc. -- and with my apologies for being so verbose, above.

Up until now, I figured a "Level One Liar" was something that only young children engaged in. It's something adults rarely, if ever, do ... because they've grown out of it; gained more skill, and became "Level Two Liars" over time.

But once you factor psychological projection into the mix, with this administration ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

... then it's hard not to see a lot of what is going on now, as being a Level 1.5 split: they may not rat themselves out, per se, but after you have seen evidence of their key patterns -- their M.O. or "fingerprints" -- enough times, in enough contexts, it amounts to the same thing.

I'm not used to seeing the usual-and-customary skill progression move backwards, with age. This is a (wide-scale) first, for me.

"Fascinating," as Mr. Spock might have said.

(and 'nuff said!)

pre-Amerikkkan wrote on April 18, 2007 3:48 AM:

i know i should never post when i'm exhausted cuz i tend to start blabbering but seeing this and it's clear, this is the end of the bushworld.

black@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 7:03 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

black@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 7:04 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

black@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 10:58 PM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 10:58 PM:

hello

jessica@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 11:15 AM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 9:59 PM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 9:59 PM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:00 PM:

hello

kriss@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 11:53 PM:

hello