Skip to main content

Crossposted at MyLeft Wing.

So Bush goes on Faux and proves, again, what he really is:

President Bush said yesterday he is confident that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of money-laundering charges, as he offered strong support for several top Republicans who have been battered by investigations or by rumors of fading clout inside the White House.

Hoo boy. And you'll love why Bush looooooves DeLay:

In an interview with Fox News, Bush said he hopes DeLay will be cleared of charges that he illegally steered corporate money into campaigns for the Texas legislature and will reclaim his powerful leadership position in Congress.

"I hope that he will, 'cause I like him, and plus, when he's over there, we get our votes through the House," Bush told Fox News's Brit Hume.

By the way, Jim VandeHei has been catching a lot of flak from some liberal blogs on his Plamegate coverage. In my opinion, these attacks on VandeHei have been utterly unfair. VandeHei has Luskin as a source. Yes he reports Luskin's "theory" but does a very good job of letting us know that Luskin is the source, while maintaining ostensible anonymity. The liberal sites attacking Vandenhei are really missing the boat on this.

If VandeHei was a shill, would he have written this?

Bush has refused to speak about the CIA leak investigation or the impending trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former vice presidential chief of staff who was indicted in the case. But the president said he believes that DeLay is not guilty -- weeks before his trial is expected to begin.

It is highly unusual for a president to express an opinion on a pending legal case. Richard M. Nixon, for instance, was widely criticized for declaring Charles Manson "guilty, directly or indirectly" of murder while Manson's trial was ongoing.

Please folks. No one is as critical of the Media as I am, but let's make our critiques reality based. The attacks on VandeHei have simply not been.

Originally posted to Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 04:55 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  From silence to logorrhea (4.00)
    Williams: Why can't the united states be definitively against torture?

    Bush: We will be we are and we will be at home and abroad the American people expect us to do that which we can do within international law and our own declaration of supporting the premises of international law is what I really meant to say uh to protect protect us I mean if they know something we need to know it and we think we can find it. . .

    •  Yeah, pretty clearly... (4.00)
      they've adjusted his meds again.

      "Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering." - R. Buckminster Fuller -5.88/-5.23

      by Shadan7 on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:45:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I guess Alito would argue that no non-retard (4.00)
      could not understand that.
    •  Translation in 3 words (4.00)
      We do torture.

      Diebold must die, or else, America will.

      by Ruffledfeather on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:40:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Listening to Bush is Torture (4.00)
        Especially when he is in the warm bath tub with his playmate Brit Hume surrounded by rubber duckies and soapy suds.

        I really truly never imagined that my country could sink this low. How naive I have been to think that civil behavior, respect for human beings, and care for the environment would always evolve in positive ways (with some minor setbacks).

        The president is dumb and the public is numb.

        •  100% agree with this sentiment (4.00)
          I could also not believe that we as Americans could possibly sink this low as to elect someone obviously NOT up to the job.  ???????? I am utterly confused by this.  Not only is he not up to the job, he is a total embarassment- clueless, willing to lie while at he same time accusing others of distortions.  How could we as a country have elected him????  It's baffling.

          I remember in 2000 watching the primary debates. Our(now) idiot-in-chief flubbed an easy OIL question.  I was amazed, he was from Texas after all.  I thought he would never last as he was so obviously inferior.  I guess the neocons got what they wanted though, a puppet to do their bidding.  Wake up America

        •  torture (none)
          it was on a street so evil
          So bad that even hell disowned it
          Every single step was trouble
          For the fool who stumbled on it
          Eyes within the dark were watching
          I felt the sudden chill of danger
          Something told me keep on walking
          Told me I should not have come there...

          It's torture
          It's torture
          It's torture
          hooo hooooo

        •  reminds me of an SNL Sketch (none)
          With Will Ferrel and Rachel Dratch:

          Will:  While the waters appear calm, I assure you that beneath is a flurry of activity.  Fingers fluttering, legs intertwining in anticipation of the lovemaking that will take place in this hot-tub in 15 minutes.

          Give me Liberty or give me death! (-6.88, -6.15)

          by guyermo on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:56:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. Clearly ... (none)
        And doesnt that updated military guidebook, refreshed by Rumsfeld et al, give BushCo the wiggle room they need to keep on keepin on with the ... uh, "harsh treatment"?

        I havent checked it out, dont have time to go rummaging, but as I recall, from news-bite memory, this latest addition is "classified." And allegedly, Saint McCain will NOT be happy vis a vis his antitorture bill.

        They are a headache of contradictions, arent they? McCain will probably not raise much of a fuss or endorse the new thing, or what not. Just guessing. As I said, I dont have time to investigate, but one thing I do know, whether it is Bush or McCain, they giveth with one hand and with the other, they taketh away. And they always take more than they give ... always.

        How can something like that be kept secret, anyway? Looks to me like that bucket is really a sieve.

        Should a liberal Dem blog be driven into "safe zones" by a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:02:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Translation (none)
      I'd rather not bother myself worrying about this.  That's how you should be, too.  Let the people in charge do their business without interference.

      Something along those lines.

    •  I wouldn't want to be an interpreter in this case, (4.00)
      and am thankful that I only do translations into English, and not from English (or Bushese, in this case).

      I asked an interpreter who has had to interpret Bush how she manages it, and she chuckled and said, "Sometimes I say to myself, um, what can I invent here?"

      "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

      by Donna in Rome on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:29:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  4 for expanding my vocabulary (none)
      Never heard 'logorrhea' before.  Perfect.
  •  I agree with you on Vandehei (4.00)
    He almost always breaks new ground in his WP articles.  Recently, he was first to report why VIveca Novak was being called to testify, and got the story right without being a mouthpiece for Luskin. (He clearly had other sources for the article). He seems like a solid reporter who uses Luskin as a source but hasn;t become Luskin's stenographer.  

    Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN!

    by pontificator on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:05:56 AM PST

    •  Yep (4.00)
      And the great bloggers who do outstanding work on
      Plamegate should not, IMO, shoot the reporter who gets the sources to reveal their blather.

      They are reporters, not pundits.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:40:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, (none)
      Vandehei is now so widely disseminated that many of his comments are seen only in part.  People go off without realizing that he's passing on the views of others - attribution can be a bitch, especially on Tweety.

      "If you get an outfit, you can be a cowboy, too..." : The Smothers Brothers.

      by wozzle on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:35:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush is confident of DeLay's innocence? (4.00)
    Well, then perhaps Earle should subpoena Bush for the trial as a material witness. Bush apparently has some information that no one else does and should share it in court.
  •  I thought he wouldn't comment (4.00)
    on ongoing legal processes. I thought it was really weird for him to go out on a limb on DeLay and even say Rumsfeld was doing "a heck of a job." No joke. I have to assume this is another case of Bush's brain being otherwise occupied and dumb Andy Card calling the shots.

    "Once in awhile you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

    by Glic on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:13:12 AM PST

    •  Highly outrageous (4.00)
      for the President, susposedly the chief law enforcement officer in the nation, to offer an opinion on a pending criminal proceeding against a political ally.

      I actually thought that was why we still had judges and juries. Silly me.

      Also, the hypocrisy is absolutely obvious, comical really, given the strict position that he and his administration have taken on Treasongate, repeatedly (daily?) refusing to make any comment whatsoever on the pending investigation.

      What exactly is the difference making it just fine and dandy to comment on the one criminal matter, but not the other?

      •  I thought the Attorney General (none)
        was the chief law enforcement officer in the nation?

        "Our long national nightmare is over. Our constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws and not of men." --Gerald Ford, August 9, 1974

        by JohnReed on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:47:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Attoney General is a cabinet official (none)
          in the President's administration, reports to the President, promotes the policies established by the President and serves at the pleasure of the President.

          Therefore, it is the President who has ultimate responsibility for enforcement of the laws.

          •  "I do solemnly swear... (none)
            "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
  •  I'm puzzled, Armando (4.00)
    I thought Scotty said the White House, let alone the President, did not comment on cases that were under investigation and judicial enquiry.

    If Bush declares his view that Delay is innocent, is this not an abuse of office by influencing the outcome of the judicial process?

    New International Times, the place where Kossacks and the world meet.

    by Welshman on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:13:40 AM PST

    •  gmta ! n/t (4.00)

      "Once in awhile you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

      by Glic on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:18:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Given (4.00)
      that more and more of the country thinks that Bush is a liar, maybe it would prejudice a jury against DeLay. I'd like to see DeLay's attorney argue that.

      Pointless, incessant barking since Mon Feb 9, 2004 at 3:05:52 PM MST

      by Blue the Wild Dog on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:22:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Shhhh (4.00)
        Don't give him any ideas.

        I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

        by incertus on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:30:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe (4.00)
          Bush should make a speech and claim that he has intelligence that indicates that DeLay is guilty as sin. That would help DeLay, since no one believes Bush. ;-)
          •  that would be a lie (4.00)
            Bush can't claim he has intelligence...
          •  BREAKING: Curveball Clears DeLay! (4.00)
            Trusted Iraqi intelligence source Curveball today announced that he had definitive evidence that prosecutor Ron Earle's prosecution of Tom DeLay is politically motivated, and that DeLay is completely innocent.

            "They took me to Poland, where I was forced to listen to Brian Williams' interview of George Bush over and over again while standing on one foot.  Before long, I broke.  I had to admit the truth: Tom DeLay is innocent."

            Mr. Curveball's announcement was corroborated later in the day by a second reliable intelligence source, Ahmed Chalabi.  "Of course he is innocent.  And they didn't even have to take me to Poland to get me to say that."

            Scott McClellan had no comment on the news.  "Ongoing investigation,  ongoing investigation," Mr. McClellan said.  After being kicked in the butt by Helen Thomas, Mr. McClellan's tape jam cleared and he was able to continue with his press briefing.

            Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

            by litigatormom on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:45:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh the horror! (none)
              "I was forced to listen to Brian Williams' interview of George Bush over and over again "

              I almost puked watching Brian suck up to GWB.
              Then I remembered that NBC is owned by GE and GE took Brian Williams to Poland and made him do the interview their way.

              ------------------------------------------------- GE

              CEO: Jeffrey R. Immelt
              Military contracts 2003: $2.8 billion
              Campaign contributions in 2004: $221,200 (defense related)
              $1.9 million (total)

              The world's largest company by market share, General Electric's revenues in 2003 totaled $134.2 billion.

              General Electric makes household appliances, plastics, water treatment systems, lighting, medical equipment, and commercial financial services. It also makes aircraft engines and nuclear reactors, and keeps criticism at bay with its ownership of media giants NBC, CNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, and, in partnership with Microsoft, msnbc.com. GE's recent partnership with Vivendi added Universal Studios, USA, Trio and Sci-fi cable channels to its $43 billion media empire.

              General Electric is one of the world's top three producers of jet engines, supplying Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other military aircraft makers for the powering of airplanes and helicopters.

              The "war on terrorism" has seen GE's military contracts rise substantially. But the company's "defense" side has been doing well for a while.

    •  send that question to the white house reporters (4.00)
      that's a good observation.  Let them know it's now open season on ongoing cases.  
    •  Bush said all of this in the Fox World. (4.00)
      In the real world he does not comment on ongoing investigations.

      So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard

      by illinifan17 on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:32:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There would be hell to pay (3.83)
        ..in the UK if the Prime Minister were to express such an opinion at such a time.

        It is one of the serious "no go" areas that would bring him under heavy censure that could lead to resignation.

        The most he would be allowed to comment is the standard "we must await the outcome of the legal process".

        It is not just bringing improper influence, it is utterly hypocritical. Politicians always hide behind the "cannot comment" defence in these circumstances when it suits them.

        The Washington Post article picks up this point - like all of you, I hope - maybe forlornly - that the White House Press Corps will do the same at the next Scotty shambles.

        New International Times, the place where Kossacks and the world meet.

        by Welshman on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:42:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps at the next gaggle (4.00)
      we can watch Scottie do the high wire act in explaining the inconsistencies. He'd have to spin so fast, he'd get his arms tangled in his hair. Maybe he needs to take night classes on doing the whirling dervish.

      Of course, it's Scottie's job to make lies sound like truth. If he's not getting paid more than the entire Cabinet combined, he's underpaid.

  •  Once again (4.00)
    We have a demonstration of how prescient was the decision by the University of Texas Law School admissions committee NOT to admit George W. Bush.

    Thanks to former dean Page Keeton for resisting pressure from some wealthy alumni to reverse that committee's decision.  There have been some people in this country who have refused to bend over for former president George H.W. Bush's son.

    We're all in this together.

    by JTML on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:27:34 AM PST

    •  Except (none)
      Then President Harriet Myers would have had a chance to nominate George Bush to the SCOTUS. Imagine George saying such gushing things about Harriet, how she is the most brilliant, geniusy woman he ever met, then, the sheer joy of hearing Republicans saying he is unqualified for the job (especially Ann Coulter).

      Do Pavlov's dogs chase Schroedinger's cat?

      by corwin on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:42:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, it's a shame (4.00)
      If he'd gone to law school, chances are his father's friends would have gotten him a cushy job in some fancy Houston law firm, and we'd have been spared all of this.

      -dms

    •  And you know who Dean Keeton is? (none)
      Scotty McClellan's grandfather.

      His mom is Carol Keeton McClellan Rylander something or other -- lots of marriages, lots of Texas state offices she has held. (I used to live in Texas.) Texas Kossacks -- Isn't she running for governor now? Maybe if she wins, he'll go home and work for her.

  •  That's interesting, Mr. Bush. (none)
    Do you think DeLay is innocent of bribery charges in
    the growing Duke Cunningham and MZM money laundering/bribery scandal, also?

    I carried water for the elephant; Back and forth to the well I went; My arms got sore and my back got bent; But I couldn't fill up that elephant

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:34:32 AM PST

    •  Duke (none)
      From the article:

      "Well, first of all, I feel Duke Cunningham was wrong and should be punished for what he did," Bush said. "And I think that anybody who does what he did should be punished, Republican or Democrat.

      If Duke had pled innocent, no doubt he'd feel otherwise.

      'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

      by jorndorff on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:54:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like how (none)
        Bush, in the same interview, claims Jack Abramoff is a bipartisan scandal.

        Not in a bubble, indeed.

        I carried water for the elephant; Back and forth to the well I went; My arms got sore and my back got bent; But I couldn't fill up that elephant

        by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:54:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well sure (none)
        He's all over that "innocent until proven guilty" thing except when:

        you're not white - "Looters" in New Orleans, Iraqis, etc.
        you're not rich - Kenny Boy
        you're not a (Republican) politician - Rove, DeLay, Duke, et al
        your desire to see your essentially dead wife have a moment of dignity interferes with the "message of life" - anyone but Michael Schiavo

        you don't have connections - Abramoff, Norquist, ....
        you're taking the fall so he doesn't have to - Abu Ghraib and Gitmo soldiers

        Feel free to add to my list.

        Everyone say it with me ....

        IOKIYAR!

        (-7.25, -5.85) "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson

        by Slartibartfast on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:15:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The saddest statement about Bush's America... (4.00)
    ...is that American Media still reports what the Bush Administration states with a straight face.

    At this point, any news broadcast that doesn't begin it's coverage of the Bush Administration's statements with, "...and in today's, "Can you really believe this crap segment, the Bush Administration said..." must remain suspect, regarding their competency as journalists.

  •  Bush lied about Abramoff, too (4.00)
    Secondly, the Abramoff -- I'm not, frankly, all that familiar with a lot that's going on over at Capitol Hill, but it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties."

    Abramoff, the head of the College RNC back in the 80's, donated to Republicans at approximately a 3 to 1 ratio. Back when he was the head of the College RNC, Abramoff was close with Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist. These friendships continued, with Reed & Norquist helping Abramoff launder money from the tribes to GOP candidates.

    Tom DeLay once called Abramoff "one of my best friends," and worked alongside Abramoff when he was representing interests of the CNMI.

    'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

    by jorndorff on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:51:46 AM PST

    •  Same crap he spouted about enron (none)
      And 'kenney Boy" donating to both parties....
      •  Speaking of Kenny Boy...... (4.00)
        Did anyone see the little story yesterday about KB asking  former Enron employees to come forward and help in his defense? What is it about Texas that it produces people like Bush and Lay who can lie, cheat and steal and expect their victims to bail them out?  And by the way, why were 500 people willing to gather to listen to Kenny Boy.  Who are those people?

        "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

        by Lying eyes on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:02:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bush is not a Texan! (none)
          Take it from me -- previously married to a fifth-generation Texan who took his heritage quite seriously: Anyone who is born north of the Red River (that's the Texas border, for the geographically challenged) is a Yankee.
          •  Hey, I resent that (none)
            my daddy was born north of the Red River, and brought to California before he could walk

            My Father wasn't no god damned Yankee. My Daddy was an OKIE, and damn proud of it

            for the REALLY geographically challenged (mostly Texans) the line between the Yankees and Dixie is know as the Mason and Dixon Line (between Maryland and Pensylvania)

            and the best thing that ever came out of Texas (besides grandpa) was the interstate

          •  Sorry......... (none)
            Living in Bushworld has messed with my memory.  Of course he's not really a Texan.  

            "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

            by Lying eyes on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know if you heard the interview (none)
      but I woke up in the middle of the night and found the Brit Bush interview.

      It was really funny because Bush mispronounced Abramoff's name.

      He said something like "Abramanoff".

      I just wonder if it was a mistake or if he was trying to distance himself from Abramoff.

      The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

      by NYC Sophia on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:47:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't catch it (4.00)
        though I wouldn't be suprised.

        Shouldn't Bush know how to pronounce the name of a Bush Pioneer?

        [Abramoff] raised $100,000 for President George W. Bush's 2004-re-election campaign, getting himself named as a "Bush Pioneer."

        Abramoff raised zero for John Kerry or Howard Dean.

        And, from the AP:

        The records from Abramoff's firm, obtained by The Associated Press from the Marianas under an open records request, chronicle Abramoff's careful cultivation of relations with Bush's political team as far back as 1997.

        In that year, Abramoff charged the Marianas for getting then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush to write a letter expressing support for the Pacific territory's school choice proposal, his billing records show.

        "I hope you will keep my office informed on the progress of this initiative," Bush wrote in a July 18, 1997, letter praising the islands' school plan and copying in an Abramoff deputy.

        White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday that Bush didn't consider Abramoff a friend. "They may have met on occasion, but the president does not know him," she said.

        'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

        by jorndorff on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:02:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  he was probably (none)
        drunk... again

        "I remember when the answer seemed so clear. We had never lived without or tasted fear." The Monkees

        by kisler1224 on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 10:27:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Abramoff isn't going to jail (4.00)
      because he donated to candidates.

      He's going to jail because he ran a shake-down and money-laundering operation exclusively, solely, and only for Republicans, by Republicans at the very heart and highest levels of the Republican party.

  •  I <HEART> VANDEHEI? (none)
    I believe that "some liberal blogs" -- including posters here on Daily Kos (a liberal blog? oh my!) -- criticize VandeHei less for his reporting than for his complicity in the anti-Froomkin whining.

    I believe that criticism of specific problematic reportage is ALWAYS appropriate and is in fact one of this site's (and the blogosphere in general) raison d'etre, regardless of whether the reporter gets it sort of right most of the time.  
    For example, NVandeHei was criticized for replacing the name "Hadley" for "Libby" in a critical on-TV discussion of the Plame affair.  Also, the people discussing the matter didn't bat an eye at this potential bombshell, which was also appropriately criticized.  These were not "unfair."

    It strikes me that this print journalism to TV talking head movement is often the cause of complaint.  People, including VandeHei, say all sorts of shit they can't back up on TV, as if it doesn't impact their print credibility.

    So, insofar as you are suggesting we shouldn't draw and quarter the man, I agree.  If you are (hyperbolically?) suggesting all criticism of VandeHei is "unfair" you are wrong.

    If you are suggesting we all have to

    I recently read an appropriate scathing comment about

    (although specific criticism is always appropriate

    Save your tears for the living

    by immanentize on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:52:30 AM PST

    •  Blaming my lack of coffee (none)
      for hitting post instead of preview -- please ignore left over, unedited last few lines.

      Its like the gas cap on a car, it seems 'post' and 'preview' randomly show up on diferent sides on different blogs.

      My bad!  Sorry.

      Save your tears for the living

      by immanentize on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:54:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Two things (none)
      First, the criticism of VandeHei was about his Luskin reporting.

      You know EXACTLY what I am talking about as you came to my front page post on the subject of Luskin's theory and also attacked me while ostensible defending Jane Hamsher's critique of my interpretation of the VandeHei article. Of course, you want acknowledge your error and the unfairness of your attack on me. The fact is Jane was just plain wrong on that one. No sin. We all get lots of things wrong.

      Second, do you have a record of VandeHei complaining about Froomkin? John Harris said something and Deborah Howell did but other than their vague allusions to "reporters" the only name I have seen put on the Froomkin complaints is Patrick Ruffini, the Republican Party operative.

      Indeed, if you read Brad DeLong, you'll notice that this story is crumbling around Harris, Howell and Len Downie. It's pretty clear they were mau maued by Republicans, not reporters.

      But you probably think Dana Milbank is a White House shill . . .

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:58:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your comment (none)
        here is what I refer to.

        And my post.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:13:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is about Jane Hamsher again? (none)
          I suppose I should have guessed.  I really don't understand what is up with you and her.

          As for my comment, it was, as one person described it "bitchy" and for that I apologize....

          But an attack?  If:

          "Armando, Dude, you are just way too into yourself"

          is what passes as "attack" for you,

          I suggest any of the readily available over-the-counter skin thickening products available at fine stores everywhere.

          Save your tears for the living

          by immanentize on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:29:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My post? (none)
            Indeed it was as you well knew. Now you are just being disiingenuous.

            As for your comemnts not being an attack?

            well . . .

            Armando, Dude (none / 1)

            You are just way too into yourself.

            . . . But, sweety, you are great, too.  Although most of your comments are 90% cut and paste....

            So, don't feel so bad that someone else is good, too.  OK?

            Since I didn't feel bad about anyone else being great but was infact responding to a post criticizing me, your comment was most certainly an attack and you are being dishonest here pretending it was not.

            BTW, did you write something similar to Jane in her post critiquing me? Did not think so.

            As for your apology, boy could you bne any less sincere:

            As for my comment, it was, as one person described it "bitchy" and for that I apologize...

            BTW, the "thick skin" red herring and this:

            I suggest any of the readily available over-the-counter skin thickening products available at fine stores everywhere.

            pretty much sums up your attitude and honesty. spare me your apologies in future.

            I see now what I am dealing with.

            Hope your skin is thick . . .  

            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

            by Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:08:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  BTW (none)
            Got any links to VandeHei complaining about Froomkin?

            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

            by Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:11:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe she's one of his ex wives nt (none)
    •  Speaking of bombshells (none)
      Byorn York wrote matter of factly that Scooter Libby was Bob Woodward's source on Plamegate.

      Is this a "known fact?"

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:59:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Woodward's conversation with Libby (none)
        VandeHei and Leonnig report on 11/16:

        Woodward said he also testified that he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and discussed Iraq policy as part of his research for a book on President Bush's march to war. He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame.

        He also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. He based that testimony on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby in an interview that included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward said in his statement, however, that "I had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby. He also said that his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as "Wilson's wife."

        I don't think York was saying that Libby was a "source" but just someone Woodward had a conversation with.  Woodward, and his real source, won't say who it is.

        •  Well then (none)
          and even before really, York makes no sense. How would that alter anything about the Libby case?

          But then, he never makes any sense.

          The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

          by Armando on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:25:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What I took issue with in York's column (4.00)
            was when he said:

            Still, it's possible Fitzgerald will forge ahead, in part because his much-publicized, two-year investigation has so far produced relatively meager results. After intense probing, and working with virtually unlimited power and discretion, the hard-charging prosecutor has succeeded in indicting one person, Libby, although not for an underlying offense, and disrupting or marring the careers of journalists Judith Miller, Cooper, Woodward, and, most recently, Time's Viveca Novak. Some Fitzgerald watchers find it difficult to believe that he will close up shop and go home with a record like that.
            Meager results?! Gee, I wonder who's fault that was?  And Fitz marred their careers?  Gimme a break!
            •  Y'know.... (none)
              Creating sculptures out of mud is Hard Work, and then Fitz came along and dumped water all over their creations:

              "We're melting! We're meeelting!"

              Now everyone is laughing at their Mud Puddles instead of oohing and ahhing over their grand Mud Castles.

              Damn you, Fitz! Damn you!

              /snark

              Bush - the ultimate example of the Peter Principle.

              by PatsBard on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:35:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'm shocked, shocked I say.., (none)
    to hear Bush commenting on an ongoing investigation.(Tom"soon to be indicted again" Delay)

    "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." Groucho Marx

    by irate on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:52:45 AM PST

  •  The reason Bush won't comment (4.00)
    on the leak is most likely because he's the original leaker.  Don't forget, he said he thought the person would be hard to identify.

    We need to stop discounting the Lesser's statements as dumb.  The latest example is the statement in Philly where he got everyone to laugh at the number of Iraqis killed.  32,000 is a ludicrous number and he and everyone else knows it.

    What's not ludicrous, however, is the spin that was presented along with that number

    "I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."

    Note the conjunction of the new word (incursion instead of insurgence) with the "ongoing violence" which is intended to suggest that the US mission has been of a piece, rather than an invasion and then having to deal with Iraqi resistance, designed to liberate the country from some other foreign invaders.  That's the myth that continues to be perpetrated--that Iraq was under foreign occupation before the US arrived and that the whole exercise is, like Vietnam, an effort to drive those foreigners out.
    That's their story and they're sticking to it.  If you understand that, then there's been no shift in the explanations--just a continuous rif on the same theme.

    Somebody needs to ask the faithful 30% if they believe that Iraq was dominated by terrorists before the US arrived and if that's whom our troops are engaged in driving out.  I expect that the faithful 30% can't even conceive that Americans are killing Iraqi civilians.  Their boys and girls don't do that kind of thing.

    It's not the Lesser that's in a bubble.  It's the people he continues to manipulate.

    Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

    by hannah on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 05:55:44 AM PST

  •  On Abramoff from the WaPo article (none)
    "I'm not, frankly, all that familiar with a lot that's going on over at Capitol Hill, but it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties."

    Is the issue is too complicated for him?  Did his handlers not sufficiently explain the situation to him?  We know that Abramoff was not "an equal money dispenser" and we know that he was involved in much more than that.  Another example of Bush being in a bubble.

    With regard to DeLay, if Bush is so sure that DeLay is innocent, I WANT to see what proof he has to support that statement.

    •  He knows all about it... (none)
      this is the Repubklican spin.

      " if there is a problem, both sides are equally guilty...therefore its not a Repubklican problem...its big goverment..lower taxes...9/11...blah blah blah"

  •  Based on Bush's track record of voicing confidence (4.00)
    of other (like Brownie, Myers, etc) I assume we should see DeLay resign and/or convicted before the start of the next session.

    Midwest Center for American Values - Progressive ideas in an easy to swallow pill.

    by ETinKC on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:01:15 AM PST

  •  Rove Must Be Working This Week - (4.00)
    because Bush was full of Rovian bites like the agressive bite about Tom DeLay being innocent.

    I saw five minutes of the Bush interview on Fox.  Bush was pretty fidgety - his left leg was wagging like crazy.

    He always looks like a schoolboy waiting outside the principal's office, waiting for suspension because he got caught throwing rocks at the chemistry teacher's car or he and a bunch of his buddies got caught beating up a teammate in the locker room after the big game or he was found drinking in the back seat of his father's car during the prom.

    •  Are cheerleaders (4.00)
      allowed in the locker room after the big game?

      (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

      by SueDe on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:32:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No but they snap towels (none)
        Chris Matthews characterized Bush's not so self deprecating humor to deflect questions as towel snapping behavior. He asked Brian Williams if he agreed, but Brian was still so in is fawning I got to spend the day with the President bubble of his own, he did not respond or did not even see the behavior. He THOUGHT he hit him with hard questions whose answer made news (do not call me a racist).

        Where, oh where, is Katrina relief and rebuilding?

    •  Demeanor (none)
      I think Bush's demeanor is puzzling. He has that tendancy to fidget, and he talks with a lot of hesitation. And other times he is confident and arrogant to the point of belligerance.

      Future historians will have a field day with the Bush Administration. Dysfunctional comes to mind.

      A President in his own league. The Bush League!

      by Tuba Les on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 08:53:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it depends on (none)
        how medicated, or in some instances how flatass drunk, he is.

        I think that in the near future, when we're finally told just what kind of alcoholic and pharmacological hellbrew Bush dosed himself with through his presidency, we'll be amazed that he could stand up for five minutes without wetting himself or falling into the orchestra pit.

      •  Bush's demeanor (none)
        It seems to me that when Bush is talking about war, killing, violence, screwing the poor, etc. (you know, the "good" stuff about being prezdint), he is focused and direct.

        When he has to talk about practically anything else, he is a stumbling, bumbling fool -- in other words, himself.

        Personally, I can't watch him speak at all. It's too humiliating, embarassing and depressing to watch this pathetic excuse for a human being and realize that he is the President of the United States.

  •  Delay ought to be worried that (4.00)
    Bush thinks he's innocent.

    Remember what happened after Bush said the following about Rafael Palmeiro?

    "Rafael Palmeiro is a friend. He testified in public and I believe him,"

    "He's the kind of person that's going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him. Still do."

    The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

    by NYC Sophia on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:06:37 AM PST

  •  I think VandeHei's coverage (none)
    has been excellent.  I didn't even realize there had been liberal blowback until you referenced it.  He is one of the reporters at WaPo that I follow most closely on the whole subject.

    Aside - did you catch Novak's (Bob) comments about "ask the President" if you want to know who leaked Plame's name?  Any thoughts?

    HEY - why haven't you visited my blog?

    by RenaRF on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:19:49 AM PST

  •  BUSH IS SCARY (4.00)
    any time bush is interviewed he always has that stupid shit eating grin on his face even when talking about very serious things. he always looks like the cat that ate the canary.it`s downright scary to think this guy controls our
    nukes!
    •  Yes, very scary..... (none)
      Looks to me like a sociopath searching for an approproiate emotion to go with the words.  And he never gets it right.

      "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

      by Lying eyes on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 09:15:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can envision him standing in front of the mirror (none)
        with Karen Hughes behind him, going, "Smile, George.  Someone just said something funny.  Like that.  No, more eye crinkling.  Less teeth, you're not biting anyone.  We're going to work on smiling for ten more minutes, then we shift to the righteous-but-resolute Presidential scowl."
        •  LOL (none)

          But about the teeth.........have you noticed how small they are.  So small in fact you seldom see them.  Little ferret teeth and beady eyes.  Very scary.

          "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

          by Lying eyes on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:54:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  please vote in this poll (none)
    please vote! www.cnn.com

    Quick Vote

     For how long would you like to see the controversial sections of the Patriot Act extended?
    Four years  
    Ten years  
    Made permanent  
    Scrapped now

    Liberate Jesus from The Fundamentalists

    by NeuroticBlonde on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:28:26 AM PST

  •  Scalito and W apparently view... (none)
    "original intent" differently.  W is apparently unaware that there was this document enacted in Philly in 1787 that is built on this concept known as "separation of powers."  Under that concept, the executive branch is supposed to respect the prerogatives of the judicial branch, and vice versa.

    Of course, that concept also holds true for legislative-executive relationships as well.  Ironically enough, W wants to see the Hammer acquitted b/c the Hammer makes the trains run on time in the legislative branch.  IOW, W improperly intruded in the affairs of the judicial branch b/c he wants to have a legislative branch that largely acts as a rubber stamp for him.

    Given Scalito's avowed reverence for that 1787 document, one might think it advisable that Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, or another judiciary Dem ask him for his views on W's improper intrusion.  Too bad that we know that it will never happen.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:34:15 AM PST

  •  Oh yes - hopefully DeLay will be acquitted (none)
    so he can continue his hammering and bribing - delivering whatever the Fuhrer de$ires.

    Bush is NOT America!

    by annefrank on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:34:32 AM PST

  •  Bush also reported to have said (none)
    "Rumsfeld is doing heck of a job". Will someone please help me when did we hear those words last?

    Diebold must die, or else, America will.

    by Ruffledfeather on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 06:46:36 AM PST

  •  Does anyone know the real figures? (none)
    Mr. Bush said the other day that about 30,000 Iraqi's had died.  On NPR yesterday they were saying that the figure the real figure was 100,000.  Does anyone know of a web-site that keeps track of this info?
  •  The phantom President (none)
    Is he with us or against us?  Does he know where he is?  Does he have a clue?  Is it Katrina or Corina?  Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!
  •  Wow. That's moral relativism for you: (4.00)
    "I hope that he will, 'cause I like him, and plus, when he's over there, we get our votes through the House," Bush told Fox News's Brit Hume.

    Doesn't care if he's guily or not, isn't shocked at the indictments, just wants him back to do the good work of the Republican party.

  •  It's really a boil (none)
    Bush isn't in a bubble.  He's actually inside a boil on the ass of Satan.

    My sketch blog - where I'm learning to draw.

    by Matt Jordan on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 07:58:52 AM PST

  •  Manson was guilty? (none)
    Whew, I'm glad that's no longer an open question.

    I'm sure the press gaggle will be all over themselves pointing out to Scottie the glaring inconsistencies in Bubble Boy's selective policy of not commenting on pending legal investigations, unless it helps further Republican PR goals.

    As to VandeHei's credibility, his little Hadley/Libby faux pas of a few days ago should have been handled more adroitly, I think it's safe to say. It's also not highly unusual for Bush family members to express opinions on pending legal cases. Schiavo anyone?

  •  late to the party, waking up slowly... (none)
    but i love the title coinage, a.  it's positively seinfeldian.  i can almost hear elaine bennis delivering the line "Get Back!!!" while pushing with both hands on GWB's shoulders.
  •  The World According to George Bush ... (none)
    Cheney is my good buddy.
    Rumsfeld is doing a heck of a job.
    DeLay is innocent.
    Rove is innocent.
    Saddam Hussein has WMD. (Well, maybe not, but he's still dangerous.)

    All the while, he blinks excessively when answering tougher questions. That's the body language of a liar.

  •  Has anyone Checked the White house for Radon? (none)
    I mean, WTF? Wouldn't Radon gas in the white house explain a lot?
  •  Van De Hei Plame reporting is atrocious (none)
    Armando,

    I'm a fan of many of your posts, but if you've been reading Van De Hei's "reporting" or, even more painfully, watching him on Hardball, he deserves a ton of criticism.

    The other night (I think Monday) he and Isikoff were on Hardball, and it was sad listening to them.

    They were literally squirming in their seats, trying to defend Cheney.  Both VanDeHei and Isikoff seemed to be working for Cheney, not the WaPo and Newsweek.  It was pathetic.

    I can't find the transcript b.c. the show must have been on last week, but when I do, I will post it.  

    •  Do you know what Cheney was doing? (none)
      VanDeHei said he didn't and therefore he couldn't start laying out blame.

      I respect this guy: he doesn't opine/bloviate (O'Reilly). Tweety tries to get stuff out of him and that other guy, Tom DeFrank but they are solidly objective.

  •  BULLSHIT (none)
    Vandehei is a TOTAL shill I have been watching him for a while..
    Go to MEdia Matters and do a search on his name..

    TOTAL. Fucking. Schill..PERIOD

  •  Fox interview (none)
    When interviewing Bush, Hume prefaced a question about Rove stating something like "it appears his legal troubles are over."  Really, now?

    He also didn't press Bush on the question of him getting the same intel as everyone else in Congress.  In fact, he didn't follow up on anything significant.

    Also, very telling: when Bush said something about how important "ethics" were, his body language betrayed him.

    I watched a few minutes of the roundtable discussion after the interview, and a lady on the panel made a point of stating that he didn't appear defensive or display negative body language.  I was thinking: what interview were they watching?  (Bush's anger at being questioned over Tom Delay and corruption, and later Iraq, was palpable). Then I remembered: oh, it is Fox...

  •  Rasmussen has a new poll on Bush (none)
    saying that 32% of Americans thinks he should be impeached.  That is an amazing number in my opinion.

    http://www.rawstory.org/

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site