Bush had to lie to protect the market — or not

May 30, 2006

In the grand scheme of things, examples of Bush’s mendacity are so common and disturbing, lying about replacing his [tag]Treasury[/tag] [tag]Secretary[/tag] probably doesn’t rank very high. It is, however, an interesting example of the [tag]White House[/tag] spinning a fairly obvious falsehood.

As Think Progress noted, [tag]Bush[/tag] was asked on May 25 if Treasury Secretary [tag]John Snow[/tag] intends to leave his job. The president was unequivocal: “No, he has not talked to me about [tag]resignation[/tag]. I think he’s doing a fine job.”

That, we now know, was completely untrue. [tag]White House[/tag] Press Secretary [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] acknowledged today that John Snow and Bush talked on May 20, Snow stepped aside, and [tag]Henry Paulson[/tag] agreed on May 21 to take the job. What the president said a few days later was obviously false. It’s a no-brainer.

But, what wait, Tony Snow says, it’s a justifiable lie because the [tag]president[/tag] has to respect the volatility of the financial [tag]markets[/tag].

“[W]hat you didn’t want to have, I think, is at a period of time when you haven’t finished doing your clearances for the person you want to fill that position, you don’t want to have chaos in the markets…. With all due respect, I think there was some concern again about how something like that affects the markets.”

There’s a word for this kind of rationalization, but it’s probably not appropriate for a family blog like this one.

Look, Snow has been this close to being fired every day for a year and a half. In November 2004, one senior administration official said Snow can stay as long as he wants, “provided it is not very long.” Ever since, an administration official would intermittently leak word that Snow really, truly, is on his way out. In April, Dana Milbank wrote, “In political Washington, Treasury Secretary John Snow is a dead man walking.”

Every time the administration shoved Snow a little further out the door, there was never any concern about delicate financial markets. The truth, though they were loath to admit it, was that the Bush gang was “having trouble” finding someone [tag]qualified[/tag] who wanted the job.

I know it’s embarrassing for the White House and Tony Snow, but the president was simply not telling the truth last week. If they want to spin it away, they’ll have to come up with a better rationalization than this.

But I thought the economy was doing great.

Best in years.

Tax cuts work wonders, which is why we need more of them.

How would something as puddly as replacing someone that everyone knew you were going to replace destabilize the markets?

It’s not like Bush would bring in a Marxist.

And CB,
“the Bush gang was “having trouble” finding someone qualified who wanted the job.”
Since when did “qualified” ever become an important issue with these clowns?

  • May I cast my vote to say I don’t want to be “protected” any longer? I just can’t keep up with the guidelines so I want to opt out and protect myself…what with programs to listen to my phone calls to protect me from terrorists…amendments to protect me from gay marriage…tax cuts for the wealthy to protect the economy…new fines for television networks to protect me from Janet Jackson’s breast…abstinence programs to protect me from sex and sin…passage of the English language to protect me from losing my cultural identity.

    I’m feeling overprotected…and “Doctor” Dobson thinks that might make me gay…and we wouldn’t want that to happen…not that there’s anything wrong with that…right?

    more observations here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • If they want to spin it away, they’ll have to come up with a better rationalization than this.

    No, they won’t have to. And that’s sad.

  • White House Motto: America Cant Handle the Truth!

    The White House always has a ready excuse on why the President can boldfacedly lie whenever its shown that he has done so.

    As for the excuse this time, the markets had long priced in the likelyhood that Snow was on his way out. He didnt have to lie, but it was convenient. He could have simply said no comment or made a non-responsive answer like he usually does anyway such I think he is doing a fine job and left it at that.

  • And the market dropped 150 points today. Guess they were their typical effective selves.

  • The problem is that none of the White House Press Corps(e) will call Snow on the lie. It was a lie, pure and simple. They should call it like it is.

  • Didn’t we impeach Clinton for lying to the American Public? Or do we only do that in the event of lying about sex? If that’s the case, it’s too bad. I suspect that the only sex GW would need to lie about would be getting any at all.

  • On a slightly related note, from Raw Story.
    Here some good spin from the Dems on the estate tax:

    Pointing to data indicating that 99 percent of the estate tax is paid by the highest-earning 5 percent of Americans, a report released by the Democrats indicates that CEO’s of major oil companies stood to gain significantly from a repeal. Democrats’ estimates put oil company gains at at least a “$200 million windfall.” The family of one oil executive, Lee Raymond (the former ExxonMobil CEO, pictured above left), alone stood to receive a tax break worth over $160 million.

    Democrats have also once again issued a 2005 Government Reform Committee report indicating that repealing the estate tax repeal would save the President, Vice President, and 11 cabinet members anywhere from $91 – 344 million.

    They know they’re going down, and they’re grabbing what they can, while they can get it.

  • Catch 22 said: As for the excuse this time, the markets had long priced in the likelihood that Snow was on his way out.

    bubba said: And the market dropped 150 points today.

    The Dow actually dropped 184 points and the NASDAQ was down more than 2 percent. Did the markets give a vote of confidence for the Paulson nomination? I don’t think so. With energy costs cramping consumers and higher and higher interest rates to fund deficit spending by the federal government, the markets weren’t looking for a new face to tout the same misguided economic policies.

    I can’t wait until Friday; I’m anticipating Paul Krugman’s column in the NY Times being about the new face masking the clownish Bush economic policies. The masterful surgery of Dr. Krugman of is always enjoyable–and depressing.

  • I’m with eadie.
    Once again, this looks like the press simply accepting the B.S. and forwarding it on to the public without challenge.

    T. Snow’s spin seems like an ideal time to ask a follow-up along the lines of “So this administration feels that the markets are more comfortable knowing that administration officals including the President will lie about events as they happen, insead of keeping them appraised of the facts and the adminsrations real views?”

    I thought markets worked best when they were well informed, but it seems that this administration feels that misinformation is the engine that runs this economy.

    Is that right, Tony?

  • Thank God (the liberal one) for Paul Krugman.

    Bush doesn’t veto bills he just changes them later. And he doesn’t ignore questions, he just lies. He’s non-confontational.

  • Bush and his Republican cronies are born liars: They think only they can lie and claim it’s for the good of the country and that they are not to be held accountable. Let’s call it like it is: They have “crooksified” the governmental process.

    Let’s hope the results of the ’06 and ’08 elections would show the Republicans that the majority of Americans want accountability and viable means of checks and balances in government as they (the Republicans) are–hopefully–voted out of office and replaced by responsible Democratic politicians who believe in fiscal and other governmental responsibilities.

  • Do what I do – every time the supreme dumb@ss opens his mouth, assume that it’s:

    1) a lie
    2) something he hasn’t a clue about
    3) something he was told to lie about, because the people around him know he doesn’t have a clue

    It works – I listen, I file in memory, and I wait for the real story to come out.

  • What I really don’t understand is that Bush got a fantastic, and I really mean FANTASTIC person for the job.

    How can Bush get the number 1 guy on Wall Street to take the job in 2006? Snow didn’t have any real power. Why would anyone want the job now? I can’t imagine Paulson would take the job if he didn’t get real power.

    I really don’t understand.

    Whether or not Bush told a little white lie to the public is far less important than whether or not Bush told big lies to Paulson.

  • Y’know…

    Some days I read the news and this blog, and try to post something cogent, or at least coherent. But some days, like today, all I can find to say about Bush and his minions is, “God, what will become of us!” They don’t even deserve profanity.

  • From Capital Hill Blues….

    President George W. Bush’s highly-publicized admission of “regrets” and “moment of candor” during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair this past week was actually a scripted response to a planted question with a British journalist.

    Even when he is being “candid”, it is all scripted crap.
    Can Bush do anything except lie and spin?
    Bein’ truthful just ain’t in the man’s nature.

  • Soon we’ll hear that what the President said was purely in the interests of national security. Terrists! 9/11!! Be Afraid! Gays!

  • I loved the way the NYTimes covered this today – “Mr. Paulson formally accepted the job the next day, May 21, a fact Mr. Bush hid when asked at a news conference four days later whether he had any indication that Mr. Snow intended to leave soon.

    “No, he has not talked to me about resignation,” Mr. Bush replied then, resorting to what the White House acknowledged Tuesday was an artful attempt to keep the move secret.”

    He “hid” it by using an “artful attempt.” Or, in less-nuanced English, he “doesn’t give a rat’s ass about telling the truth, so he blatantly lied to the press corps for the umpteenth time.”

    And yet the NYTimes is ok with this.

  • more kool-aid for the moonbats on this blog, same old retreads about lying and still unable to observe that Clinton lied while under oath during an investigation (=perjury/obstruction, and that’s why the subsequent impeachment of slick willy occurred) while Bush decided not to inject any volatility into the financial markets until the new man was certain to take the job and get his clearances. If you can’t distinguish between the two you just shouldn’t be allowed near a keyboard, or a fork.

  • “more kool-aid for the moonbats on this blog”-chris

    How can anyone NOT see Bush as an incompetent weasel?
    Chris, you must be chuggin’ that good ol’ moonbat kool-aid from a brown paper bag.

  • I still want to know how searching for a new Treasury Secretary causes “chaos in the markets”, as Tony Snow put it. The office under this administration has become more of an honorary position that just parrots the Bush line, and has no real impact on what happens to the economy (as opposed to, oh, saber-rattling against Iran).

    And what “clearances” is required with this White House? Signing a loyalty oath and making sure you aren’t capable of thinking independently?

    And the Clinton impeachment will always be about one thing: lying about a blowjob. Something his detractors are in serious need of.

  • Yo, Chris — Take the fork out of your forehead and remember what happened to the market and gas prices when, with great wisdom and restraint, Bush said that nuking Iran was still an option. (You can reinstall the fork now.)

    • Comments are closed.