Bush is ‘not happy’

The president picked a good time to leave the country. Just as the political world was erupting in a series of White House-related scandals — Walter Reed, FBI surveillance, Libby case, and this week, the prosecutor purge — Bush was in South America. Lucky him.

The president returns to the States today and, fortunately, he’s already weighing in on the scandal du jour.

“I do have confidence in AG Al Gonzales,” Bush said during a joint news conference with President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico. “I talked to him this morning, and we talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decision it made.”

He further said the decision to fire the eight attorneys was “entirely appropriate” and that the mistakes involved how the firings were explained to Congress. Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys, and it’s their right to do so, Bush said.

“[Gonzales is] right; [tag]mistakes were made[/tag], and I’m frankly not happy about it,” [tag]Bush[/tag] said.

Now, I haven’t seen the full text of Bush’s remarks, so it’s hard to gauge just how wrong they were. But based on the CNN report, we start to get a sense of the president’s defense: he’s with the rest of us.

Politically, the idea seems to have merit. Reasonable people from both sides of the aisle can recognize that there was at least some serious wrongdoing here; a handful of administration officials have already resigned; ethics investigations are poised to begin against GOP lawmakers; and even some Bush allies in Congress are stating publicly that they no longer have confidence in the Attorney General.

Considering this landscape, Bush seems to believe the safest ground is the one the rest of us are already on — we’re upset about what’s transpired, and wouldn’t you know it, so is he.

There are, of course, a couple of problems with this tack. For one thing, Bush says he’s “not happy” about the mistakes, but he may not appreciate just how many of those mistakes were made in his own White House.

“We wish we’d been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys,” the New York Times writes this morning, “but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability.” The emails showed an “orchestrated effort” by the Justice Department and the White House to purge attorneys they did not like. “I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys,” Sampson wrote to former White House counsel Harriet Miers in January 2006. Another email from Sampson to Miers contained a list of “USA [U.S. Attorneys] in the Process of Being Pushed Out.” Indeed, Karl Rove was deeply involved in the installment of his former assistant Tim Griffin as a replacement for Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins. “Tim said he got a call from Bud offering this idea that Tim come on board as a special [assistant U.S. attorney] while Bud finalizes his private sector plans,” Rove deputy Scott Jennings wrote to Sampson. “That would alleviate pressure/implication that Tim forced Bud out. Any thoughts on that?” “I think it’s a great idea,” Sampson responded. In another email, Sampson wrote that “getting [Griffin] appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.” Last month, the Justice Department told Schumer, “The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.”

For that matter, it’s a little late in the game for the president to express concern. Indeed, Karl Rove already dismissed this scandal as a non-story, telling an audience recently that the purge was “normal and ordinary.” We know this is false, but more on point, if the firings were routine, why is Bush “not happy”?

On a related note, Bush is simply inviting more questions, which he may have trouble answering. The president acknowledged that “mistakes were made.” Alright, which mistakes? Made by whom? What will Bush do about it?

And, finally, Bush reportedly alluded to the purge as a “customary practice.” If he’s seriously going to trot out the already-debunked argument, then it’s a very clear sign that the White House can’t come up with anything real to justify what’s occurred.

Stay tuned.

If Bush is going to stand over here with us, he better wear a fake nose and mustache or we’ll kick the little creeps ass be less than polite to him. Welcome home, Gringo.

  • BushSpeak:
    ***“I do have confidence in AG Al Gonzales”***

    Translation 1:
    “Heck of a job, Abu.”

    Translation 2:
    “I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!”

    Translation 3:
    “Laura, don’t unpack quite yet—I feel the need for more of that South American cooking….”

  • Anyone else notice that in Bushspeak, “make it very clear” translates to “bully them until they accept my point of view”?

  • When did “Mistakes were made” morph from a euphemism for “I screwed up” to shorthand for “Crimes were committed”?

  • They just want it to stop. And for a long time with these people, all they had to do was stonewall and spin; no one in the GOP Congress was going to haul anyone before a committee, the media were too afraid to have their access yanked to do anything meaningful in the way of investigation and coverage, and after a few days, things would settle down.

    If anyone needed any proof that this was and is the M.O., they need only to look at the plan Sampson laid out for dealing with the firings: everyone had to be on the same message, with no deviations, and they would just ride out the storm. Problem solved, right? Not bloody likely. I truly believe they cannot understand why it isn’t working this time.

    I’m sure the “mistake” will be that they “should have told” the USAs “the truth” about why they were being fired. My question is, when that is the response, will anyone in the media ask which truth they should have used? Will it be the truth they cooked up in their plan to fire them? Will it be Harriet Miers’ truth? Will it be Karl Rove’s truth?

    Yes, the president is upset about the mistakes, but other than the 29% of people (or is that 29 people) who still think Bush is doing a good job, is there anyone who hasn’t begun to believe that what Bush is upset about is that they’ve been caught at one more manipulative abuse of the public trust?

  • It would seem that his logic is “Well if a President can replace all the USA’s at the beginning of his term, why can’t he replace some midterm ?” Of course the facts don’t support it, but once Bush says it, the news prints it, and the people buy it.

    All they need is some time to regroup and let this ride out until the country has forgotten and maybe in 2 years some staff level jag-off is found guilty of something he will get pardoned for anyways.

    They have made careers of spinning the unspinable.

  • I’m not a regular watcher of TeeVee news – in fact, I never watch it and I think my life’s better for that – but doesn’t it seem the Shrub has much more to be unhappy about than that this story got out and that Abu Gonzo now looks like a sniveling weenie who betrayed his Constitutional trust? There’s been next to no coverage of Shrub’s six-day Latin American trip (other than Jon Stewart’s lovely presentation of the rhythmic Condi and non-rhythmic Laura). Not even in the papers. Some, sure, but the minimum it would seem. The country’s attitude toward the trip seems to have been “Good, at least you’re not here.”

    I know it’s a continuation of his life story, but it’s now painfully obvious, on an almost daily basis, that everything he touches turns bad or just turns to mush.

  • The problem is that you and I are mad at one thing – that it happened – and Bush is mad at another thing entirely – that he got caught. When he refers to mistakes being made he doesn’t mean anything that was improprietous (is that a word?) but anything that gave them away, ie failure to intimidate the USAs enough to keep them from blowing the whistle, the shifting story from the White House and the AG.

    That needs to be understood. Bush doesn’t share our ideology. He thinks his administration has the right to do anything it wants, even break the law, to advance its political allies, and that it has the right to hide its doings from the American public.

    What will he do, if it satisfies the opposition enough he’ll probably throw someone under the bus, otherwise he’ll keep them on because, like Libby, they were ultimately Bush’s servants doing Bush’s bidding.

  • Scott, the truth is, the president can replace the USAs at any time; that it doesn’t happen as a matter of course is because to do so compromises the independent nature of the position. Other presidents have been able to appreciate and respect that priority, even when it did not work in their favor.

  • Maybe I’m too cynical, but I believe Gonzales could do just that. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if he did march down to the Hill and said something along the lines of “They got fired because, politically, they wouldn’t play ball,” and the GOP nod their collective head in agreement.

    Which I imagine would look funny since they have their collective head up their collective ass.

  • So, Bush isn’t happy? What a shame. He wasn’t happy about the Plame leak, or Katrina, or Walter Reed either — days or weeks after the rest of the country blew gaskets. Saying he’s unhappy doesn’t mean he’ll correct anything. It doesn’t even mean that he means it.

    Besides, what Justice and the WH staff did with the prosecutor purge is exactly what he wanted to have happen. It’s why he appoints loyalist ideologues without qualifications. It’s the same thing he’s done at every turn, in every department and agency under his authority (and some, like Congress, that aren’t).

    Pound that conservative agenda into every corner of the government and social fabric, regardless of the consequences, legal or otherwise, and the damage it might do to democracy. And if you get caught, deny it, blame it on Clinton or the media — or get unhappy.

  • To expand on Annie’s explanation, let’s not forget the role that the PATRIOT Act ammendment played in this. Now that Senate confirmation is not needed for interim USAs, they can put any hyper-partisan hack in there that they want.

  • Once again they will go to the well of American Ignorance, and use the “time-slip defense”. Say something that was true, but not at the time in question. The firings were customary. Saddam had WMDs.

    A ten point rise in American IQ would put them out of business.

    And is it just me, or is everyone else starting to feel like there’s going to be MORE scandals next week, and every week thereafter, to the point where we can’t even keep up anymore, and many of us just curl up in a figurative ball in order to ride out the rest of this nightmare?

    This is totally OT but really interesting:

    Last August, Election Systems & Software sent Florida election officials a letter informing them of a glitch in their electronic voting equipment — a problem that should be fixed before Election Day in November “to avoid any potential issues at the polls.”

    Instead, the problem was ignored…

    …lawyers for Jennings had not even seen the letter from ES&S until recently; it was not provided to them by election officials as it should have been under discovery motions in the case…

    Apparently if you wanted to vote in certain races, you had to press and hold the touchscreen button for several seconds, or your vote would not register. Handy glitch, eh?

  • Rove: the purge was “normal and ordinary.”
    Bush: “mistakes were made,..”

    Let’s face it, “mistakes” ARE the “normal and ordinary” of this administration.

  • For that matter, it’s a little late in the game for the president to express concern

    Wasnt that the case with

    1. Abu Gharib
    2. Plame
    3. Katrina
    4. Walter Reed and now
    5. AttorneyGate

    Is it me or am I detecting a pattern here…

  • Ed Stephan,

    (other than Jon Stewart’s lovely presentation of the rhythmic Condi and non-rhythmic Laura).

    I know its off-topic but I saw that same clip and did not think that Condi showed any rhythm. Admittedly I couldn’t hear the music but her body was clearly moving to a beat seperate from that to which she was clapping. More importantly, that was one really funny clip.

  • “And is it just me, or is everyone else starting to feel like there’s going to be MORE scandals next week, and every week thereafter, to the point where we can’t even keep up anymore…” — racerx @ 13

    Assuming the post a while back was incorrect — the one where everyone here decided everyone else here was in each of our imaginations — you’re not alone. The right has spent 6+ years running amok, creating new realities on all fronts and at full-speed while the rest of us are left trying to keep up. I’m convinced it’s part of the plan to keep the public exhausted and confused, and the opposition overwhelmed with today’s outrage — thus, forgetting yesterday’s.

    But you know, for all the known knowns we know, there are many unknowns we know we don’t know. Those are the one’s that scare me.

  • Bush in his press converence with Caldron: “I’m not a betting man. I’m not abetting man because when i do, I usually lose.”

    Out of the mouth of a moron.

  • Something really stinks about Bush’s comment. It’s just not right. We’ve all heard the line that the USAs serve at the pleasure of the president, not the AG, not Karl Rove, not the chief of staff. Yet Bush gives this oddly distant remark as if someone else did the firing.

    If any of us fired someone, we’d say something other than “mistakes were made” and “I’m unhappy about it.” We’d say I fired them and here’s why.

    So it’s theory time again. Either this is just a BS Bush alibi to wash his hands of yet another fiasco, OR Bush didn’t really fire these guys and this whole mess came from the political wing, i.e. Karl Rove. That Bush may not have been trruly aware of what was going on is not without precedent — look at how Dick Cheney operates. Maybe this is all happening because Bush is the Clueless in Cheif.

  • Comments are closed.