Bush speaks — Libby

In part one of the review of Bush’s press conference, we talked about Iraq. Now let’s look at the only exchange from the hour-long event that didn’t deal with the Middle East.

Q: You spoke very soberly and seriously in your statement about how you weighed different legal questions in coming to your decision on [the Scooter Libby] commutation. But one issue that you did not address was the issue of the morality of your most senior advisors leaking the name of a confidential intelligence operator. Now that the case is over — it’s not something you’ve ever spoken to — can you say whether you’re at all disappointed in the behavior of those senior advisors? And have you communicated that disappointment to them in any way?

Bush: Michael, I — first of all, the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven’t spent a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my administration were forced to give as a result of the special prosecutor. I didn’t ask them during the time and I haven’t asked them since.

I’m aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I’ve often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, I did it. Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But it’s been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it’s run its course and now we’re going to move on.

If I’m not mistaken, this is the first substantive (I use the word loosely) comment from Bush on the scandal since Patrick Fitzgerald launched his investigation. Too bad, then, it was such a pathetic response.

The question, from the WaPo’s Michael Abramowitz, was extremely good. It focused on the “morality” of the ordeal — the White House outed a covert CIA operative in a time of war. The same White House said it didn’t “operate this way,” when it had. The same White House vowed to fire anyone involved with the scandal, when it didn’t and never had any intention to.

The reporter characterized all of this in exactly the right way. Is Bush even the slightest bit “disappointed” in how his team conducted itself through this ugly ordeal? Is there even a hint of shame?

Not even a little.

As Josh Marshall put it:

He couldn’t even manage a perfunctory statement of disappointment or regret. He managed to slip in a dig at Rich Armitage, a general statement that the whole thing had been very rough on the White House staff and that now “we’re” moving on.

Needless to say, the president was involved from day one. He was always in favor of doing it. And he basically said so again today. Truly a shameful man.

I’m tempted to do some additional fact-checking here — pointing out how the commutation was anything but “fair and balanced,” and explaining how his answer contradicts recent reports about Bush looking for flaws in the jury’s ruling — but let’s just skip it.

Bush is a small man who has brought shame upon his office and embarrassment upon us all.

He’s ready to “move on” from a scandal that still warrants an apology. The rest of us are ready to move on from a presidency that still defies explanation.

I’m sure everyone has noticed the president is always eager to “move on” when he is implicated in some incredible piece of bullshit pie, that he earlier adamantly denied having anything to do with. He displays nothing like the same eagerness on the rare occasions he can find somebody willing to speak out loud about Iraqi progress, or sympathy for Scooter.

Speaking of that, do you read Jon Swift? I mention it because some right-wing sites actually linked to his blog post entitled “Give Scooter A New Job”, failing to realize it is the work of a master satirist, as substantiation for the commutation of his sentence.

  • “The rest of us are ready to move on from a presidency that still defies explanation. ”

    you nailed it.

    Every day he needs to be asked about this act of treason. And why he condoned it then and now. And why he’s still obstructing justice. Hound the Bastahd.

  • I’ve never understood why you can’t call a spade a spade in politics.

    At least during Watergate you managed to force people to say that previous statements were ‘inoperative’. Which is just a nice way of saying we were lying and you caught us.

    Either Bush LIED when he said he would fire the people or Bush owes us an explanation.

    Can’t someone ask the question:

    Mr. President. It appears that you LIED when you said “,,,, fire people ….” Can you please explain to the American people why you lied or why we should think that you didn’t lie?

  • Unfotunately he hasn’t brought embarrassment upon “us all.” There is still about 26% who aren’t embarrassed in the least!

  • The president is effectively saying that we are a nation of men and not of laws.

    He’s giving the finger to the Founding Fathers.

    What a jumped up little piss-pot. How the hell did we ever get this train wreck of a president?

  • “Mr. President, would you agree that you are a worse president than Richard Nixon, or do you believe Nixon was worse than you?”

  • I’ve often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, I did it. Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?

    In other words, if Bush wasn’t surrounded by liars and flunkeys would Fitzgerald have had to stomp around until Cheney flung Libby to him as a sacrifice?

    No.

    Once again, no one in the Bush Admin has done anything wrong, ever. In Iraq it is the generals’ fault. In the Plame case it is Fitzgerald who is to blame for wasting time and money.

    And is it me or is it a little … gross to hear a president using the Fux News tagline to describe his behaviour?

  • I love how he calls Valerie Plame “that person.” Of course, he’s very shaken up over how this has affected poor Scooter and his family.

  • Now, and in the future, from the mouth of Bush shall spew balderdash and bilgerot. Don’t expect to make much empirical sense from this man for the next 18 months. He is confused, out witted, and generally befuddled as to how he has gotten himself, his presidency, and his nation into such an unfortunate set of world circumstances. Damn, I feel like a Texas Ranger who wants to be traded because of the unsound business practices in the front office. -Kevo

  • He didn’t even ask his subordinates about who outed Plame or why, even though at the time he told us that “no one wanted to get to the bottom of it more than he did” (paraphrasing).

    So he’s totally admitting that he’s a bald faced liar.

    He never cared who outed Plame, and I guess he never cared if that hurt the security of the United States. Some people would say that a person who admits that kind of thinking shouldn’t be president anymore.

    But Nancy Pelosi needs more evidence before she’ll say “the I word”.

  • But one issue that you did not address was the issue of the morality of your most senior advisors leaking the name of a confidential intelligence operator. Now that the case is over — it’s not something you’ve ever spoken to — can you say whether you’re at all disappointed in the behavior of those senior advisors?

    If he had not answered in that circuitous way, with a sideways swipes at Armitage and Fitzgerald… If he had answered “as the spirit moved him”… I suspect the answer would have been something like this:

    “I don’t understand your mention of morality in this case; there was nothing sexual about my advisors’ behavior.”

  • That pretty much defines Shrub’s philosopy of life, “now we are gonna move on” to my next f__king disaster.

  • I nominate Benen to write the next televised Democratic response to the next Bush speech so that the entire nation has a chance to hear the kind of analysis we get to read. The man is a writing machine.

  • I nominate Benen to write the next televised Democratic response to the next Bush speech…

    I second that nomination.

  • I third the nomination.

    But back to Bush’s answer…

    I’m aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person

    The normal follow up would have been: “um, what the hell? If you want to get to the bottom of this, why are we “moving on”? Why can’t we find out who authorized the leak that perhaps happened?”

    But check out the disgusting real-life follow up:

    But it’s been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it’s run its course and now we’re going to move on. Wendell.
    Q Mr. President, you have spoken passionately —
    THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I’m sorry.
    Q Are you taking it away from me?
    THE PRESIDENT: I am —
    Q After doing the “fair and balanced,” you’re going to take it away — (laughter.)
    Q Ohhh. (Laughter.)
    Q You’re going to come back to me, sir?
    THE PRESIDENT: You got the mic — a possession deal, you know what I’m saying? (Laughter.)
    Q Thank you, sir.

  • fair and balanced

    It was fair and balanced in exactly the same fashion that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

    I agree with beep52 and the others draft: Benen

  • Mark in comment #1 said, “I’m sure everyone has noticed the president is always eager to “move on” when he is implicated in some incredible piece of bullshit pie, that he earlier adamantly denied having anything to do with.”

    Alas, this is SOP for most Americans who are confronted with nastiness from our past that implicates our nation or reveals us to be less noble than we like to believe. How many times have I heard undergrads say, “let’s not obsess about the past, let’s move on, etc.” when the topic under consideration is something that casts Uncle Sam in less than a perfect light.

    The only time we Americans love history is when the past involves something like “the Good War”—in other words, we like it when it allows us to stroke our collective pud in a nationalistic wank.

    Americans like history only when it suits us, otherwise there’s “nothing to see here, keep moving.”

    Bush is just our id in human form.

  • Impeachment is mentioned six times the the constitution.

    The founders thought it necessary, especially suitable in the case of a president who abuses his power of clemency to obstruct justice in investigations into his own adminstration’s wrong-doing.

    Bush and Cheney have created a presidency above the rule of law, whether it’s fraudulent Iraq war intelligence, torture or obstructing congress’ constitutional role as the executive oversight branch of government.

    Impeachment is not a consitutional crises, impeachment is the remedy for a constitutional crisis.

  • Comments are closed.