‘I’m not going to talk about it’

The NYT noted today that “someone at the White House (and Americans need to know who) dispatched Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital bed.” Was it the president? He doesn’t want to talk about it. From a White House event this morning:

Q: Thank you, sir. There’s been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top Justice Department officials, who describes a scene that some senators called “stunning,” about a time when the wireless — when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then Chief of Staff and White House Counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program? And do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?

BUSH: Kelly, there’s a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn’t happen; I’m not going to talk about it.

At the risk of sounding picky, that’s not good enough. When it came to the Plame scandal, Bush said he would refuse to answer questions because it was the subject of a criminal investigation. When the investigation ended, Bush said he would still refuse to comment, because he’s decided to treat it like an ongoing investigation.

But (alas) there is no special prosecutor investigating the president’s warrantless-search program. There’s no grand jury; there are no depositions; there are no suspects hiring defense attorneys. There are just questions about the latest in a series of White House scandals.

By saying he’s “not going to talk about it,” Bush is hiding behind the classified nature of a surveillance program — that he’s already acknowledged publicly. For that matter, the question doesn’t even involve the details of intelligence gathering; but rather just the process. Did the White House engage in activity that Bush’s Justice Department found to be illegal? Did the president dispatch Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft’s hospital bedside?

Bush doesn’t want to talk about it. What a surprise.

All he’s willing to say is the same vapid nonsense he’s been saying since the NSA program was exposed in the first place.

“As I said, this program is a necessary program that was constantly reviewed and constantly briefed to the Congress. It’s an important part of protecting the United States. And it’s still an important part of our protection because there’s still an enemy that would like to attack us. No matter how calm it may seem here in America, an enemy lurks. And they would like to strike. They would like to do harm to the American people because they have an agenda. They want to impose an ideology; they want us to retreat from the world; they want to find safe haven. And these just aren’t empty words, these are the words of al Qaeda themselves.

I think we’re just about back to “If I have to follow the law, the terrorists win.”

A couple of days ago, Tony Snow said, “Jim Comey gave his side of what transpired that day.”

What’s the other side? The White House doesn’t want to talk about it.

There were only two answers to that question:

1. Nothing inappropriate happened, and I’ll be happy to testify to that. After all, under standard GOP doctrine, the innocent have nothing to hide.

2. Yeah, something inappropriate happened. So what if it would be obstruction of justice? So what if saying that I don’t want to talk about it now could be construed as a message to anyone *else* that *they* shouldn’t say anything that *I* would find troublesome? That’s not obstruction of justice, is it? Oh.

Guess which one Bush gave.

  • Bush, like the kid caught with his hand in thecookie jar, wants to deny that the cookie jar even exists.

    Most useless, worthless piece of shit to ever participate in American politics. Ever.

  • He must not have gotten Cheney’s memo, which clearly specifies that nosey questions by the press shall be responded to with “Go fuck yourself”.

  • “By saying he’s “not going to talk about it,” Bush is hiding behind the classified nature of a surveillance program — that he’s already acknowledged publicly.”

    Can he really hide behind that? Is it really applicable? Correct me if I am wrong, but folks aren’t really asking him about the inner workings of the current program. First, they are asking him to verify whether or not he sent his goons to go intimidate a drugged up AG. That has nothing to do with national security. Second, the additional questions would be about a surveillance program that, according to most, is no longer in effect and ended three weeks or so after the incident at the hospital–at least that is what all of the administration officials have been stating. If this is the case, and it is a program that ended 3 years ago, there can be no significant national security interests that would prohibit discussion of the basics of the program and the legal issues involved. And if it is still proceeding without DOJ approval parallel to the current program? Well, then many, many more laws have been broken and constitutional violations have occurred.

  • Bush, translated:

    “I don’t have to face the voters again, and the Congress doesn’t have the stones to even say the word ‘impeach,’ so I am no longer accountable to anyone. So all you reporters can just pound sand.”

    Jefferson is sounding more prescient all the time:

    a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. For what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?

    (damn, now i’ll be the target of domestic spying!)

  • I’m glad the press did not follow up. Asked twice, Chimpy McFlightsuit may have stamped his little feet, glared at the press, and he may have even held his breath until he turned blue.
    Poor little thing, all those mean reporters, and he couldn’t demean even one of them.
    What a usless piece of (scat reference deleted).

  • What a spoiled little prick. No one believes what Bush says anymore, the more he talks the more guilty he looks. So I’m a little suspicious when he says this:

    “…I have an obligation to put in place programs that honor the civil liberties of the American people; a program that was, in this case, constantly reviewed and briefed to the United States Congress…”

    Is that true? Can we get someone to confirm that claim?

    And get a load of Bush’s poodle doing his Monty Python impression: “…And you can debate about the mistakes and the issues and you can debate about Iraq, whether we should have done this or we should have done that…”

    Sounds just like the famous line from the Holy Grail:
    “Please! Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who.”

    Then he blathers on about how we in the west have a free media, totally ignoring the fact that Bush just told our free media to go f**k itself and it’s questions because he doesn’t want to talk about it.

    Bliar rolls out the old canard, asking if we are “going to give up, because it’s just too difficult, because the public opinion is too difficult, because the opinion polls tell them it’s too difficult”.

    No Tony, we’re having to get out because some criminals started a war we never should have gotten into. If the war was just, we would gladly fight it. Your say so isn’t worth a damn, so when you say it’s a just war, it means NOTHING.

    Die, creep. Just go die. You made it possible for Bush to sell us his war. You belong in prison, I hope they put you on trial at the Hague.

  • Feinstein and Schumer now calling for a Senate vote of “no-confidence” on Gonzales – but it’s not like Bush cares what the other branches of government do or say.

    I am tired of the answer to everything being about “protecting the country;” Bush has not figured out – and no one has made a serious attempt to educate him – that when you undermine the rights of the people, when you erode the principles on which this country was built, you put the American people in more jeopardy from within than we could ever be in from the outside.

  • Bush really is in a box. Right now, this story is going to get, and is getting, lots of play. The public is not really going to give him the benefit of the doubt. He can rectify that by adamantly denying it. But he cannot do that as the truth on this will come out. He can admit he did it, but that would likely cost him a large chunk of his dead-enders and his numbers may then drop to 20% if not lower. Or he can do what he is doing and just not comment, and then look like the chickenshite incompetent stubborn bully that he is, and the slow bleed of what is left of his reputation will pick up the pace slightly. I thinnk I prefer option 3.

  • what zeitgeist said.

    Bush: “the Congress doesn’t have the stones to even say the word ‘impeach,’ so I am no longer accountable to anyone. ”

    Patrick Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid… I am looking at YOU. Either get some stones from Dr. Dean, or just stand there like idiots and let Cheney and his monkey tell you to go f**k yourselves.

  • re #9, what the hell is a “no confidence” vote? we dont have a parliamentary system, that does not cause elections to be held, or government to have to be reorganized. either impeach or dont, i can make a case for either path; but dont engage in transparently toothless marketing gestures. message from 2006: real people are tired of games. sometimes i’m not sure whether it is the enemies or the friends that annoy me more.

  • Bush: “There’s a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists”

    Yeah, there sure are. And you’re the worst.

    “…I read three histories on George Washington last year. It’s interesting to me that they’re still analyzing the presidency of our first President. And my attitude is, if they’re still analyzing 1, 43 doesn’t need to worry about it. (Laughter.) I’m not going to be around to see the final history written on my administration…”

    They’re still writing about Hitler, too. I guess he was right to not worry about his legacy, maybe someday he’ll be respected. Or not.

  • I don’t believe presidents get to pardon themselves. After this sh*thead is out can we charge him and jail him? Kind of like Paris Hilton, except put him in the slammer for years not days?

  • […] an enemy lurks. And they would like to strike. They would like to do harm to the American people because they have an agenda. They want to impose an ideology […] — Shrubby

    Makes you wonder just who he was talking about here, no?

  • Sounds a lot like DUBYA’s answer to the question of his advance knowledge of 9/11 and his answer as to why he refused to testify to the 9/11 Commission without “Dick” Cheney present (in private, not under oath and without transcript).

    Shameful, disgraceful mockery of American democracy. Impeachable. Morally treasonable. Servile.

    Impeach. Them. All. NOW.

  • He won’t talk about it because he knows it’s about to become the criminal investigation that undoes his presidency once and for all. What happened is clearly a crime. Bush knowingly broke the law and continued spying on American citizens after top DoJ officials refused to certify the legality of the program. What more is there to talk about?

  • JKap’s post (#16) touches on something I’ve been wondering about in this scandal — the Hospital Caper, particularly.

    I’m not convinced Bush ordered Card and Gonzales to the hospital. I doubt Bush was even in the loop. And I don’t think even Rove would touch that hot potato. I think it was Cheney, and I suspect the stonewalling may have more to do with revealing that Cheney has been running the show all along — and opening his creepy cave to the light. Cheney’s secretiveness protects him, but I think he made a slip. He didn’t reckon on Comey.

    The entire *known* Gestapo program has Cheney’s MO all over it.

    Any way you look at it, we’re getting close to Watergate territory.

  • And look at what they WILL talk about. Several days now of Bush proclaiming Wolfowitz ought not lose his position the TWB, AS AN INVESTIGATION is ONGOING….no problems talking about that.

    Bush has always been inconsitenent with this kind of thing. He talks when it suite his purposes, and clams up when it suits him. He “justifies” it with whatever handy byte he feels will fit the bill.

  • Comments are closed.