‘I’m not going to talk about it’ — Part II

May 18, 2007

Yesterday, a reporter confronted the president with a straightforward request for information: “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 responded, “I’m not going to talk about it.”

Today, the White House press corps did a little follow up with Bush spokesperson Tony Fratto, who was as helpful as the president.

Q: Let me just follow up on that. Yesterday, Kelly asked the President straight up about the report of when Gonzales was counsel and sending Andy Card down to the hospital. The President refused to answer, saying it was a national security issue. No part of her question had anything to do with national security issues.

FRATTO: No, there are two points there. One is the discussion of classified programs; and the second is deliberative discussions among and between advisors to the President — and neither of which is an open window for us to look into and talk about.

Now, I think the President — I think that’s the point that the President was making. It puts us in a difficult communications position, because we understand there are questions out there and it’s difficult for us from the podium. But that’s not something that we can get into, and we’re not going to get into….

Q: How does it jeopardize the safety and security of Americans, to say whether he ordered those guys to go to the [hospital] room?

FRATTO: Any time we talk about classified programs you’re opening the door, and we need to be very careful in how we talk about it.

Transparent nonsense. Reporters asked questions that in no way related to national security or classified information. “Under what circumstances is it appropriate for White House aides to go to — to bypass the chain of command of the acting Attorney General and go to….” but Fratto cut the question off. No comment.

“Does the White House deny that this incident occurred? … Do you guys deny that took place?” Again, nothing. “Tony, was there anything factually incorrect about Comey’s version?” Nada.

This is painfully stupid.

Yesterday, Atrios noted, “Back in those happy days in the 90s, if Clinton had refused to answer a question like this a shitstorm would’ve erupted. Ted Koppel would’ve put up a ’17 days and still no answer’ clock. Tweety would have had 37 blond conservative lawyers on every night to demand ‘accountability.’ etc… etc…”

I couldn’t agree more. Really, there’s no excuse here. James Comey exposed a stunning series of events. The White House finds the whole thing inconvenient, so the Bush gang has decided to simply ignore questions. It’s obvious they could talk about the incident without dealing with national security secrets — we know it, they know it — but silence is easier than accountability.

All of a sudden, the White House is led by Bartleby the Scrivener, who could perform his duties, but he “prefered not to.”

There’s no reason in the world for the media to let the White House get away with such obstinacy. The Bush gang has been caught in the middle of yet another scandal and believes “no comment” should be good enough. C’mon, reporters, are you going to take that lying down?

In a very pleasant surprise, the WaPo editorial page gets it.

No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president’s willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible….

These are important topics for public discussion, and if anyone doubts that they can safely be discussed in public, they need look no further than Mr. Comey’s testimony. Instead of doing so, Mr. Bush wants to short-circuit that discussion by invoking the continuing danger of al-Qaeda….

The president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Note to reporters: keep asking the questions. They deserve answers.

It’s stupid, true enough, but it’s consistent with their fetish for keeping secret any and all White House advice, counsel, and discussion. Cheney went to the Supreme Court about it, you’ll recall. Quack, quack.

  • I’ve never understood that, mind you. Why would the president need to keep secret any good-faith advice offered by conscientious and professional advisors?

    He wouldn’t, of course. But Cheney has known from Day 1 that they might have to occasionally go to the “dark side,” if you will.

    With this as their story all along, they’ve tried to make stonewalling look like a matter of principle.

  • It’s painfully obvious that they aren’t talking about it because they know it was totally, egregiously and criminally wrong to have done it. The program was illegal, the end-run around Ashcroft/Comey was – I’m guessing – tantamount to suborning perjury, and the whole thing adds up to high crimes and misdemeanors. Flick that card out from its place in the teetering structure that is all that is left of this administration, and the whole thing comes down.

    Which is exactly why there should be no let-up in the pressure and the questions, votes of no-confidence, subpoenas, hearings and so on.

  • Hey, it worked pretty well for Bartelby. Who says Bush doesn’t read?

    By the way, I suggest “This is painfully stupid” be the header for all entries related to Bush statements from now on.

  • Doesn’t this get into admitting that the meeting in the hospital room was to discuss state secrets not only in an unsecured location, but with people present (Ashcroft’s wife) who were without a security clearance? Aren’t those things, if not against strict protocols, illegal? I hope somebody’s logging his videotape as evidence.

  • What if it’s not painfully stupid? What if it’s incredibly frightening instead? That is, what if the question did somehow implicate national security in a way that only the government knows?

    Like, if you asked Joe Wilson what his wife did for a living, he would’ve got all grim-faced and said, “I can’t discuss it.” Or used her cover, whichever. The point is, when you get such answers to seemingly innocuous questions, it suggests something might be lurking in the negative space. What we need is to ask more questions, define the perimeter of the forbidden subject, then we can see its shape.

  • Warning…we’re not talking about it because in a short time we won’t have to talk about it or answer any of your questions. Soon all our armed forces will be out of the country and when the Executive branch, who control all the troops, and the Judicial branch, who control all the police, join together, well let’s just say who is gonna’ make us answer anything we don’t want to answer? Subpoena away, who cares. Who is gonna serve them?

    You say they act just like a crime family. Then you get a scenario from “Coumo” telling how they act like a crime family. Why should any of this surprise? Which reporter wants the cement shoes, eh?
    Reporters should refuse to be treated this way. They should dog the hell out of this administration instead of letting everything just slide. Whoever does will gain the respect of the nation quickly. Time to bring this crime family down.

  • Reporters should keep asking the questions and keep reporting these non-answers. I think it’s very instructive for the public to hear over and over from Bush “I’m not going to talk about it.” Shows just how petulant he is. I keep expecting to hear “That’s none of your bee’s wax” “That’s for me to know and you to find out” and other assorted juvenile come-backs.

  • Why shouldn’t Bush be able to explain why he sent Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft’s hospital room? Didn’t they claim that they were only there to wish Ashcroft a speedy recovery?

    Are “Get Well Soon” cards national security issues now?

    Heh.

  • Given the current state of affairs, I found this quote quite interesting…

    George W. Bush, in an opening ad for Campaign 2004, declares, “I know exactly where I want to lead this country.” He then adds, “I know what we need to do” on foreign policy, the economy and education though he offers no specifics. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/031004.html

    It begs the question: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

  • Digby wrote a post a couple of years back, I think it was called “Snippy the Pinhead” or something along those lines. It told a story about a younger Bush being mad at Mom and riding his bicycle in painfully slow zig-zags in front of her car when she was trying to leave the house with a friend because he was angry with her. Sounds like the same deal to me…Telling isn’t it?

  • What Grumpy said.

    “Q: …Yesterday, Kelly asked the President straight up about the report of when Gonzales was counsel and sending Andy Card down to the hospital. The President refused to answer, saying it was a national security issue. No part of her question had anything to do with national security issues.
    FRATTO: No, there are two points there. One is the discussion of classified programs; and the second is deliberative discussions among and between advisors to the President — and neither of which is an open window for us to look into and talk about.”

    Would it kill the left to listen to this guy? Fratto, I mean. He’s *telling* us that this involves a national security issue involving a classified program, and we’re so convinced we know everything that Bush has doing/is doing/will do/ would do that we’re going to shout him down, “We’re not going to listen to you, because what you’re telling us doesn’t fit what we think we know.” Yes, I’m aware he might be full of shit. I sort of expect it. But just like conservatives in the ’90s couldn’t believe that Clinton would parse words to avoid admitting to accepting blowjobs, we’re *convinced* that Bush wouldn’t send someone out to parse words to screw with us – and so we’re not even accepting the two possibilities: first, that there *is* another program, and *that’s* what Fratto/Bush are referring to (hint: it’s *probably* illegal as hell, if it inspired that many law enforcement agency leaders to threaten to quit), or second, that Fratto/Bush *want* us to *think* that exists, when maybe it doesn’t. But nooooooooo, we’ve got to insist that they tell us things that fit what we already know. When you’re playing Go Fish, and someone offers to show you some their cards, why wouldn’t you want to see them? Sure, they could be screwing with you – but take that into account, and look anyway, dammit.

    “Q: How does it jeopardize the safety and security of Americans, to say whether he ordered those guys to go to the [hospital] room?
    FRATTO: Any time we talk about classified programs you’re opening the door, and we need to be very careful in how we talk about it.”

    Duh, because it might force Bush to admit that such programs exist, and maybe he’s been trying to keep them in a state of non-definition as a way to keep people – both domestic opponents and anyone internationally – from knowing exactly what we’re doing.

    “Transparent nonsense. Reporters asked questions that in no way related to national security or classified information.”

    I dunno, Steve, I wouldn’t be so sure. Look, these guys probably think firing US Attorneys is a national security issue, because the *exposure* of their plan could bring down the Administration, and *that*, they seem to believe, would embolden our enemies, which means that it’s legally defensible, even if it’s unconstitutional. It’s not particularly rational, but I wouldn’t rule it out. They are saying things – let’s not assume that what they’re saying is politically or legally meaningless. Let’s listen and think about what they might be saying if what we’re hearing doesn’t make sense, based on what we know. Like Rumsfeld said, you gotta watch out for the stuff you don’t *know* you don’t know.

  • Why was FBI Director Mueller not only in the thick of the issue, but also threatening to resign, if the program in question was not in the FBI?

    Why does everyone assume the issue was over the NSA program? What would the FBI Director have to do with that?

    Go back and re-read the February, 2006 Gonzales response to Schumer’s question about reports of “disagreement” about the NSA program. Gonzales asserts that there was no disagreement about that progrm — then adds that there was disagreement about some other program he refused to identify. When you re-read it, assume he was telling the truth. Then ask: Why would the Director of the FBI threaten to resign over a program not located in the FBI? Perhaps that other program was in the FBI, not in the NSSA, not the NSA program everyone assumes it was.

  • Like JNagarya said: when AGAG says, there’s no disagreement about THIS program, you might want to consider asking if there are OTHER programs.

    Just like Republicans screwed up when they asked if Clinton had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and managed to phrase it so that he could demur by saying, “*I* didn’t have oral sex with her (she did it *TO* me).”

    Think about what they are saying. Think about what they are not saying. Don’t think you know everything.

  • Chris, that is nonsense. There is NOBODY that is in the least bit aware that doesn’t know there is illegal wiretaping going on. Deny, confirm, makes not one whit of difference.

    We also know from public testimony that they wanted to do an end-run about it since the AG office had determined this was unconstitutional. There is no question about it.

    We demand answers to the question of whether this was done at the presidents’ orders. He is squirming, and using the age-old tactic of invoking “national security” and there is NOT ONE WAY IN HELL that this would or could compromise that “program” which is illegal in the first place.

    If you think terrorists don’t assume that the telephone lines are tapped, you cannot be terribly intelligent. We are of course talking about real terrorists, not the Miami idiots, or the new ones just “discovered”…you know, the ones informants suggest to them they become terrorists.

  • It’s things like this that forces “Our Pres(ide)ent Mad George” to keep the army beyond our shores, for fear that the army would have to choose between its oath to the Constitution and its loyalty to the Pres(ide)ent—and that they might not chose to support the Pres(ide)ent.

    Oh—and if you’re wondering why I’m putting the “ide” in “Pres(ide)nt” in praentheses, just think of a time when “the ides” were a bad time for a Roman “deciderer” guy names Ceasar—and remember that America, too, has a little governmental thing called “the Senate,” and that the army might be “Bu$h’s Brutus.”

    The Ides; they’re adding up pretty quickly now against ol’ Bu$h, now aren’t they?

    • Comments are closed.