Tony Snow’s week

As much as I appreciated White House Press Secretary Tony Snow rejecting the Pelosi/plane nonsense as a “silly” story that is “unfair” to the House Speaker, the Baghdad Bob of White House officials hasn’t had a great week, at least as far as telling the truth is concerned.

Let’s play a game — pick the worst Tony Snow falsehood of the week.

1. Greenpeace goes nuclear — In the hopes of characterizing nuclear power as environmentally friendly, Snow told reporters on Wednesday, “We’re talking about nuclear development, which is now championed by, among others, Greenpeace… I think there’s some Greenpeace people who are certainly advocates of nuclear power. Why? Because it’s clean and it provides for energy.” (Fact check: Greenpeace hates nuclear power. Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst with Greenpeace, said yesterday, “Mr. Snow is about 180 degrees off. Not only do we not support nuclear power, we certainly don’t support it as an answer to global climate change.”)

2. Tax cuts pay for themselves — Arguing that the government will take in more money if it takes in less money, Snow told reporters, “Low taxes means economic vitality, which means more tax revenues…. There are any number of ways of calculating [the cost of tax cuts]. By some calculations they have paid for themselves and then some.” (Fact check: even the White House’s own economists have argued publicly that this is wrong.)

3. Who said anything about Iran? — Last month, Bush said he’s moving a second naval carrier group to the Persian Gulf just after he finished talking about the malfeasance of Iran. Yesterday, Snow said the media is fabricating aggressive posturing towards Iran. “You guys kept trying to report that we were doing it, and we kept saying, ‘No, we’re not.’ … I don’t believe [the Persian Gulf is Iran’s] backyard. I believe it is the ocean that also encompasses a whole series of other nations. It is not as if they are parking outside of Iranian ports.” (Fact check: Defense Secretary Bob Gates put the naval deployment in the context of Iran at a NATO summit last month.)

4. Benchmarks, schmenchmarks — Snow told reporters the White House won’t go out of its way to insist that Iraqis meet the benchmarks the Bush administration has laid out for them. “I think at this point, to try to start rendering summary judgment at the very beginning of an effort by the Iraqis not only to deal with matters of legislation, but also economic development and getting forces on the ground, and for that matter, getting their headquarters and command stood up, is a little premature. The other thing we’ve said is if it takes a couple extra days or weeks at one end or another, we’re going to understand that.” (Fact check: A month ago, Bush said, “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act.”)

Taken together, these are obviously the insights of a man who the press corps can hardly take seriously, better yet trust. And yet, there Tony Snow stands, behind his White House podium, making up just about any tall tale he thinks will get him through the day’s briefing.

So, which one’s the worst? I’m leaning towards #1 — who is seriously going to believe Greenpeace endorses nuclear power? — though a reasonable case can be made for any of the four.

“By some calculations they have paid for themselves..”

By incorrect calculations.

By calculations by morons and liars.

So you see, he isn’t really lying. He is just being careless with the truth.

  • Tax cuts paying for themselves is not a lie, it’s just a truth that hasn’t happened yet.
    Greenpeace MAY endorse nuclear power in the future, it just hasn’t happened yet.
    Boy, this is easy!

  • “I don’t believe [the Persian Gulf is Iran’s] backyard.”
    Well duh, Tony, Its obviously owned by the Persians. . . Oh wait.

  • “I think there’s SOME Greenpeace people…”

    CB, are you saying there aren’t ANY Greenpeace folk who would like to see some expansion of nuclear power to offset the growth of fossil fuels?

  • “Taken together, these are obviously the insights of a man who the press corps can hardly take seriously, better yet trust. And yet, there Tony Snow stands, behind his White House podium, making up just about any tall tale he thinks will get him through the day’s briefing.”

    Yep, but if by going along it keeps the reporters’ “access” in place, to obtain important and relevant and useful information that they will choose to disregard, ignore or simply just not report upon, solely to ensure that they maintain “access,” well, I guess it is all worth it. No?

  • i assume his lips were moving for each of the four, so as lies they are all pretty indistinguishable – from each other, and everything else he says.

  • So, which one’s the worst? I’m leaning towards #1 — who is seriously going to believe Greenpeace endorses nuclear power?

    I’d cut him some slack on that one; I thought I heard that somewhere myself. Snow’s mistake was saying so as if it was an authoritative argument.

    The silliest is plainly 3, if only by denying that the Persian Gulf is Iran’s backyard. Suppose Iran had a decent navy; would the US tolerate them sending ships to the Gulf of Mexico??

  • #2. Of course this is wrong. Most of the tax cuts are going to the rich. This money in most cases will be invested. If that happens to be directed toward Treasury Notes, guess who will be paying the interest?

  • I hope this is a new regular feature. Perhaps each Friday/Saturday a post “Tony Snow’s Pants Are Still On Fire”?

    I vote for #3 as the most reckless lie, and #2 as the flat-out boldest/dumbest.

  • Any run-of-the-mill mob mouthpiece could run rings around the Bush Crime Family’s Tony “The Liar” Snow. Of course, any run-of-the-mill mob mouthpiece doesn’t have to spin the kinds of serious crime routinely committed by the Bush Crime Family.

    I don’t know of any traditional Mafioso who ever gunned down 650,000 innocent people or managed to steal trillions from the United States while indebting it for trillions more. All the mob’s crimes taken together are chickenfeed compared to those of the Bush Crime Family.

  • I wonder if anyone is actually briefing Snow any more? It seems the White House is increasingly out to lunch, if not on vacation.

  • RSchewe –
    Money going to the rich is not necessarily reinvested. There are methods to measure investment, and by those standards investment was higher during the Clinton years. So the rich get more money, don’t reinvest it and still get the treasury interest paid by all of us.
    Sweet deal for them, eh?

  • CB, are you saying there aren’t ANY Greenpeace folk who would like to see some expansion of nuclear power to offset the growth of fossil fuels? -JRS Jr

    You know full well that Snow was implying that Greenpeace as an organization supports nuclear power expansion but inserted that little tidbit to cover his ass.

    You’re as intellectually dishonest as Snow if you believe otherwise. Sometimes I wonder if you’re really just trying to convince yourself of these lies when you play these semantic games.

  • Snow said, ““We’re talking about nuclear development, which is now championed by, among others, Greenpeace…”

    Flat out lie.

    Thanks Ivan #9 for the article by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, but now a co-chairr of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

    He makes some good points but it’s not about the dangers now, it’s the millenium long dangers of the waste products of nuclear energy that make it a bad choice. Bush will probably want to blast radioactive nuclear waste out into space.

  • JRS Jr – I really have to commend you.

    As stupid a moron as I think you are, you manage manage to demonstrate the paucity of my imagination with your very next post, as you demonstrate even lower levels of comprehension.

    The answer is NO. Greenpeace doesn’t support nuclear power. Neither does anyone else who has looked at the problem for longer than 30 micro nanoseconds.

    Where do you plan to put the garbage? “Garbage” that has to be kept away from the environment for a time period three times longer than all the years of recorded human history? Given the slightest knowledge of that history, how long do you think it would take humans to mess up whatever was developed, thereby poisoning the earth? Just in case you wonder about this, the “experts” on nuclear power have recently said that nuclear power is dead because of this issue. You’re dealing with the geologic time scale here, and nobody knows a damn thing about forecasting anything about that.

    But you keep on trying. You’re a pathetic joke who only gets funnier as you flail around proving that computers are now so user-friendly that a homo sap like you, lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs, can use them.

  • Well put, #16: you saved me from having to make the point.

    I’m sure that at the university where I work, I could find someone who believes in legalization of pot, someone else who believes in the legalization of prostitution, and pretty much someone who believes in any controversial cause you can think of. Does that mean the university is now by extension in support of these causes? I don’t think so.

    Tony Snow associating the views of a single member of Greenpeace as the consensus view is as dishonest as creationists giving more weight to a single dissenting scientist against evolution than to the overwhelming body who support it; ditto for emphasizing the climate change dissenters.

  • tom cleaver, i take offense at your comment that “Neither does anyone else who has looked at the problem for longer than 30 micro nanoseconds.” that is not the case.

  • i’ll second just bill here. i dont have time to type it all in right now, but there is actually a good case to be made that nuclear is in fact “healthier” than other mainstream sources of energy we are currently relying on. it is possible for liberals to take that position.

  • Right, Zeitgeist. Nuclear is healthier. And when we all glow from the radiation leaks, then we won’t need as many lightbulbs to navigate the nuclear winter.

  • Tommy my boy Cleaver, the foam around your lips has returned! Please wipe it, it is quite unbecoming.

    “there is actually a good case to be made that nuclear is in fact “healthier” than other mainstream sources of energy we are currently relying on. it is possible for liberals to take that position.”

    So Tommy, Who’s the “pathetic joke” now?

  • “You know full well that Snow was implying that Greenpeace as an organization supports nuclear power expansion but inserted that little tidbit to cover his ass.”

    I actually thought we were talking about honesty, not inferring about it!

  • Buzzmon,

    I agree.

    It seems likely to me though that many do invest these savings. The ultra-rich that are getting tax breaks have more disposable income. I think the savings they get from tax breaks fall way outside the margins they have for spending.

    Lower income people spend a much larger percentage of their income since they obviously have much less, never mind percentages of disposable income. The only stat you need to know nowadays is the decline in personal savings.

  • I’ll say one thing in support of #4 being the insidious type of whopper that it is: this is the second time I can think of when the SOTU speech is used to promulgate misinformation if not downright disinformation. Bush was unambiguous in stating the Maliki government is expected to meet certain US-sanctioned benchmarks by a certain time just as he was unambiguous in asserting the US had learned from the Brits about the now-discredited yellow cake uranium ore/Hussein connection.

    Wasn’t it that towering intellect on the right, George Fucktard Will, that said, “Clinton believes wholly in what he is saying right up to the moment he repudiates it.” or words to that effect?

    I guess we shouldn’t listen to what they say, we should just watch what they do. (Thanks, Dick.)

  • “The only stat you need to know nowadays is the decline in personal savings”

    Be careful with that savings stat.. it ignores the equity in one’s real estate as well as one’s investments (including 401k’s and IRAs, etc) which a larger percentage of Americans are using to store value (save) and accumulate wealth.

  • peppermint, if the best you’ve got is to be more snide than substantive, that’s a debate i’ll take anyday.

    around 15-20% of the US commercial power portfolio has been nuclear for literally decades; in Vermont nearly 3/4 of all power is nuclear-sourced. i don’t see a lot of Americans, nor a lot of Vermonters, glowing in the dark.

    i do see a lot of Americans with pulmonary diseases and disorders from nitrous oxides, sulfur emissions, particulate emission, and soot from combustion-based energy sources. i also see a lot of environmental damage from oil spills, oil and gas facility leaks and explosions, coal mining, oil drilling, etc. and i’ve seen footage covering the deaths of dozens of coal miners during the last couple of decades. i’ve seen massive scars from strip mining, massive piles of fly-ash and combusion waste.

    but amazingly not one glowing person. somehow non-nuclear fuels escape being “tagged” as responsible for all of those deaths, diseases, and environmental destruction. if you account for all of that accurately, the high “energy density” of uranium easily makes it the cleanest and safest fuel source available for mainstream, baseline production. (which is to say dont bother arguing solar, wind or water to me – as much as we all may wish otherwise and encourage this to change, none of those can remotely accomodate the developed world’s baseline power needs anytime soon).

    i could literally go on all day. the left has had a far too knee-jerk reaction to nuclear energy that ignores tons of facts.

  • I’ll go with Curtain Number Three, CB—that “all-expenses-paid luxury tour of the Iranian hinterland” sounds just too good to pass up….

  • Tony Snow has turned the White House press conference into a drinking game. For little lies take a swig, for real whoppers you have to chug. My liver couldn’t last more than a couple of his pressers.

    Nuclear power may be cleaner in terms of gaseous emmissions, but if it’s such a great answer to saving this world, why are we so against the Iranians developing nuclear power? ……. oh yeah, there are a few complications that come with nuclear for saving the world.

    Cut taxes to make more money? The Laffer curve as to ends that come to $0 income. The Bushies are heading full speed to the left side of the scale.

    The Persian Gulf being Iran’s backyard? No, silly. It’s their FRONT yard. Any fool with a map can see that!

    Benchmarks suck so bad that they were made the centerpiece of the No Child Left Behind Act. Benchmarks for thee but not for me, thanks. So Tony, can a school disctrict use that line when the feds say its funding should be cut for failing to meet arbitrary standards?

  • Can tony or someone tell me when the Moved Iran? because when I was in the navy in the early 60’s the persian gulf sure as hell was in Irans back yard or front yard . Course the persian gulf ain’t exactly an ocean despite tonys assertion

  • Zeitgeist is right, but the nuclear industry needs to be required to pay for its true costs, which include liability insurance and long-term waste storage. All energy sources must be required to pay their true costs. Fossil fuels should be required to pay their share of the costs of global warming.

    If this is done, renewables become far cheaper than all the alternatives, and conservation becomes the best option by far.

  • This post and comments has made me revisit the issue of nuclear power. I haven’t changed my mind but I do see that it may have grown past some of its former negatives and deserves another look. Thanks folks.

  • Be careful with that savings stat.. it ignores the equity in one’s real estate as well as one’s investments (including 401k’s and IRAs, etc) which a larger percentage of Americans are using to store value (save) and accumulate wealth. -JRS Jr

    While it’s true that equity isn’t counted as savings (mostly because it’s NOT savings), it is not true that retirement accounts are not included.

    Private retirement accounts have always been included in the PSR, but government controlled retirement accounts have not. Those were added, however, in 2003. The current PSR does include all retirement accounts.

    The PSR has only been negative for an entire year four times in US history: 1932, 1933, 2005, and 2006.

    Seems like something was going on in 1932 and 1933. Good times.

  • Regarding “Tony Snow’s week” (2007-02-09) and comments about nuclear power, there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the US because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

    I refer to ‘concentrating solar power’ (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

    CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient ‘HVDC’ transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US and Canada too. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US “could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the current total US electric capacity***” (emphasis added).

    In the ‘TRANS-CSP’ report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

    Further information about CSP may be found at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk and http://www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . In case anyone is thinking nuclear power might be a solution, the many problems associated with that technology are summarised at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .

  • i don’t think the statistic of 3/4 of vermont’s power coming from nuclear sources is correct, although i have nothing that i can cite to support that. we do get a significant amount of power from vermont yankee in vernon, but we get a tremendous amount of power from hydro-quebec and the transcanada dams on the connecticut river, as well as from hydro projects in the niagra region. burlington, vt, has a wood-fired generating plant for burlington electric. with all of those other sources, i just can’t believe the 3/4 number is correct. having said that, however, that does not change the basic argument he was making nor his conclusions.

  • Sorry, I mispoke — The PSR does NOT account for net wealth creation driven by one’s asset appreciation (investment accounts, IRAs, 401ks, home equity). This wealth creation is a big driver of significantly increased consumption among consumers. Increased consumption drives the savings rate down, even though net wealth may be increasing.

    There is a great study on the SF Fed’s web site done in 2002:
    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2002/el2002-09.html

  • Thought I’d add my bit to the nuclear discussion.

    Nuclear waste containers will not work, say scientists

    It seems that ceramic containers used to hold nuclear waste break down a lot faster than expected. If we are going to increase nuclear power usage, we need to increase our research/ability to reuse spent fuel rods and waste. I recently read an article about French efforts at fuel reuse, and they seem to be doing quite well with it. I also remember reading within the last two years about using waste in “pebble-bed” reactors(I think that was the term), which was very efficient and had very little waste left over. There was also this talk at Google about investing in fusion research using inertial electrostatic confinement fusion.

    There are a lot of possibilities for nuclear energy, but if we are to move forward, we have to do it smartly. We can’t just build more reactors and then start dealing with the waste and other issues. I don’t trust the Bush Administration to not give huge contracts to the same old same old, letting us deal with the problems years down the road.

  • doubtful,

    Thank you for the info on PSR and retirement savings. I had been wondering if retirement savings were included in the calculation. Now I know.

  • Anybody notice the genious Tommy Boy Cleaver has been absent from this nuclear discussion after his rabid rant earlier? His mummy must have pulled him off his computer again!

  • Where do you plan to put the garbage?

    On the space elevator to orbit. then we give it a big push towards the sun. eventually the sun’s gravitational pull will bring it in. Safe, simple, energy efficient. Oh wait, that’s right, we don’t have a space elevator yet. but when we do install one…

    having said that, nuclear power plant designs have come along way. I agree with others above that one can be a progressive and support nuclear energy as an potentially acceptable piece of the overall energy production puzzle. Racerx at comment #32 is exactly right though and is worth a read.

  • #32–“All energy sources must be required to pay their true costs.”

    Yep–Big Oil paying for the costs of military forays into the middle east and all other governmental activities to protect access to oil.

  • Greenpeace doesn’t support nuclear power. Neither does anyone else who has looked at the problem for longer than 30 micro nanoseconds.

    Tommy, today’s my day to disagree with you a second time. You don’t understand the subject enough. I think you should take a look at it for somewhat longer than 30 nanoseconds.

    Hey Zeitgeist, I gotta get you an early draft of my energy book I’m just finishing. Email me, okay? vox@volcanomaildotcom. Dale, Racerx, you guys too if you want to critique an early peek before it goes to press. And of course you too, Tom. Rambuncle, pebble beds are no good, we don’t want to go that way. Their spent fuel can’t be recycled. Spent fuel from light water reactors (like we have all over the world now) can all be recycled and we can completely eliminate the problem of long-lived radioactive waste. As a matter of fact, we don’t have enough! In the entirely workable scenario in my book, if we’d build the few facilities it would take to process it I could use it all up in five years and be begging for more. What we should definitely do is stop spending money on Yucca Mountain, because we’re not going to need it. $8 billion so far and another 35 to go, it’s all money down a hole.

    As for fusion, there’s an old joke among physicists: We’re only forty years away from fusion power… and we always will be. But seriously, it’s not as far off as one might think. The problem, however, is that we don’t have time to wait. But the problem can be fixed. I look forward to discussing this on CBR once the book hits the stores.

  • Did Tony Snow once work for the Soviet era Provda?

    “I assure you comrades, that wheat harvests were good despite rumors spread by the decodant capitalists of the Western Imperialists.”

  • Comments are closed.