Letters to the Editor
-
You meanies! Take that!
"The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story."
Well, that takes care of that!
-
Dana
Dana is making the White House sound guilty as sin.
-
Pernicious and troubling
Time to cue up the Hillary Clinton laugh machine.
-
@ Parker
Yeah, I agree. Dana Perino has never really been that good at, I don't know, sounding sincere. About anything.
If I were as bad at my job as she is at hers, I'd be living in a box right now.
-
Say what?
I read what Perino said and the meaning was not clear at first. Maybe I'm a bit thick today. So I parsed it, word by word. I diagramed the sentences. Still, it meant nothing. It was so ambiguous as to have no meaning at all. Then I stepped back, rubbed my eyes and looked at it again from a couple feet away. I focused not on the words, but on the image as a whole - just beyond the surface of the paper. And then, in an instant, an image formed. "Oh, I see, she's lying" And then it all made sense.
-
What Dana Perino is really saying
"We haven't OFFICIALLY lied about the latest CIA-tape-destruction reports. Not yet, anyway. When we go on the record, you'll be the first to know."
-
Well, of course they won't Comment!!
"Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue"
And they won't. When you look at this matter of the DOJ internal investigation, you have to look at it in the context of what Senator Sheldon Whitehouse explained on the floor of the Senate week before last.
In what was a woefully under-reported story, Senator Whitehouse explained how the Office of Legal Counsel has carefully constructed a framework of legal opinion that justifies Anything that the President does as Legal, just because the President says so under his Article II powers. He is not bound under any mere Congressionally-passed laws, nor previous Executive Orders, because he can just issue new ones or ignore ones already in place.
So with that OLC base, then any internal DOJ investigation is bound to conclude that nothing illegal occurred in the destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, because the President no doubt approved of it, no doubt by virtue of an Executive Order that DOJ is not obligated to reveal.
Poof! No Checks and Balances, No Illegalities, No Problem!
Don't expect this investigation to result in anything. Independent Counsel is needed
-
and the earth is flat
until we comment on the evidence, still being examined by WH staff, we find assertions to the roundness of the Earth to be baseless and premature....
-
So
Nothing is to be believed unless the pearl has dropped from her own lips?
I don't think she could have sounded any guiltier unless she had her lawyer say, "No comment" while she ran past with her coat pulled over her head.
My hope is that all of these scandles keep simmering untill after that glorious morning of January 20, 2009. then let the flood gates open with no hope of Presidential pardons.
-
Cheney's involvement
Could the smoke billowing from the VP's offices in the Exec Building be from videotapes being torched?
-
@kevmornj
In what was a woefully under-reported story, Senator Whitehouse explained how the Office of Legal Counsel has carefully constructed a framework of legal opinion that justifies Anything that the President does as Legal, just because the President says so under his Article II powers. He is not bound under any mere Congressionally-passed laws, nor previous Executive Orders, because he can just issue new ones or ignore ones already in place.
I know supposedly "it can't happen here" but when I read comments such as kevornj's, I wonder what the possibilities are that this gang in the WH will use Article II powers to maintain their power.
BTW, I am not a conspiracy nut.
-
Perinoisms
George W. Bush has nothing on Dana Perino, when it comes to uttering completely incoherent statements. "Jibberish" is no longer sufficient to describe these occasions. As she takes it to new heights, credit where it's due -"Perinoism" should enter the English language as the eopitome of using the most words in sequence to say absolutely NOTHING.
-
Most words in a sentence without saying anything
@judyinnm
.... Also known as marketing.
-
The NYT Didn't Get the Memo
If it's not in an official press release or statement, it cannot be reported.
Usually the NYT plays along with this rule, so I can see why Perino is so confused.
-
I think Perino's right.
The Times article says:
"The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged." (my emphasis).
Perino said "..we have not described -- neither to highlight, nor to minimize -- the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter."
In other words, the Administration (officially) acknowledged nothing about this story (other than to note it) either way - and the Times article implied otherwise.
Now Dana Perino is a profligate liar, and her outrage and demand for retraction is ridiculously overblown, and I also certainly believe the Times article that the Administration was deeply involved in this - but on this narrow, specific point she appears to be correct.
I need to go wash up now.
-
They shouldn't be happy.
As Bob Woodward said in "All the President's Men", "It's a non-denial denial."
-
Oh boy, what luck, another round of lunacy.
One has to start with the notion that plausible deniability was inserted at the behest of Bushit when he OK'd the burning of the evidence. That said, even a cursory following of the antics of this criminal administration over the past seven years illuminates how careless they are with policy (criminal and otherwise) and yet how seemingly convinced they are that they will not be held accountable for any of it. The sure volume of the criminality (you name it from lying us into a war, to Katrina, to dismantling the Constitution, etc.) is as staggering as the enormity of the lack of oversight that would have prevented at least some of the carnage.
Without a credible threat of impeachment being sounded from the democratic leadership (two words that form a nauseating oxymoron) Bushit and Co. have bitch-slapped our democracy to a place where torture and the overt removal of evidence of the event has become common place and not a matter for consternation. Indeed, the neocons like Cheney, Rove, GWB and the Mitch McConnels of the world must love what these happenstance do to freedom loving clear thinkers. That they can ignore what this dismantling of our country's laws is doing to the fabric of its citizens is appalling. Nauseating, pure unabated nausea.