Finally, finally someone in the Washington press corps has the guts to say it.

I guess it takes the MSNBC funny man from Keith Olbermann’s show to nail Bush but good. I watched the press conference with king George the 43rd this morning partly in agony, when I wasn’t laughing out loud, before and after most of the talking heads stumbled all over themselves trying to trump everyone else in saying Obama’s candidacy is over due to the comments of the Rev. Wright.

Dana Milbank in his “Washington Sketch” column was able to make light of Bush’s attempt at word sorcery and nail him to the wall at the same time. Too bad there’s no local columnists anywhere who are willing to do the same thing, except, er, here on the Web.

This is so good for a change I’m going to post a significant portion for your enjoyment and/or enlightenment, in case you happen to be an Alabamian who believes Mike Royer’s account of Bush blaming Congress on the local NBC affiliate had any resemblance to reality. Maybe you’ve never read the Washington Post. Here’s a sample.

The incredible shrinking presidency of George Walker Bush hit a new milestone yesterday: The commander in chief turned to sorcery.

“You know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I’d be waving it,” Bush informed Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times in a Rose Garden news conference. She had asked him about the recession, which everybody seems to be acknowledging but Bush.

Further, the wizard of the West Wing said he would use his supernatural powers, if he had them, to conjure up lower gas prices. “I think that if there was a magic wand and say, ‘Okay, drop price,’ I’d do that,” said the illusionist.

Abracadabra! Watch the president pull a rabbit out of a hat! …

Well, not this time. “There is no magic wand to wave right now,” Bush finally confessed…

But the president had something else up his sleeve. He used his appearance before the White House press corps to perform one of the oldest tricks in the book: blaming Congress. He faulted lawmakers 16 times in his opening statement alone….

“Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts,” he protested. “Congress continues to block provisions. . . . Congress needs to clear away obstacles. . . . Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill. . . . Congress needs to do more. . . . I ask Congress to do its part.”

(Some of) the reporters in the audience didn’t fall for the blame-Congress sleight-of-hand.

“Gas prices have gone up, foreclosures have gone up, there have been layoffs, news just this morning that consumer confidence is down yet again,” recited the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven. “Isn’t it time to think about doing more?”

“Were you premature in saying that the U.S. economy is not in a recession?” needled Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters.

“Americans believe we are in a recession,” pointed out American Urban Radio’s April Ryan. “What will it take for you to say those words, that we are in a recession?”

The illusionist swirled his cape and turned that into a question about Congress.

“I mean, you know, the words on how to define the economy don’t reflect the anxiety the American people feel,” (Bush) ventured.

Rubbing his nose, he continued: “The average person doesn’t really care what we call it. . . . These are difficult times. And the American people know it, and they want to know whether or not Congress knows it.”

***
But diversions would get Bush only so far. After the White House called the news conference, but half an hour before Bush stepped from the Oval Office, the Conference Board announced that consumer confidence fell in April to its lowest point since the Iraq invasion in 2003. That started a new sell-off on Wall Street, where investors await today’s report on economic growth in the first quarter.

“Are you concerned that they will show us to officially be in a recession?” Stolberg asked Bush.

“I think they’ll show that we’re – it’s a very slow economy,” he replied.

The Washington Post‘s Dan Eggen tried to put Bush in one of his least favorite places – the psychoanalyst’s couch.

“You’ve expressed frustration with Congress,” he pointed out. “Are you frustrated? Are you angry? And do you have any real hope of being able to work with this Congress this year?”

Bush looked around, as if puzzled. “I believe that they’re letting the American people down, is what I believe,” he answered.

A chief way in which Congress is letting the American people down, the president said, is by refusing to approve oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (what a dumbass).

“They’ve repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR,” he said, depriving the nation of “27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel every day.” This was one of the oldest tricks under Bush’s cloak – he has been making the ANWR case, unsuccessfully, for eight years — and his delivery was a bit rusty. “Repeatedly” came out as “repleatedly,” and “27 million gallons” became “27 millions of gallons.”

Reporters quickly pointed out that, whatever the merits of oil exploration in ANWR, it is a long-term proposal that won’t help this summer’s gas prices. “Opening up ANWR is not long-term,” Bush objected. “It’s intermediate-term.”

So now the president is reduced to arguing the difference between long-term and intermediate-term. His is a slow and torturous disappearing act.

Bush: The Escape Artist?

Who cares what some reverend told the Washington press corps. Bush is the real idiot in the room who has done considerable damage to his country and committed crimes against the Constitution and humanity for which he should be tried and convicted.

The Post also has this story for Wednesday’s paper (my improved headline).

Bush Tries to Recycle Tired, Failed Policies

(The New York Times basically continues to kiss Bush’s ass in their coverage today, even though their correspondent was on the butt end of the attempted hit by the prez. Why they take it dog only knows.)

Wouldn’t we all be having so much more fun if we had an impeachment trial to look forward to this summer?

That would certainly divert the media away from Obama’s former paster. I mean who cares?

Wouldn’t it be great if we could abide by the United States Constitution and get god out of our political campaigns – and our government policy discussions?

What does it have to do with rising gas and food prices?

The war in Iraq and our looted treasury?

Rebuilding New Orleans or unsafe products from China, where almost everything is now made – rather than here?

Would someone please tell the American people on their dog damned television screens that what Bush has done is not working? Cannot work?

Does Obama have any answers? Will he do a better job? Will Hillary or McCain?

I don’t know, but I know this Bush government has got to go, and the sooner the better.

Wouldn’t we all be having so much more fun if we had an impeachment trial to look forward to this summer?

The U.S. news media can’t get enough of the prostitution scandal that brought down New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, but the same media won’t give a minute to a serious debate over the impeachable war crimes of George W. Bush. In this guest essay, Rabbi Michael Lerner looks at the perverse state of America’s ethics.

For the full story, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers, D-Mich., introduced criminal contempt resolutions today against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers for failing to answer Congressional subpoenaes under a broad claim of executive privilege.

Conyers also filed a resolution asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. to file a civil suit against the White House and authorize the House Judiciary Committee to go to court, represented by the House general counsel, acting as an available alternative should Attorney General Michael Mukasey follow through on his threat not to enforce the criminal citation.

The House rules committee is expected to meet and begin work on both of these resolutions this afternoon, according to the TPMMucker.

Conyers Resolutions on U.S. Attorney Subpoenas

Rob Kall of OpEdNews.com Asks John Conyers About Impeachment. Conyers is still reluctant to bring up impeachment because the vote might fail, he says. And then Fox News and the Republicans would call Conyers names, and there’s an election coming up, etc., according to Democrats.com.

But when pressed, as seen in this video, he says it’s “not off the table.”

Progressive’s Fail to Fund Alternative Media

by Robert Parry
Editor, ConsortiumNews.Com

When senior Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, explain why impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is off the table, they cite their fears of hostility from the American news media.

On Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” on Dec. 20, Conyers said the U.S. news media has become such a problem that any Democratic attempt to hold the President and Vice President accountable might end up achieving the opposite result.

“There is a very stark reality that with the corporatization of the media, we could end up with turning people, who should be documented in history as making many profound errors and violating the Constitution, from villains into victims,” the Michigan Democrat said.

In Conyers’s view, it’s kind of Watergate in reverse. Instead of the old Washington press corps holding President Richard Nixon’s feet to the fire for his Watergate abuses, today’s careerist news media would treat the idea of accountability for Bush and Cheney like some kooky conspiracy theory.

While one can dismiss Conyers’s explanation as just another lame excuse from the timid Democratic leadership, there is an underlying reality here.

He’s probably right that the Washington press corps would hoot any serious impeachment drive against Bush and Cheney off the political stage.

The current right-tilted asymmetry of the American news media has made it difficult if not impossible to achieve any sustained accountability for any of the Bush-Cheney offenses. For instance, the Washington Post, which led the charge on Watergate, now leads the defense of Bush/Cheney for their role in exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Getting Worse

Another hard truth is that this U.S. media imbalance continues to worsen.

Day in/day out, year in/year out, the American Right pours billions and billions of dollars into its media apparatus, with Fox News starting a second network and Rupert Murdoch adding the Wall Street Journal to his empire, not to mention an endless array of well-financed outlets in radio, magazines, newspapers and the Internet.

Meanwhile, many American progressives and liberal foundations remain locked in a dogmatic resistance to investing seriously in media.

When I talk with wealthy progressives, they act as if building honest media is someone else’s responsibility.

They tell me that they want to put their money into either direct-action projects (like feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands) or into supporting regulatory efforts (like restricting money in politics or trying to reestablish government rules about media size and content).

While those endeavors might have some merit, the tragedy is that the progressives are passing up a great opportunity to use new openings created by the Internet to build powerful media institutions that can generate truthful information and establish some balance in the information reaching the public.

Fund Raising Appeal

Parry sent this column out today in his own fund raising appeal. He does some good work and we often run his stories and link to his work.

But here at the Locust Fork News and Journal, we have a different strategy.

We’re not going out asking people directly to give us money, although donations are welcome.

We are simply going around trying to educate progressive people and groups on how blog advertising is a better way to get their message out than continuing to support traditional, corporate conservative news outlets and hoping that they will somehow change overnight and cover issues in a way that would be seen as satisfactory to an educated and yes liberal audience.

Now that the FCC has changed the media ownership rules in their favor, the coverage by the corporate press and network news outlets is only going to get worse as they spend less money generating original news and investigative stories. The drive for more local news is a marketing ploy to titilate a few people interested in more coverage of local sports and such.

That is not the role of the press as defined by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The role of the press in a Democratic Society is to watchdog government. That means the Bush administration nationally and the Riley administration in Alabama, and it doesn’t mean running their press releases and taking their pictures at ribbon cuttings. It means asking real, tough questions and approaching information with skepticism.

We are about to turn the corner on our strategy. We have a major redesign in the works with some full-time, year-around sponsors poised to come onboard. We see the continued conglomeration of the news as an opportunity for alternative voices to find a wider audience. So stay tuned if you want to see the next evolution of the Web Press in action.

White House spokesperson Dana Perino’s non-denial denial of White House knowledge of evidence destruction on torture by the CIA is just like a Republican woman … She is spinning and dancing trying to make it look like the New York Times report is about her, not THE PRESIDENT!

It’s not about you, Dana. It’s about Bush. What did he know about the tape destruction, and when did he know it?

Read the White House Press exchange – and LOL:

Q Dana, can you tell us why you decided to put out this statement this morning about The New York Times story? Why did you feel compelled to respond?

MS. PERINO: Well, the subhead of the newspaper indicated that the White House — well, it says the White House role was wider than it said, implying that I had either changed my story, or I or somebody else at the White House had misled the public. And that is not true. And I heard now from The New York Times that they will retract that headline, and they are going to run a correction tomorrow.

Q But the underlying facts, four White House lawyers who are named knew about the destruction or the intent to destroy the tapes beforehand. Are you disputing that?

MS. PERINO: I have not commented on that — and when we are in that –

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. PERINO: Helen, I’m going to finish this answer. The White House has not commented on anybody’s involvement or knowledge, save for me telling everybody that the President had no recollection of being briefed on the existence or the destruction of the tapes before he was briefed by General Hayden. After that, I did not comment on anybody’s knowledge or involvement. So if somebody has information that contradicts the one thing that I’ve said, then this would be true — but it’s not. And that is why I asked for a correction and The New York Times is going to correct it.

Q So you’re disputing the characterization in that –

MS. PERINO: Absolutely, it’s wrong.

Q — not the underlying facts of the story.

MS. PERINO: I’m not commenting on the underlying facts of the story. I’m sticking with what I have done in the past, which is that –

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. PERINO: Well, there is a –

Q (Inaudible) — it was back before (inaudible) was involved and The New York Times has information saying that they were involved. Isn’t that wider than you were saying? You’re only saying, well, the President had no involvement — therefore, you’re saying that, you know –

MS. PERINO: If you want to defend The New York Times, then you might look at it that way. I’m looking at it from anybody White House –

Q It does seem like it’s not that –

MS. PERINO: I think anyone — and believe me, the people that I’ve talked to, the reading of it — when I first looked at it, I felt that that was saying that I had misled the American public on this, and I have not. There is nothing I have said that has been contradictory. And there is a preliminary inquiry being led by Attorney General Mukasey and General Hayden, and it is appropriate to let that play out.

Under our Constitution the press is free to speculate as much as they want, and they can report on as many former administration officials or unnamed current officials that they want to, that contradict each other throughout this story. I’m not allowed to do that. I am an employee of the federal government. I respect the request from the White House Counsel’s Office that we not comment from this podium, and I have not. And for someone to imply that I had is offensive.

WHAT?

Q Well, you’re the one (inaudible) implication. You’re the one who said –

Q You’re the one who’s drawing the implication. Would you have been happy if the subhead had read, “White House role was lighter than previously understood”?

MS. PERINO: I have not — what it says is that I had changed my story, and I have not.

Q It doesn’t say that.

MS. PERINO: It — that’s how I took it, and I am not –

Q It does not say –

MS. PERINO: — the only one.

Q It simply says that the White House does not comment on this, then it goes on to –

MS. PERINO: That is not — that’s not what it says in its headline, Bill. And there was editorial decision that led to this subheadline, because if they didn’t want to make this point to try to say that the White House had misled the public, why would they put it in bold face above the fold, and then not — and then it’s not supported by any of the facts or the contradictory statements in the article.

Q But that’s very difficult to judge when you won’t give us the facts.

MS. PERINO: I respect the fact that Attorney General Mukasey has asked for a preliminary inquiry, that he’s working with CIA General Counsel on, as well as General Hayden. Our White House Counsel is supporting that. And CBS News is free to speculate as much as it wants, but I’m not going to do that. And I haven’t done it in the past.

Q But it’s –

Q You’re not even –

Q — you say it was contradicting you –

MS. PERINO: It says the White House role was wider than “it” said — “it” is referring to the White House, I am the spokesperson for the White House.

Q Okay. Okay, but you’re defining it that way. In fact, right after the first — this story first broke, people within the administration did say privately that, in fact, Harriet Miers had told the CIA not to destroy the tapes and that that suggested that the White House, in fact, was saying don’t destroy. Now this New York Times story is saying four people in the President — or Vice President’s inner circle actually talked to the CIA about it. So that does suggest a wider role.

MS. PERINO: I am not accountable for all the anonymous sources that you turn up. I’m not. I am accountable — I speak for the President and the White House. This says that I was misleading, and I was not.

Q It doesn’t say you. It doesn’t say you at all. And there were other people in the administration who –

MS. PERINO: The White House does not comment. The only thing that I have said from this podium is regarding to the President and his recollection. And if CNN has different information that they want to provide to me that contradicts what I’ve said, you know, let’s see it.

Q They didn’t specifically say it’s you. It’s talking about the White House, the administration in general.

MS. PERINO: I speak for the White House. I represent the White House.

NOT FOR LONG… WATCH THIS: Dana Perino, the next fall girl with a book deal…

Full Text: Press Briefing by Dana Perino

Audio

The New York Times, which seems to have gotten up off its ass some of late, is reporting in a story for the Wednesay paper that at least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the CIA between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two alleged operatives from Al Qaeda, according to anonymous current and former administration and intelligence officials.

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, according to the Times, which means there has been some lying going on from the White House and President George W. “King” Bush.

White House Lawyers Discussed Destruction of CIA Tapes

So, we are beginning to get to the bottom of the question:

What Did Bush Know and When Did He Know It?

So we can do what needs to be done.

Lessons For The U.S. News Media

Someone needs to write the song: “All I Want For Christmas Is A Bill of Impeachment.”

by U.S. Representatives and Members of the Judiciary Committee:
Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

On November 7, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Now that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent to report to the American people, it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice. Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to “unknowingly [pass] along false information.” In addition, recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction — this time about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton’s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment – where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations – would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise.

The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal. They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70% of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43% say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.

Some people argue that the Judiciary Committee can not proceed with impeachment hearings because it would distract Congress from passing important legislative initiatives. We disagree. First, hearings need not tie up Congress for a year and shut down the nation. Second, hearings will not prevent Congress from completing its other business. These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President – not our commander in chief – and the resulting impact on the nation’s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings. Also, despite the fact that President Bush has thwarted moderate Democratic policies that are supported by a vast majority of Americans — including children’s health care, stem cell research, and bringing our troops home from Iraq — the Democratic Congress has already managed to deliver a minimum wage hike, an energy bill to address the climate crisis and bring us closer to energy independence, assistance for college tuition, and other legislative successes. We can continue to deliver on more of our agenda in the coming year while simultaneously fulfilling our constitutional duty by investigating and publicly revealing whether or not Vice President Cheney has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence – not politics – should determine the outcome. Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

For more info on this campaign go to WexlerWantsHearings.Com.

Karl Rove, President Bush’s close friend and chief political strategist, said Monday he plans to leave the White House at the end of August in a teary-eyed press conference.

Download and cutout Halloween mask here

He joins a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 1/2 years of the administration, according to the Associated Press.

On board with Bush since the beginning of his political career in Texas, Rove was nicknamed “the architect” and “boy genius” by the president for designing the strategy that twice won him the White House. The president also called him “Turd Blossom,” while critics call Rove “Bush’s brain.”

A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s name but he was never charged with any crime. In a more recent controversy, Rove, citing executive privilege, has refused to testify before Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

An ongoing investigation into the conviction and jailing of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman reveals that Rove played a role in pressuring the Bush Justice Department to bring the case against Siegelman for political reasons. And while the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas of Rove and others in that investigation, which is expected to pick back up in September, the White House and Rove have defied Congress and refused to testify.

Rove, his wife and their son were to accompany Bush on Air Force One later Monday when the president flies to Texas for his August vacation.

Rove to Resign from White House at End of August
Rove, Bush Have Long History