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

Before Election 2006, many Democrats saw Congressman John Conyers as the old lion who finally would hold George W. Bush and Dick Cheney accountable, through impeachment if necessary.

Instead, Conyers has shied away from that challenge and even had pro-impeachment demonstrators arrested at his office.

In this guest essay, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern describes how Conyers has failed to live up to the heroic standards of Martin Luther King Jr.

For the full story of the confrontation between pro-impeachment activists and Congressman Conyers, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.