Former Bush press secretary Tony Snow dies

WASHINGTON - Tony Snow, a conservative writer and commentator who cheerfully sparred with reporters in the White House briefing room during a stint as President Bush’s press secretary, died Saturday of colon cancer. He was 53.

“America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character,” President Bush said in a statement from Camp David, where he was spending the weekend. “It was a joy to watch Tony at the podium each day. He brought wit, grace, and a great love of country to his work.”

Snow, who served as the first host of the television news program “Fox News Sunday” from 1996 to 2003, would later say that in the Bush administration he was enjoying “the most exciting, intellectually aerobic job I’m ever going to have.”

By Daniel Gross
from Slate Online

If White House press secretary Tony Snow won’t save for retirement, why should you?

From the time he joined the Bush administration in May 2006 until he delivered his final briefing last week, White House press secretary Tony Snow had the unenviable job of defending an increasingly unpopular administration to a press corps intent on making up for its earlier fawning treatment. Snow has also been a chief spokesman for the Bush administration’s domestic agenda, forced to argue continually that the typical American is doing just fine, and bravely pushing the unpopular elements of Bush’s vaunted “ownership society”: privatizing Social Security, eliminating defined-benefit pensions in favor of 401(k)s; and replacing insurance with health savings accounts, high-deductible policies, and other consumer-driven health-care initiatives.

And yet Snow’s own life in many ways symbolizes the downside of the ownership society-and suggests how much a government role in health and retirement benefits is necessary.

When Snow came to the White House after several years at the Fox News Channel, it was clear that he had relied entirely on others to save for his retirement. Snow conceded: “As a matter of fact, I was even too dopey to get in on a 401(k). So there is actually no Fox pension. The only media pension I have is through AFTRA [a union].” Even though his employer provided a 401(k) and would have matched contributions, and even though he was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars, Snow had not shown either the interest or financial capability to manage his own retirement benefits.

read more HERE

By TERENCE HUNT
The Associated Press

I’m sure all of us wish Tony good health and total recovery in his quest to rid himself of cancer. On the bad side of Tony’s resignation, we now have Dana “spokesblond” Perino to deal with. On the good side of that, we’ll get Bushism type soundclips from her. - JS

WASHINGTON - Tony Snow, the highly visible White House press secretary, will leave his job on Sept. 14 and be replaced by his deputy, Dana Perino, an administration official said Friday.

President Bush was to announce the changes during an appearance in the White House briefing room.

Snow, ailing with cancer, had said recently he would leave before the end of Bush’s presidency because he needs to make more money.

The 52-year-old Snow was a conservative pundit and syndicated talk’show host on Fox News Radio before he was named press secretary on April 26, 2006. He is the latest in a string of White House officials to head for the exits.

Friday was the last day of work for political strategist Karl Rove. Others who have left since Democrats won control of Congress are counselor Dan Bartlett, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, budget director Rob Portman, political director Sara Taylor, deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch and Meghan O’Sullivan, another deputy national security adviser who worked on Iraq.

Snow has been undergoing chemotherapy after doctors discovered a recurrence of colon cancer in March.

Tony Snow on the discrepencies in Mueller and Fredo’s testimony

It’s bad when the spokesman for The White House decides he has a branch of government all by himself and writes OP/ED pieces and then, basically has his own “show” at a White House press conference. At least some of the reporters are beginning to “grow a pair” and start asking some serious questions and calling these people on their lies and misinformation. - JS

cross-posted at Think Progress

Yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Snow was asked if the USA Today op-ed he wrote was an attempt to justify the President’s extraordinary clemency order with a “Clinton did it too” argument:

REPORTER: Tony, why do you … in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong …

SNOW: Well, this is … no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it.

Snow’s contention that “there was not much investigation” of Clinton’s pardons is an apparent attempt to preclude any congressional inquiry into Bush’s actions, particularly whether it was appropriate to extend clemency to an aide who has “knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House.” The House Judiciary Committee has a hearing set for July 11 on the issue.

Furthermore, Snow is dishonestly distorting the facts when he says there “was not much investigation” of Clinton’s pardons. In fact, there was substantial investigation:

01/20/01: On his final morning in the White House, President Clinton grants 140 presidential pardons and 36 commutations.

2/08/01: The House Government Reform Committee, headed by Dan Burton, launches hearings into Clinton’s last-minute pardons.

2/14/01: Pardon hearings begin in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Republican Orrin Hatch.

2/15/01: Manhattan U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, in conjunction with the FBI, launches a criminal investigation into all the Clinton pardons.

2/23/01: Manhattan U.S. attorney Mary Jo White announces her office is investigating commutations Clinton granted to four Hasidic men from upstate New York.

2/27/01: Clinton waives his claim to executive privilege, saying three of his former aides are free to testify before the House Government Reform Committee.

3/01/01: Former aides John Podesta, Beth Nolan and Bruce Lindsey testify for an entire day before the House Government Reform Committee.

3/11/01: Pledging continued investigations into the pardons, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott says Congress must not “walk away” from the work pursuing Clinton.

3/13/01: Attorney General John Ashcroft has asks White to expand her current investigation into some of President Clinton’s pardons to include all 177 of the last-minute clemencies and commutations.

In total, the investigations into Clinton’s issuances of executive clemency took over a year to conclude. The House Government Reform Committee didn-t release its final report until March 2002, well over a year after President Clinton left office. The Justice Department didn-t close its investigation, in which it concluded “it wasn-t appropriate to bring charges against anybody,” until June 2002.

It’s hard to see how over a year of multiple inquires could be characterized as “not much investigation,” but then again, Tony Snow has never appeared too concerned with getting his facts right when it comes to defending his boss.

Posted by Todd Mitchell
from The Democratic Daily

Sometimes you really have to wonder if these guys are listening to themselves when they spew this nonsense out to the public:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush-s decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis A–Scooter’- Libby.

A–I don-t know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it,’- presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Arkansan for “chutzpah”? I think that’s “balls the size of the Ozarks”, but I-m not sure.

“Regarding John Conyers- scheduled hearings on Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence, Snow said “Well, fine, knock himself out. I mean, perfectly happy. And while he’s at it, why doesn-t he look at January 20th, 2001?” in reference to the closing hours of Clinton’s presidency when he pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.”

Er, y-mean the same Marc Rich who was represented by none other than Scooter Libby? That Marc Rich, Tony?

Lord. You can “look at 1/20/01″ all you want. I prefer to focus on 1/20/09, the end date for Operation: American Freedom and the end of this long, national nightmare.

read more at Democratic Daily

By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent

Note to Tony Snow: STFU - JS

WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush’s decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

“I don’t know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it,” presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

In his commutation decision, Bush left a $250,000 fine. Libby paid the fine on Thursday.

Libby’s friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby’s name.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has scheduled hearings Wednesday on Bush’s commutation of Libby’s 2 1/2-year sentence.

“Well, fine, knock himself out,” Snow said of Conyers. “I mean, perfectly happy. And while he’s at it, why doesn’t he look at January 20th, 2001?”

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

read more at YAHOO NEWS

I have to say, the press corp did a good job today. Ed Henry was on Snow like white on rice.

David Shuster report on Hardball covers Tony Snow’s press conference today. You know, say what you will about BushCo…they are good at what they do. They do whatever they want and there’s no consequences. Bush commutes Libby’s sentence so he won’t be tempted to sing while in prison, and now he’ll pardon him completely down the road. And there will be no consequences for any of them. A CIA agent is outed. Treason is committed. Perjury is committed……and there will be no consequences. These guys are good. Criminals who know how to do the crime and get no time. The Corleones got nothin on these guys.

(Cross-posted at Vagabond Scholar)

“The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock-proof, bullshit detector.”
- Ernest Hemingway

What’s the difference between a lie, a false statement, a misrepresentation, spin, or simply calling it wrong?

Why are the press so reluctant to say someone’s lied?

Why are the press so reluctant to call “bullshit“?

On lying, I suspect the press are reluctant because it ascribes motive and someone’s inner thoughts, which generally aren-t verifiable. There may also be legal issues regarding libel and slander for “lie.” In any case, we often get “false statement,” “misrepresentation” and other careful formulations.

In his 6/1/06 column “Bush’s Lie” Dan Froomkin observed:

Lying is probably the one word mainstream journalists are the most averse to using when recounting what the president said — even when they know he’s not telling the truth. The act of lying requires not just the presentation of false information, but an intention to deceive. Reporters — and, particularly editors — are notoriously resistant to ascribe such volition without ironclad evidence.

But there’s really no other way to describe what Bush said Thursday. Press secretary Tony Snow’s widely-quoted explanation that Bush’s statement [about the future of Treasury Secretary John Snow] was in some way “artfully worded” is just plain wrong.

It may not have been an important lie. And there are some mitigating factors: It was, after all, a personnel matter and there was some possibly legitimate concern about the financial markets. But it couldn’t be more clear that Bush was being intentionally deceptive.

The bigger issue is not the word choice of the reporters in question. It’s that, as Froomkin noted, “Several White House correspondents dutifully reported Snow’s explanation — but neglected to note that it doesn’t wash.” He goes on to consider:

How hard is it for reporters to call what Bush says a lie? Consider Dana Milbank’s near-legendary front-page Washington Post story from October 2002, headlined: “For Bush, Facts Are Malleable.”

Milbank wrote that some of Bush’s statements “were dubious, if not wrong”; that Bush’s “rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy”; that he was guilty of “distortions and exaggerations”; that he had “taken some liberties,” “omitted qualifiers,” and made assertions that “simply outpace the facts.”

But you won’t find the word lie in there anywhere. It just won’t get by the editors.

(more…)