http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1970-...8-04-CBS-2.html

On the CBS Evening News, August 4, 1970, Walter Cronkite did a story about Richard Nixon's declaring Charles Manson guilty before conviction. Nixon was a lawyer and well, he should have known better.

Yesterday, Bush, who is not a lawyer, but who along with Scott McClellan, has refused to comment on Scooter Libby and Karl Rove (the ongoing investigation thing) declared Tom DeLay’s innocents of charges brought in Texas.

In a Washington Post article reprinted in today’s Fort Worth Star Telegram, some are questioning Bush’s judgment.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/13421823.htm

Link requires registration.

On Hardball last night, Chris Matthews, who has bent over backwards to be nice to Bush lately seemed livid:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10493344/

Question for debate

1. If the Bush White House refuses to comment on the status of Libby and Rove who are part of an ongoing investigation, why does Bush feel free to speak out on DeLy’s status?

2. Is Bush being hypocritical, out of touch or is there some other explanation?

3. Do you think it was appropriate for Bush to comment on DeLay’s situation? Why or why not?

1. If the Bush White House refuses to comment on the status of Libby and Rove who are part of an ongoing investigation, why does Bush feel free to speak out on DeLay’s status?

I don't really know, but the investigation into Libby and Rove goes into the executive branch and into the White House so it is even less appropriate and more legally ignorant to comment in this case.

2. Is Bush being hypocritical, out of touch or is there some other explanation?

pass

3. Do you think it was appropriate for Bush to comment on DeLay’s situation? Why or why not?

No I don;t think this was an appropriate place to comment. The president should not appear to be influencing a court case, especially a case that involves a high ranking member of his own political party. However, I also don't think it is unheard of. A lwayer may clarify this situation. But I know the Bush administration has filed friend of the court briefs in regards to supreme court cases. I also believe that Truman came to the defense of ALger Hiss (red herring) but I don;t know if he did it during a court trial.

I don't think this was an ethcial thing to do. But I think that many Americans in high places have a view of eithcs that goes all the way to the line of breaking a law.

1. If the Bush White House refuses to comment on the status of Libby and Rove who are part of an ongoing investigation, why does Bush feel free to speak out on DeLy’s status?

The Fitzgerald investigation is a federal investigation, technically under the Justice Department - the Executive Branch. As the head of the Executive Branch it would be inappropriate for the President or his spokespersons to comment on that case. The DeLay :::cough::: "investigation" is a state witch..... er.. "investigation" which is not connected with the federal government. The President has no authority over that.


2. Is Bush being hypocritical, out of touch or is there some other explanation?

He's being honest. He thinks DeLay isn't guilty of anything, as did two grand juries in Texas.


3. Do you think it was appropriate for Bush to comment on DeLay’s situation? Why or why not?

Sure it was. He has no connection to the case other than his friendship with Tom DeLay. He was asked the question, he answered the question. Had he not answered why do I have the distinct impression that the Bush haters around here and elsewhere would have screamed from the high heavens that "Bush knows he's guilty!!"?

If Bush is being honest, then why did he amend his statement today when talking to Jim Lehrer?



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house...h_12-16-05.html

I’m not necessarily accusing Bush of hypocrisy. His amended statement indicates that he’s either being hypocritical or once again victim of his lack of command of the English language. It’s a 50-50 proposition. Take your pick.

C-O-U-G-H

I must have missed something...stating the fundamental principle of the American judicial system (innocent until proven guilty) demonstrates hypocrisy---how?

This was not Bush's original statement to Brit Hume. It is hypocritical if he is amending his statement because Lehrer, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams and The Washington Post called him on the original statement.

I've given Bush the benefit of the doubt. Either his original statement was hypocrisy--refusing to speak concerning Libby and Rove, but declaring DeLay innocent, or if you believe his statement to Lehrer, it was a classic case of the Bush misspeak we've all come to love.

Presumption of innocence is so bedrock that we hardly need Bush explaining it to even the most uneducated among us.

Quite frankly, I find the President's statement condescending.

Bush didn't "amend" anything, BoF. He answered two different questions. In the first case he was asked if he thought DeLay was innocent and he said, "Yes". In the second case he was asked why he answered the first question the way he did and he explained it in his answer to the second question. There is no "amending" going on there at all. Talk about a lack of command of the English language.... Sheesh!!!!

No, Aquilla. Bush amended his statement.

Here's another exerpt from the Lehrer interview.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house...h_12-16-05.html

I must have the same problem with the English language that Jim Lehrer does. That puts me in pretty good company.

1. If the Bush White House refuses to comment on the status of Libby and Rove who are part of an ongoing investigation, why does Bush feel free to speak out on DeLay’s status?

Apparently Bush feels free to comment or not comment on ongoing investigations depending on which approach fits his purposes.


2. Is Bush being hypocritical, out of touch or is there some other explanation?

When I first posted this thread, I was not aware of Bush’s interview with Jim Lehrer. My first thought was that he was being hypocritical by not commenting on Libby or Rove while commenting on DeLay. After the Lehrer interview I’m torn between "hypocrisy" and “some other explanation”—namely correcting a classical Bush misspeak.

3. Do you think it was appropriate for Bush to comment on DeLay’s situation? Why or why not?

Bush would have been better served if he had done what he’s been doing in the Libby and Rove matters, simply saying he didn’t want to comment on an ongoing investigation. I hardly think it’s necessary for Bush, assuming his statement to Lehrer is a more accurate representation of his thinking, to explain presumption of innocence to the American people.

1. If the Bush White House refuses to comment on the status of Libby and Rove who are part of an ongoing investigation, why does Bush feel free to speak out on DeLay’s status?

It's cronyism, and Bush figures there will be no negative repercussions for him personally from his statements supporting Tom DeLay. He's throwing the "poor guy" a bone.

2. Is Bush being hypocritical, out of touch or is there some other explanation?

Aside from my own personal feelings about Bush, his attitude and his conduct, I honestly can't say. (Do you want a diatribe here? I just finished writing one in another thread. )

3. Do you think it was appropriate for Bush to comment on DeLay’s situation? Why or why not?

It is about as appropriate as when President Richard Nixon said that he was behind his Vice President Spiro Agnew "1000%". Not only was it bad math; Agnew was subsequently indicted and pleaded nolo contendre. The consequences to Nixon were minimal, considering his own mess at the time (Watergate).

Apparently you do share with Lehrer the incapacity to understand the difference between a federal investigation and a state investigation. Perhaps the problem in this case isn't language, it's civics......

However, I am sure you do understand the difference between asking what one thinks as Brit Hume did and why one thinks that way as Jim Lehrer did. After all, you posed these two separate questions in this thread......




Two questions there, two question marks, the whole deal.

I don't think we are going to resolve this.

Bush can say almost anything and someone will get the tow chains and truck and attempt to pull him out of the verbal mud he's created.

The question isn't if, but who will do the towing.

I find no shock in this. I guess I might do the same for a good friend, but being I am not in the position those people are in, like running the government. I really have no idea how I might handle the situation ethically.

Even if someone gets busted over anything, I doubt for anyone close to him or part of that social group to really get down on it to much. Depends on how much butt they have to save for self maybe in the end of this.

1. If the Bush White House refuses to comment on the status of Libby and Rove who are part of an ongoing investigation, why does Bush feel free to speak out on DeLay’s status?

The better question is "If it has been stated White House policy since 2003 not to comment on 'ongoing investigations' (a policy reiterated no less than twenty-two times by Scott McClellan on October 25), why does the president feel that he can make an extraordinary exception for his closest ally in Congress?" With that phrasing, I think the answer is inherent in the question: policy - even that of the White House itself - doesn't matter a damn when cronyism is involved.

2. Is Bush being hypocritical, out of touch or is there some other explanation?

The president is saying what he wants to say. As ever, he is doing so oblivious to the ramifications - not that he would care even if he weren't oblivious. In this case, he wanted to go on the record as proclaiming Delay's innocence (though I suspect that he is fully cognizant of DeLay's guilt) and I don't imagine the fact that he was breaking with the administration's adamantly and repeatedly stated position even occurred to him.

3. Do you think it was appropriate for Bush to comment on DeLay’s situation? Why or why not?

Not in the least. No sitting president should make any statements that could skew the outcome of a criminal investigation, least of all something that could prejudice the case before it has even reached the trial stage. Should President Bush wish to demonstrate his gratitude for Tom DeLay's support, he could always exercise presidential pardon should DeLay ever be convicted. But attempting to influence an ongoing investigation, as the White House has itself repeated ad nauseam, is seriously inappropriate.


Similarly, the spin that Scott McClellan has tried to put on Bush's flip-flopping in relation to addressing ongoing investigations is that the Fitzgerald probe is an "ongoing investigation regarding possible administration officials" and the DeLay probe is not. But I'm afraid that dog don't hunt. Every time this issue has arisen in the past two or more years - and with the number of indictments surrounding this administration, it has arisen a lot - the position, stated as policy, has been "we do not comment on ongoing investigations" - period. There had never once been a qualification placed on that policy - until George W Bush breached it. It is irresponsible, inconsistent, unfair, and hypocritical. And par for the course.

1.) Personal freedom. The president can make comments as he wishes on what issue he wishes.

2.) I think there is some kind of other explanation. He is not really being hypocritical by simply not commenting on something. That is like me not wanting to comment on oranges when presented with the choice of an apple--- it has no real conspiracy behind it, it is just a choice you have to make occasionally.

3.) As I've said, it is his choice, unless there is some kind of criminal charge behind commenting on one investigation and not another, I do not see any problem with ceremony for this comment.