Why would he even get involved in this (video here):
President Bush said yesterday he is confident that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of money-laundering charges, as he offered strong support for several top Republicans who have been battered by investigations or by rumors of fading clout inside the White House.
In an interview with Fox News, Bush said he hopes DeLay will be cleared of charges that he illegally steered corporate money into campaigns for the Texas legislature and will reclaim his powerful leadership position in Congress.
“I hope that he will, ’cause I like him, and plus, when he’s over there, we get our votes through the House,” Bush told Fox News’s Brit Hume. DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in the fundraising case, and he is seeking a quick trial in hopes of returning to power early next year.
Why would he even comment on this? There is nothing to be gained.
yet another jeff
Hammer’s doing a heckuva job….
I figure that the bugman knows where all the skeletons are buried, forcing people to defend him even if it goes against their best interests.
Or…Bush is a moron.
Krista
Delay probably has something on him…
Shygetz
Bush was very clear on why…when the Hammer is in the House, Bush’s shit gets done. This is an “ends justifies the means” administration through and through. When Bush says he thinks Delay is innocent, what he means is he doesn’t care because Delay gets stuff done.
Lines
He’s loyal to a fault, unfortunately its the people he’s loyal to that really make this a corrupt and destructive administration.
Just one more albatross. How many does it take to drag a Bush down?
srv
As his other puppeteers lose control, others like Karen Hughes are doing their best/worst to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Listening to the speeches this week, it’s clear whatever is left of his circle is just cutting and pasting from old speeches. If they think he can go offensive and be even more pedantic, well, we’re getting to the point people are embarrassed for him.
srv
Also, I think his announcement that Condi will take over the ME for him is another sign she’s up for VP soon.
JKC
In that same interview, Bush said this when asked about Donald Rumsfeld:
Does Bush really think the US military is his?
Ron Beasley
When the President of the United States makes that comment it comes real close to jury tampering.
stickler
Well, we all know that Bush rewards certain characteristics. Competence isn’t among them; loyalty is.
That’s all you need to know. Heckuva job, Rummie!
Al Maviva
>>>He’s loyal to a fault
I think that is spot on. He is a team guy, expecting loyalty to run up, paying it back with loyalty that runs down. Not always the best approach to achieving the highest possible results, but it probably gets the somewhat talent-limited crew he drug up from Texas to perform up to the best of their capabilities.
IMHO, the real tragedy and big mistake of this administration was failing to go to the deep conservative / libertarian bench of management, policy and legal minds built up by Reagan and to a much lesser extent by his own father. A lot of big names are still bouncing around D.C., New York and Cali law firms, schools and think tanks, that ought to be in Administration positions. The emphasis on youth, personal political connections and loyalty has hurt the Administration by eliminating a lot of serious old defense, foreign policy and legal hands before they were ever even really considered. For example, was the AG job offered to Carter Phillips or Boyden Gray? Alberto Gonzales? Please. Being the best player in the Texas single-A league, doesn’t mean you have the stuff to make it in the bigs.
SeesThroughIt
This for sure. Also: The base, John, the base! You have to constantly stir them up, or so we’re told by political strategists and the like. The base (you know…that 35 percent) have to believe Delay is innocent because he’s one of theirs, and if Bush says he’s innocent, then by Jebus, he’s innocent!
Though I suppose it could also be this:
You just never know these days.
Vlad
“Why would he even comment on this?”
He’s not very good at what he does. Ergo, he makes obvious mistakes with surprising frequency.
Davebo
So much for not commenting on “ongoing investigations” eh?
Mr Furious
Why is THAT an ongoing investigation that he feels perfectly comfortable commenting on?
So, is DeLay kind of like Raffy Palmiero?
He’s a fool for going anywhere near this.
Mr Furious
Ah, ya beat me to it, Davebo.
Geek, Esq.
He pretends not to know what’s going on with Abramoff.
Who the fuck does he think he’s kidding? If he’s not being told about Abramoff, he needs to fire his advisors pronto.
Steve
I am sure all the conservatives who thought it was wildly inappropriate for Howard Dean to prejudge DeLay’s guilt will be all over this one. Or not.
Ozymandius
Now I want a Dem pol to say “Well since the president seems to think interfering in criminal investigations for his friends is oikay, and since Mr. Delay is obviously innocent, I expect we’ll be seeing the President issuing pardons any day now. Since Mr. Delay’s innocence is obvious, and the President has clearly stated that he needs his Hammer back in the House, I imagine that he’ll see no reason to let the taxpayers contiunue to fund criminal investigations into his close and useful friend.”
Too much?
Mike S
It’s not often that I agree with Al but I do here. I doubt any of us on the left would have been happy with anybody President Bush brought in but at least they could have been compatent.
Horshu
He’s put himself in a bad position spin-wise now because of the proximity of both DeLay’s and Rove’s upcoming potential problems. He is now on record very recently supporting two men who are in potential serious legal jeopardy, and it’s video that can be strip-mined for soundbites should either man go down for the count. On one hand, he is being very Bush-like in being publically 100% behind his people, but very risky given the timing and stakes involved. I think given his interviewer, he could have dodged the issue altogether and not paid a price for it, and done a little hedging on the future.
Richard Bottoms
Because he’s a shithead and you helped elect him.
Thanks ever so much.
Perry Como
Maybe President Bush said it because it’s true.
jg
Sure why not? Republicans own the military. If you weren’t a republican going in you probably are coming out. We’re being governed by the people who lost the Civil War. And now they have the military too. Rich southern plantation owners who see the government as a barrier to them making a mint off this country have found a way to get the other 98% of the country on board with their ridiculous economic plans. Divide and conquer. Go FOX News!
Steve S
Bubble Boy doesn’t understand that DeLay is radiated.
Edmund Dantes
srv Says:
Also, I think his announcement that Condi will take over the ME for him is another sign she’s up for VP soon.
Wait… don’t you mean she’s being re-put in charge of the Middle East. I seem to recall her as National Security Advisor as being put in charge of cleaning up Afghanistan and Iraq. Is she going to clean up the mess she left from before as National Security Advisor?
srv
Ed,
Zogby polled her with a 53% approval rating, so she’s apparently failing the least amongst the screw ups. But her failures must be as rewarded as much as the next guy. Hopefully, she will learn to fail harder so she can get that Medal of Freedom.
Perry Como
That’s because she wears awesome shoes.
John Redworth
I have to agree this is a loyalty issue with Bush… one of his positives/negatives is his loyalty to his friends no matter what happens…
I personally do not have a strong opinion on what DeLay did since it seems both parties do it (meaning that both sides should face the music), but I can’t help but wonder when the Abramhoff net is going to catch DeLay as it is starting to do with others…
ChrisO
This is just Bush telling Republican judges which way he wants them to rule…
Sojourner
Good G-d, we got Cheney and Rumsfeld. Any more of these old guard types and this country will cease to exist.
NK
“He’s loyal to a fault, unfortunately its the people he’s loyal to that really make this a corrupt and destructive administration.”
Don’t the conservatives find it really really odd that someone who bills himself as a compassionate conservative is loyal to his friends rather than the country?
I am not saying that the president is not loyal to the country. But when it comes to the matters like Brown or Miers, clearly his loyalty to his friends shines way above what he needs to do for the country.
When the president chooses to speak in this case but not in the Plame case, is he not selectively choosing to speak on matters that suit him?
How is this consistent with conservative principles?