Tony Snow Claims That Congress has "No Oversight" of President

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Snow Flashback: ‘I’m Not Going To Tell Congress What They Can And Can’t Do’

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow appeared on the morning talk shows on all the major networks and repeated his talking point that Congress “has no oversight responsibility over the White House.” A sampling of his statements:

There’s another principle, which is Congress doesn’t have the legislative — I mean oversight authority over the White House. [CNN, 3/22/07]

First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight. [MSNBC, 3/22/07]

Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House. [Fox, 3/22/07]

But back when he was asked whether the conservative-led 109th Congress should be investigating members of the Executive Branch, he was singing a different tune:

QUESTION: What is the president’s opinion of a request by Republican leaders in the House to launch an investigation of Sandy Berger’s involvement in the removal of classified documents from the National Archives?

SNOW: There were questions last week, about investigations involving Republican members. Members of Congress have their own oversight obligations. They may proceed as they wish. They’re a separate and co-equal branch of government and I’m not going to tell them what they can and can’t do. [briefing, 10/16/06]

http://thinkprogress.org/

[almaty 19]

he is a chopf##k..needs to go back to the Fox network, where some people listen to him and stop being a shill

[mybackpages 0]

I know i should be carefule what I wish for, but i do wish there would be a real constitutional showdown between Congress and the President.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

He can say what he wants (see the 1st amendment) it doesn't take away from the balance that is designed into the 3 branches of our government.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He can say what he wants (see the 1st amendment) it doesn't take away from the balance that is designed into the 3 branches of our government.

As the press secretary for the White House - I don't think he should be able to say whatever he wants without some accountability.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

He can say what he wants (see the 1st amendment) it doesn't take away from the balance that is designed into the 3 branches of our government.

As the press secretary for the White House - I don't think he should be able to say whatever he wants without some accountability.

How is he not accountable?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He can say what he wants (see the 1st amendment) it doesn't take away from the balance that is designed into the 3 branches of our government.

As the press secretary for the White House - I don't think he should be able to say whatever he wants without some accountability.

Accountability? Did you forget who he works for? His boss doesn't believe in accountability. And since his boss apparently answers to no-one, accountability is nothing any of the staff needs to worry about anymore. Long live King George!

[almaty 19]

He can say what he wants (see the 1st amendment) it doesn't take away from the balance that is designed into the 3 branches of our government.

true, but still a shill..and a chopf##k..like all press secretaries ahve been

[mybackpages 0]

He can say what he wants (see the 1st amendment) it doesn't take away from the balance that is designed into the 3 branches of our government.

As the press secretary for the White House - I don't think he should be able to say whatever he wants without some accountability.

TheWhite House staff is not confirmed by the Senate and has no independent authority to take action, so we have to assume when he speaks he is speaking on behalf of the President and not himself.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He can say what he wants (see the 1st amendment) it doesn't take away from the balance that is designed into the 3 branches of our government.

As the press secretary for the White House - I don't think he should be able to say whatever he wants without some accountability.

TheWhite House staff is not confirmed by the Senate and has no independent authority to take action, so we have to assume when he speaks he is speaking on behalf of the President and not himself.

That's what I mean. He is the mouthpiece of GodBush.

[slim 1,525]

It's times like these that I miss Scott McClellan.

[garya505 2]

Tony Snow for President!!!

[GaryC 7]

Jeez Steven, You get the award for the most out of context post! Tony was talking about the presidents ability to hire and fire US Attorneys! There is no congressional oversight on that! Jeeez the dems are grasping at straws here. They are trying to manufacture a scandal and they are making fools of themselves. Has everyone forgotten that Clinton fired all 92 of the US attorneys when he came into office? They have been trying to get Bush since the 2000 election. It's been one manufactured scandal after another! They are the most hypocritical bunch that has ever lived! They are beneath contempt!

[mybackpages 0]

Jeez Steven, You get the award for the most out of context post! Tony was talking about the presidents ability to hire and fire US Attorneys! There is no congressional oversight on that! Jeeez the dems are grasping at straws here. They are trying to manufacture a scandal and they are making fools of themselves. Has everyone forgotten that Clinton fired all 92 of the US attorneys when he came into office? They have been trying to get Bush since the 2000 election. It's been one manufactured scandal after another! They are the most hypocritical bunch that has ever lived! They are beneath contempt!

It's not a question of the president's power to hire and fire. US Attorneys are political appointments. Clinton was coming into office and replaced the Attorneys with his own appointments just as every president has the preogative to do when he begins his new adminstration. The entire Presidential Establishment is normally replaced by an incoming president.

The question is why did Bush fire these particular attorneys at the mid-point of his second term? If it was polical manuvering to protect his own adminstration, then we have a problem.

I can;t help but wonder if Clinton had made this move in 1998, they would have been no outcry at all.

[KansasDragon 1]

Even if he fired the attorneys for political maneuvering, then it is still at the President's discretion, not Congress. That's why every President changes out attorneys on a regular basis, Political Advantage, and Political Beleifs.

The Democrats are not requesting to review the case, quietly, and in good faith. They are requesting to make a Public Circus, and a News Making Party. That's all they really want, they really could care less about the reasons behind the firing, they are just seeking Political Advantage.

Accountability of Tony Snow?? lolz, as if there is Accountability for all the reporters? I don't care if they are Liberal Leaning reporters, or Conservative leaning reporters.. They all twist and tweak the facts to "make a story", not "report a story". Our news outlets have become filled with Actors and Activists, and not reporters. (Both sides of the fence.)

Right now, the Democratic Party has stated publicly a policy of continual attack of the President, to keep "scandals" in the forefront. Why?? Because that's what the Republicans did to Clinton. And it worked.

So, if you want the facts, listen to the news on TV, read the newspaper, listen to the conservative talk shows, and then take all of that, find a middle ground somewhere in between, and you'll be close to the facts.