Kyle Sampson Has " I Don't remember " Seizure 122 Times During Testimony

    Gotta love those criminal Republicans!

          

Kyle Sampson

"I could have and should have helped to prevent this," Sampson offered. "I let the attorney general and the department down. . . . I failed to organize a more effective response. . . . It was a failure on my part. . . . I will hold myself responsible. . . . I wish we could do it all over again."

   Since Sampson was under orders to do these things, I am sure that doing the right thing was the farthest thought from his mind.

   In case you haven't heard yet, the Republicans mistakenly ( ? ) sent word  to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy , saying,

"We've just received word that the Republicans have objected, under the Senate rules, to this meeting continuing."   Source

    The Republicans are saying that it was an accident, but how do you accidentally send out a notice such as this one? This action disrupted the entire hearings for quite some time in which the Democrats pretty much had a field day complaining about the GOP.

"The Republicans are the ones that don't want to have the hearing," Leahy inveighed. "What bothers me is if nobody has anything to hide, why not have these hearings, why not have them in the open?" In the senatorial equivalent of the "we shall fight on the beaches" speech, he continued: "We will have the hearings if we have to have them in the evenings or on weekends or during recess!"

      It is noted that Sampson had used the "I don't remember" phrase 122 times during over seven hours of questioning.

   Some of the questions and answers.

Leahy: "Since the 2004 election, did you speak with the president about replacing U.S. attorneys?"

Sampson: "I don't ever remember speaking to the president after the 2004 election."  ( He remembered later that he had )

Leahy: "Did you have further communications with the White House regarding the plan to regard and replace several U.S. attorneys?"

Sampson:"I don't remember specifically."

Leahy:"I wish you did remember.I would hope that you would search your memory as we go along."

After Schumer elicited three consecutive I-don't-remembers, John Cornyn (R-Tex.) objected to the questioning style.

Leahy overruled him. "We're trying to find what in heaven's name he does remember," the chairman said.

Schumer persisted, eventually asking the witness a question about Rove's role. "I don't remember," Sampson said. "I don't remember anything like that. I don't think so. I don't remember. I don't remember."     WaPo

   So what is the going rate for convenient memory these days? Bush and Cheney must be handing out the Richard Nixon staff control  " I don't remember " manual to all of their co-conspirators just in case they feel the need to slip up and tell the truth.

   In the real world, you and I could be arrested just for being suspected of doing something against that is against the law even if the police have very little evidence to support the arrest.

   Maybe the feds should start showing up in some of these politicians offices with some arrest warrants and leading these crooks out in handcuffs. Even with all of their lawyers in tow, I'll bet that the memories of quite a few of them would get better really fast, especially with an arrest on their record.

   It's just a though, mind you.

 Kyle Sampson House Judiciary Committee  Patrick Leahy

Dana Perino On War Funds, Saudi Arabia and The U.S. Occupation Of Iraq

    Let us now take a peek at today's White House press briefing with Dana Perino.

   Perino is being questioned about the comments from Saudi King Abdullah who stated that the United States was wrong to be in Iraq.

   White House Press Briefing    March 29,2007

Helen.

Q I have two questions on the Middle East. Has the President been in touch with King Abdullah on his critical comments that we're wrong to be in Iraq?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm -- no. The President only spoke to President Roh this morning, of South Korea. There have been no other calls that I know of.

Let me just remind you of something I said this morning, which is the United States and Saudi Arabia cooperate on a wide number of issues. It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq. We are there under --

Q It is not right to say we're occupying Iraq --

MS. PERINO: That's right.

Q -- with 150,000 troops there?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we are there at the invitation of the sovereign government of Iraq that was democratically elected --

Q Did we invade that country?

MS. PERINO: We were there under the U.N. Security Council resolution, and we are there now at the -- I think one of the things to point out -- and I think somebody brought up the Talabani comments this morning -- is that he was talking about the initial when we -- initially when we went in, of establishing a coalition provisional authority, rather than an Iraqi provisional authority. And we were there --

Q Did we have a right to go in?

MS. PERINO: We were there under a U.N. mandate, yes.

Q I have another question then. Does the U.S. take any responsibility for the reign of terror in Tal Afar yesterday between the Sunnis and the Shiites, where the Sunnis were killed, execution style, about 70 or so?

MS. PERINO: It was a horrible and atrocious day. I think that the people --

Q Well, do we take any responsibility for that?

MS. PERINO: I think the people who committed those atrocities are the ones who are responsible. And I know that the United States forces, the coalition forces that are there, who are working alongside the Iraqi security forces, are working to bring security to the region.

This is exactly what we're talking about --

Q We had nothing to do with their killing each other?

MS. PERINO: The people who commit atrocities are the ones who are responsible for committing atrocities.

* * * *

 

Peter.

Q You said that the congressional war resolutions are inconsistent with the Iraq Study Group. Do you include the Senate plan, which, as I understand it, asks for a goal, but not a firm deadline, of removing them by March 2008? How is that different from the --

MS. PERINO: Well, the one thing I understand about the Senate bill is that it calls for troops to start withdrawing in 120 days, with the goal of being out March of 2008. And I think the President sees that as an arbitrary timetable.

Q But that's meant to be a goal as opposed to a firm --

MS. PERINO: The goal is to get American troops home as soon as possible, but to do it in a way that is one where they can complete the mission.

Q How is that different from what the Iraq Study Group said?

MS. PERINO: Well, the Iraq Study Group --

Q They also said that they would like a goal of removing combat troops by March 2008.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that the piece that I would point to in the Senate bill is where they say that troops need to start leaving within 120 days.

Q Well, to get out by March 2008, you logistically have to, so that's not really all that --

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that that's just signaling -- I mean, that's like this is the bill for our defeat, this is the bill that mandates our failure. You start walking away in 120 days, and what does that do for the Iraqis that we promised we'll be there and we'll be able to help them secure their country?

Q That may or may not be. That's not my question. My question is, how is that inconsistent with the Iraq Study Group?

MS. PERINO: Regarding the Senate bill? I'll take a look and get back to you.* (see footnote)

* * * *

Q Dana, going back to the 2008 budget resolution, when you were talking about an increase of taxes, which I guess -- are meaning it doesn't extend the Bush tax cuts --

MS. PERINO: Correct. And so it will end up being the largest tax increase in American history.

Q If the GOP, when it was in control of Congress, couldn't extend them either, what could the President expect to get from a Democratically-controlled Congress?

MS. PERINO: Well, fair point. Obviously, our system of -- we would have liked to have seen a budget passed last year. That didn't happen. A continuing resolution had to be passed in February. And so we expect to see tax relief for the American people, because -- especially because it's not just tax relief for tax relief's sake, it's because it has results. We've had a strong and growing economy because of the President's tax cuts early on, and that's one of the things that the President wants to keep going throughout his administration. We've got 22 months left, or so.

Q Can he get that from a Democratically-controlled Congress?

MS. PERINO: We're going to work on it.

* * * *

 

* Footnote: The Senate bill calls for an arbitrary retreat beginning in 120 days after passage of its legislation. This is not a goal, it is a rigid and arbitrary deadline. The bill states: "The President shall commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act." Baker Hamilton explicitly rejected this approach, saying: "The point is not for the U.S. to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose."

That the Senate bill also sets as a "goal" the completion of this withdrawal by March 31, 2008, does not change the mandatory requirement that withdrawal begin by a date certain -- regardless of facts on the ground or the views of U.S. military commanders in the field.

 

Tags: Dana Perino press briefing President Bush war funds Congress the Senate