Are there any consequences at all for the White House Press Secretary to tell outright lies?

no...

greenwald...

In February of this year, Tony Snow chatted with Bill O'Reilly and said this (h/t Zack):

Very quickly -- very quickly, you got this Valerie Plame case. Now, it turns out that [special counsel] Peter (sic: Patrick) Fitzgerald doesn't -- can't even identify any harm. She wasn't a covert agent. She wasn't compromised. . . She wasn't covert anymore.

Are there any consequences at all for the White House Press Secertary to tell outright lies like that? Does that prompt any media scandals? Why can Tony Snow say with impunity that Plame "wasn't a covert agent" when their own CIA confirms that she was?

this is only another reminder, as if we needed any, that the bush administration and its sycophants will say whatever they believe is necessary to maintain the wall of protection around the presidency... they have lenin's strategy down to a fine art...

"This administration, I've never seen an organization that learned the lessons of Lenin as clearly as these guys," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) ... . "These guys must tack up Lenin's philosophy on their bedstand every night. Particularly when Lenin suggested if you say something often enough, with enough conviction, everybody will believe it."

greenwald continues...

Many people who listen to right-wing commentators such as these get their "news" about the world primarily, even exclusively, from these sources. And these sources, knowing that, routinely create their own self-affirming though wildly warped realities, in the process denying the most established facts or asserting propositions for which there is no factual basis.

[...]

But, as they so often do, they [make] them anyway, because those statements [help] to defend the Leader and bolster their political agenda. Most of all, they know that their readers will trust what they say even when those statements are demonstrably false.

and it works quite well, doesn't it...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet