As Bad as it Gets
I listened to President Bush's press conference on Friday. A transcript and link to the video can be found here. It has become clear that Bush is precisely the kind of president our founding fathers had in mind when they designed the three branches of our federal government to have checks and balances to make certain that no one could steal our country away from the people.
For the most part, Bush spent the press conference evaded an actual answer to this question: "What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings?"
Rather than answering, he went on an on about the ambiguity of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and the need to clear it up with U.S. law. Eventually, this prompted the following exchange:
Q . Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?
Bush: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
As anyone can see, Bush either did not understand the question, or did not have an answer. Given that the reporter's question is at the absolute heart of whether or not we should codify into law the Bush Administration's rather overbroad view of the various kinds of torture that shouldn't actually be viewed as torture, it is astonishing that Bush had no valid response.
Some other nuggets from Friday's press conference:
Bush: "We didn't ask for this war."
I guess I missed the part where the Iraq asked for this war. Let's see, the Kurds had control of the north, we had both a southern and northern no-fly zone operating successfully (at far less cost than our current efforts), Saddam was basically the Mayor of Baghdad, the UN had inspectors on the ground doing relatively unimpeaded work (finally), and the UN also urged us not to go to war, and most of our allies from the first Gulf War had little or no interest in helping us destroy the country of Iraq. I'm leaning towards believing that Bush did in fact ask for this war. Afterall, he did request authority from Congress to go to war. Remember the vote? Hint: it's the one where Kerry said (and I'm probably paraphrasing), "... I voted against it before I voted for it." So the Bush administration did in fact ask for this war.
Next of course, he tells us we're going to be attacked again: "I wish I could tell the American people, don't worry about it, they're not coming again. But they are coming again." Well of course he would tell us that. Afterall, mid-term elections are less than two months away, and there's nothing like fear-mongering to collect votes. Of course, now that the number of U.S. and coalition dead in Iraq and Afghanistan exceed the number of dead from the September 11 attacks, it's obvious where the real danger lies. It lies in the hands of a war-mongering presidency. Look, the government has done virtually nothing to secure our ports, our borders, our public transit, or much of anything else. As far as I can tell, the only thing they've done is to make damn sure that every pair of shoes boarding an airplane isn't made of plastic explosives. The Department of Homeland Security has doled out huge sums of money to make our country more secure, but instead of sending most of the money to places where future attacks are most likely, the entire program has become a poster child for the effectiveness of pork barrel politics. For example, look what Seattle just received: a $549,000 boat to cruise around Lake Washington and rescue pleasure boaters from their own mistakes. From the article linked above on the Seattle Times website: " ... (Sherrif Sue) Rahr said, with the full cost of the vessel paid through regional federal Homeland Security funds. We didn't have to pay a dime."
For the most part, Bush spent the press conference evaded an actual answer to this question: "What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings?"
Rather than answering, he went on an on about the ambiguity of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and the need to clear it up with U.S. law. Eventually, this prompted the following exchange:
Q . Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?
Bush: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
As anyone can see, Bush either did not understand the question, or did not have an answer. Given that the reporter's question is at the absolute heart of whether or not we should codify into law the Bush Administration's rather overbroad view of the various kinds of torture that shouldn't actually be viewed as torture, it is astonishing that Bush had no valid response.
Some other nuggets from Friday's press conference:
Bush: "We didn't ask for this war."
I guess I missed the part where the Iraq asked for this war. Let's see, the Kurds had control of the north, we had both a southern and northern no-fly zone operating successfully (at far less cost than our current efforts), Saddam was basically the Mayor of Baghdad, the UN had inspectors on the ground doing relatively unimpeaded work (finally), and the UN also urged us not to go to war, and most of our allies from the first Gulf War had little or no interest in helping us destroy the country of Iraq. I'm leaning towards believing that Bush did in fact ask for this war. Afterall, he did request authority from Congress to go to war. Remember the vote? Hint: it's the one where Kerry said (and I'm probably paraphrasing), "... I voted against it before I voted for it." So the Bush administration did in fact ask for this war.
Next of course, he tells us we're going to be attacked again: "I wish I could tell the American people, don't worry about it, they're not coming again. But they are coming again." Well of course he would tell us that. Afterall, mid-term elections are less than two months away, and there's nothing like fear-mongering to collect votes. Of course, now that the number of U.S. and coalition dead in Iraq and Afghanistan exceed the number of dead from the September 11 attacks, it's obvious where the real danger lies. It lies in the hands of a war-mongering presidency. Look, the government has done virtually nothing to secure our ports, our borders, our public transit, or much of anything else. As far as I can tell, the only thing they've done is to make damn sure that every pair of shoes boarding an airplane isn't made of plastic explosives. The Department of Homeland Security has doled out huge sums of money to make our country more secure, but instead of sending most of the money to places where future attacks are most likely, the entire program has become a poster child for the effectiveness of pork barrel politics. For example, look what Seattle just received: a $549,000 boat to cruise around Lake Washington and rescue pleasure boaters from their own mistakes. From the article linked above on the Seattle Times website: " ... (Sherrif Sue) Rahr said, with the full cost of the vessel paid through regional federal Homeland Security funds. We didn't have to pay a dime."
Labels: Politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link