Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Transcription of the entire exchange between David Gregory and Bush

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 04:48 PM
Original message
Transcription of the entire exchange between David Gregory and Bush
Notice how Bush starts off, like a common schoolyard bully, trying to turn Gregory into a female. He then makes an astonishing admission--that he would not object to North Korean or Iranian guards treating American soldiers the way the US has treated Iraqi and suspected Al Qaeda soldiers in our custody--i.e., being waterboarded, left naked in a frigid cell with no bed and loud music pumped in at all hours, being blindfolded and slapped randomly. This is "the program" Bush keeps talking about as having worked so well on Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Zubaydah, for example. This is how he wants to "clarify" the allegedly vague Article III of the Geneva Conventions. He is not man enough to spit out the truth, however. He can only repeat that he wants his guys to keep keeping on without having to worry about winding up prosecuted for doing what Bush wants them to do--which is to violate international law. So many, many words this clumsy-tongued oaf uses to say one simple thing: I want Congress to let us torture at will.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500794_pf.html

BUSH: I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you're looking beautiful today, Dave.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

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: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name 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.

And let me just repeat: We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward.

You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish please -- they will not violate the law.

You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward if there's vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just not going to go forward.

BUSH: You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

Now, I know they say they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that, you know. "Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you." These people aren't going to do that.

Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example. I'm just telling you the bottom line. And that's why this debate is important and it's a vital debate.

Now, perhaps, some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't.

I think it's vital and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country -- I got to give them the tools they need, and that is clear law.

QUESTION: This is an important point, and I think it...

BUSH: The point I just made is the most important point, and that is the program is not going forward.

You can give a hypothetical about North Korea or any other country. The point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law.

BUSH: And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article 3. And it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.

Next man?

QUESTION: But wait a second. I think this is an important point.

BUSH: I know you think it's an important point.

QUESTION: But, sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, as they see fit, you're saying that you'd be OK with that?

BUSH: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article 3 we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

And I will tell you again, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts.

And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules -- if they do not do that, the program's not going forward.

QUESTION: This will not endanger U.S. troops in your...

BUSH: Next man?

QUESTION: This will not endanger...

BUSH: David, next man please. Thank you.

Took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.

(LAUGHTER)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good example of Bush lack of caring
He really does not care about our troops, they are just numbers, just like the anniversary of
New Orleans was just a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. Any time ** clarifies something it always winds up murkier than before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. did he just say David unraveled?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. A desperate bu$h trying to get his agenda pushed while he has rubber stamp
congress.

He know that time is running out just as he said in the PC. But it is not the time he wants America to believe.
The time that is running out is on the Republican majority in Congress. Chances are that barring vote tampering, the Republicans are going to loose one or both houses in Congress and bu$h will no longer be able to simply push his and the PNAC's agenda through the chambers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. You're exactly right. That's the clock Bush (i.e., Rove) hears ticking.
As Josh Marshall just posted at TPM, this whole thing was an attempt to replay the IWR gambit. That one worked because the Repubs were their usual compliant selves and the Dems couldn't get their act together to stand against it. This time, though, it really may fall apart. My fingers are crossed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. You think they are really worried about a Dem win?
It seems to me they're pretty sure they are going to keep the status quo in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kutjara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Pardon me if I'm being a bit slow...
...but which part of the following requires "clarification"?

---------------------------------------

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatement of prisoners of war -

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

-------------------------------------------------

That looks pretty damned clear to me as it is. I certainly don't require a semiliterate, inarticulate, learning-impaired buffoon like Shrub to 'clarify' it for me.

I remember when the Republicans howled in "outrage" when Clinton made his silly remark about it all depending on how one defines sex, as he tried to wriggle out of admitting his affair with Monica Lewinski. Yet here we are, listening to a narcissistic dolt try to tell us how one defines torture. Which is the greater crime? Gee, that's a tough one.

I'm sure King George is fine with Iran or North Korea torturing our soldiers. After all, Bush is happy for them to be killed. They're an expendable resource, like bullets and MREs. The fewer veterans that come back alive, the less money they will cost the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. It's hard to understand what this twit is getting at
but it sounds like he is saying "this stuff we've been doing is illegal and so now we need a law that retroactively makes it legal or we're gonna have to stop doing this illegal stuff". In other words he's just confessed to violations of the Geneva Conventions. He's going to be another Kissinger, unable to travel outside the US for fear of being hauled up before the Internationl Criminal Courts on war crimes charges. Hell of a legacy, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I don't think it's hard to understand at all.
He's saying what you and I think he's saying. "I want the US Congress to give us the right to torture detainees at will without fear of being turned over to the World Court or prosecuted in the US during the next administration as war criminals."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Agreed
and of course if the Congress doesn't give me what I want - there is always the signing statement to "Clarify" the new law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. He wants the US Congress to be his accomplice
in criminal activities he INSISTED were all legal not too long ago.

The bit about a young intelligence officer worried about clarity was telling.
Sounds like there have been some mutinies in the ranks. Sounds like some of the spooks have said No, I won't follow an illegal order.

Sounds like the not so civil war between federal employees who serve the nation and the junta who thinks they all serve bushco is getting hot... for Cheney. Cheney has to be terrorizing the puppet with his frustration, rage and stinking fear.

And, didn't Alberto say it was all perfectly legal quite a while ago? Wonder what he's doing these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bush says it's OK for other nations to TORTURE American soldiers?
WHY ISN'T THE MILITARY JUST ROARING about this???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. no kidding? How about the families of american soldiers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Exactly. The whole damned country should come to a stop over this!
It's OK to torture American soldiers?

It's ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. maybe this will the straw that finally sends the masses on to the streets
my nephew was in Afghanistan for a year and then did 2 tours in Iraq and him being taken abducted was probably our worst fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Lord, I hope so. My fear is that people will just ignore this
until there is a draft and then it will be too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. They can't 'roar' at their CIC. Seems likely they have refused
some illegal orders of late or bush wouldn't need the US Congress to clarify it for them.

Sounds like there are some mini mutinies in the ranks. They can't speak against the Civilian Command, but they can refuse illegal orders. There are people who intend to uphold the oaths they took. Imagine bush/cheney's surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. Actually, there was a story about KSM and zubaydah

and how he was interrogated after being captured. That story is one the Bushies do NOT want you to hear.

<snip>
Moreover, as I revealed nearly three years ago, the CIA extracted the information from Zubaydah by pulling off a ''fake flag'' operation, in which Zubaydah thought he was in Saudi custody and gave the names of the princes in an attempt to get himself freed.

Moreover, U.S. interrogators used pain killers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet.

Bush did not give particulars, but did say, ``We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking.
<snip>

from http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15466236.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Both Ron Suskind and James Risen have written about Zubaydah
and they corroborate each others' reporting, that Zubaydah is mentally ill and has no good information to offer. As Suskind says (to paraphrase), "They're torturing an insane man and running out screaming over whatever he tells them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. Then he shouldn't mind standing trial like Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
20. Clarity.... well it's pretty clear to me
the law says you can't torture people and Bush says you can. What an asshole. Acts all brave and macho but is afraid to get up there and say what he wants to do. Clarify, set standards, re-interpret, just come out and say it you pathetic jackass, you are the King and if it's not legal to do what you want.. you will make it legal.

Goddamn Sith Lords are everywhere...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC