Matt Laurer (!!!) pounds Bush on torture

[BVS]

Still can't...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

George Bush is just about the least media skilled world leader I've ever seen. I don't understand why anyone would ever tune into a Bush interview expecting to hear anything real. You can tell me you believe, I guess, in the Bush Doctrine, but you can't tell me that you actually find anything of substance in this man.

 

[deep]

Honestly? No, but it's not because of the war on terror.

glad that you are losing faith

was it Katrina?
or
the national debt?
or
something else?

 

[diamond]

i thought g.w. held his own in the interview quite well.

matt looked like he had a bad case of jock rash.

dbs

 

[Lila64]

were we watching the same interview

good point deep - liked your post

 

[verte76]

Sneaky, Mr. President.

 

[80sU2isBest]

glad that you are losing faith

was it Katrina?
or
the national debt?
or
something else?

Something else entirely.

I haven't lost all fath in him. Just on one or two issues.

 

[najeena]

As in the debates with Kerry (which Kerry easily won in my view, not that it mattered), Bush can't conceal his emotions. How many more times in the next few years will we see him lose his cool? Petulance doesn't become the leader of the free world.

 

[A_Wanderer]

glad that you are losing faith

was it Katrina?
or
the national debt?
or
something else?

Maybe it was "religion of peace"

Maybe it was not killing Zarqawi when the option was there.

Maybe it was failing to follow through in Fallujah earlier.

He may fuck up but the Democrats hardly seem to be fielding.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Do we say screw international law?

you have done. the hague in the 80s. nicaragua v the US. the courts sided with nicaragua on you lot bombing their harbours and producing a manual encouraging assassination and state terrorism, but alas, the US did not acknowledge the international court's jurisdiction.

have there been other instances?

 

[verte76]

George Bush is the least skilled public communicator that I have ever seen in the office of U.S. President. Petulance doesn't become that position.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

i thought g.w. held his own in the interview quite well

Yeah, that constant finger pointing and scary smirk went over so well. I bet Matt was longing for Tom Cruise, he would have seemed downright sane in comparison-and less defensive.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

One funny thing-Matt told Bush that it was amazing that People was able to put his head on Bush's body

 

[Iskra]

L'l Georgie isn't used to being questioned.
Wouldn't you like to wander through life unscathed, untouched, invincible?
When your spouse or boss questioned you, you could just get uppity and whiny, ignore them and move on.

 

[diamond]

gw still won the interview.

dbs

 

[AEON]

Maybe it was "religion of peace"

Maybe it was not killing Zarqawi when the option was there.

Maybe it was failing to follow through in Fallujah earlier.

He may f### up but the Democrats hardly seem to be fielding.

EXACTLY!

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is a mistake to think that just because people oppose Rumsfeld and Bush's handling of the war that they automatically oppose it, there is a section that not only wants to win but win decisively.

 

[AEON]

It is a mistake to think that just because people oppose Rumsfeld and Bush's handling of the war that they automatically oppose it, there is a section that not only wants to win but win decisively.

And that is what these pollsters are missing in their questions.

They also mess up on the "is the country headed in the wrong direction" question. The pollsters don't ask "why" and "who is responsible" - I am quite certain that the reasons I feel the country if headed in the wrong direction are FAR different than the reasons BVS, Irvine, and Melon would give.

If the dems win over congress it will because conservative voters will simply refuse to re-elect another liberal leaning Republican.

Maybe it would be good if the dems win, then we would see some truly conservatice Republicans take it back.

But I have a hard time seeing the dems win anything until the drop the radical left.

 

[BVS]

And that is what these pollsters are missing in their questions.

It's interesting you agree with a_wanderer, but I'm glad, it shows growth.

But I have a hard time seeing the dems win anything until the drop the radical left.

How much catering do the Dems do towards the radical left? Honestly.

It's not like the right, but have vocal quacks, but the right's the one that actually caters to theirs... because they know they couldn't win any other way.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Maybe it would be good if the dems win, then we would see some truly conservatice Republicans take it back.

That would be loose-loose.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

gw still won the interview.

Yeah, convincing yourself of things is fun I am going to get a call from Johnny Depp today asking me out.

Seriously diamond, do you ever look at anything involving GWB in a objective, unbiased manner? I'm really not trying to be an ass here, honestly. Just wondering. Do you think it was appropriate for him to give a political speech and talk about Iraq on 9/11? Couldn't he have given it a rest for that one day especially?

 

[Angela Harlem]

cubic zirconia boy is going to get a call from W asking him out, too, mrs s.


ok, i'm just being an arse. i'll depart now

 

[Irvine511]

But I have a hard time seeing the dems win anything until the drop the radical left.

and the Republican party will continue to implode until they drop the Christofascists.






(pregnant pause)

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Obviously this isn't the first time Matt Lauer made Katie Couric look like Ann Coulter.

Playing loud music in a cold room is not the moral equivalent of slicing off the hands of a terror suspect, nor is it the equivalent of Abu Ghraib.

If I were in his position and free to interrogate the President of the United States with my own personal biases, I would demand to know why the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have more rights than our boys that are being held in shackles at Camp Pendleton.

If George Bush wasn't such a pawn, he wouldn't have let the left wing agitator in his office in the first place.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Who cares who started it? The whole point is to be the bigger person and stop doing it. You'd think that a President, a man of "honor" would put an end to it. Aside from finger pointing, Bush's entire attitude sucks throughout the video. He's acting like my dad when I confront him about something: defensive, overreacting and threatening.

Very much Kofi Annan's mindset on Hezbollah kidknapping Israeli soldiers.

Who cares who started it, nobody has the right to defend themselves.

 

[Irvine511]

Obviously this isn't the first time Matt Lauer made Katie Couric look like Ann Coulter.

Playing loud music in a cold room is not the moral equivalent of slicing off the hands of a terror suspect, nor is it the equivalent of Abu Ghraib.

If I were in his position and free to interrogate the President of the United States with my own personal biases, I would demand to know why the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have more rights than our boys that are being held in shackles at Camp Pendleton.

If George Bush wasn't such a pawn, he wouldn't have let the left wing agitator in his office in the first place.

the specific technique that most are objecting to is waterboarding, and we're kidding ourselves if you think we don't outsource traditional torture to other nations.

and it's a slippery slope. the moment you violate the Geneva Convention, the minute you violate the rules of the US military, you open the door for the sadists and you lose critical moral authority and you make it that much more likely that US troops will be treated very, very badly when captured by the enemy.

how ON EARTH do the Gitmo detainees -- many of whom have yet to be charged with a crime -- have fewer rights than the Marines?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

the specific technique that most are objecting to is waterboarding, and we're kidding ourselves if you think we don't outsource traditional torture to other nations.

However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely to actually die if this is done by skilled practitioners.

[...]

Notably, though, the revised manual does not restrict the practices of CIA personnel

Interesting.

I'd also like you to define what other torture methods Matt Lauer finds so offensive.

Is it...

Playing loud music?
Interrogating terrorists in a cold room?
Cutting off body parts?
Not allowing them to pray five times a day?
Allowing dogs to attack detainees?

and it's a slippery slope. the moment you violate the Geneva Convention, the minute you violate the rules of the US military, you open the door for the sadists and you lose critical moral authority and you make it that much more likely that US troops will be treated very, very badly when captured by the enemy.

On this I disagree. The enemy will be sadistic and vile regardless of how we treat terrorists and terror suspects.

how ON EARTH do the Gitmo detainees -- many of whom have yet to be charged with a crime -- have fewer rights than the Marines?

We're throwing money everywhere in order to abide by their religion. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself said the detainees would be granted full Geneva conventions rights and access to a defense lawyer. They're getting three square meals a day - far too many if you ask me. So much for Big Dick Durbin and Amnesty International for comparing our military interrogators to Nazis and Soviets.

Until recently, the Camp Pendleton 8 were being held in shackles - also without being charged with a crime. While the terrorists at Guantanamo were given special priviliges like playing soccer, praying whenever they wanted to, halal meals, and a couple visits from Ted Kennedy, the Pendleton 8 are behind bars 23 hours a day. They were being held with maximum restraints.

Where were all the human rights groups when American troops are being held in shackles for crimes they have not been convicted of? Where is the ACLU? Where is Matt Lauer?

Unless of course they DON'T support the troops after all.

 

[Irvine511]

Interesting.

you did notice that the CIA is able to do this, and the military isn't, simply so the Bushies could say that they "don't torture" and they signed the McCain Amendment?



[q]I'd also like you to define what other torture methods Matt Lauer finds so offensive.

Is it...

Playing loud music?
Interrogating terrorists in a cold room?
Cutting off body parts?
Not allowing them to pray five times a day?
Allowing dogs to attack detainees?[/q]


i don't think i understand the question ... but you're taking an awfully rosey view of what has been going on, and you're also missing the point that torturing detainees (even if it isn't chopping off hands) makes our jobs harder, it makes it harder to win hearts and minds, it makes it harder for US troops to get crediblity in Baghdad, it makes it harder for the US to garner international support. it screws over our military and lowers our expectations for their behavior.

what are we fighting for? are we not fighting for our way of life? do we not have better values? how better to demonstrate that our values are better than by treating prisoners humanely?

there's also the other point: torture does not work. a man who is being tortured will tell you anything to get you to stop. what happens? you get bad information.

who would Jesus torture?



[q]On this I disagree. The enemy will be sadistic and vile regardless of how we treat terrorists and terror suspects.[/q]

so let's prove we really are better than them. one of the few positive side effects of the carnage in Iraq has been the footage of Muslims killing Muslims -- more specifically, jihadists/terrorists/insurgents killing innocent Iraqis. this has removed the abstract mystique that had swirled around Al-Qaeda up until and immediately after 9-11. they've revealed themselves to be made of an ideology that belongs in the Middle Ages, and this has repulsed your average Muslim.



[q]We're throwing money everywhere in order to abide by their religion. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself said the detainees would be granted full Geneva conventions rights and access to a defense lawyer. They're getting three square meals a day - far too many if you ask me. So much for Big Dick Durbin and Amnesty International for comparing our military interrogators to Nazis and Soviets.[/q]

but they are acting like the KGB and the Strasi. and this is why the KGB and the Strasi could implement a reign of terror over the USSR and GDR populations, but never solve a freaking crime -- once you start to torture, the good people leave, the sadists take over, and people will tell you anything, especially what you want to hear, to get you to stop torturing.

what's wrong with KSM thinking that he deserves a lawyer and Geneva Convention rights? he does.

so that when he is found guilty it is credible in the eyes of the rest of the world and the Arab Street.

why are you so concerned that he not have a lawyer? why do you think that traditional US military interrogation techniques are inadequate to stop attacks or gain information? they've worked in the past, why do you not trust them now?

or is this just a sick little maturbatory revenge fantasy you have? does it make you good knowing that they squirm? is it really just about revenge and bloodlust and sadism and not about actually protecting the US?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

you did notice that the CIA is able to do this, and the military isn't, simply so the Bushies could say that they "don't torture" and they signed the McCain Amendment?

I could agree that Bush's verbal communication is at times confusing. But I don't see the how a "more compassionate war" is a more effective war.

In a non-political way, I can admire John McCain. However, I think his time as a POW is the only rational justification for him believing that Iraq would be a day at the beach. I suppose anything could look like a day at the beach to a former POW. But politically, he doesn't seem to know where he stands on anything anymore. Obviously, I'm done with RINO endorsements.

i don't think i understand the question ... but you're taking an awfully rosey view of what has been going on, and you're also missing the point that torturing detainees (even if it isn't chopping off hands) makes our jobs harder, it makes it harder to win hearts and minds, it makes it harder for US troops to get crediblity in Baghdad, it makes it harder for the US to garner international support. it screws over our military and lowers our expectations for their behavior.

I've heard this statement more than once - about making our jobs harder. Just to be clear - how exactly? Because we're supposedly losing allies? The UN should know better that no country has given more lives to expand and protect the world's freedom than the United States. The irony seems to be that the war was marketed as a humanitarian war. I disagree. It's a war for the sake of our survival. With a humanitarian war, you could negotiate diplomacy for as long as you want. But when totalitarian bloodsuckers with a past history of invading free nations want nukes, we don't have time to piss off.

what are we fighting for? are we not fighting for our way of life? do we not have better values? how better to demonstrate that our values are better than by treating prisoners humanely?

And what is so inhumane about playing loud music in a cold room? There's no question we have better values, unless of course you ask Rosie O'Donnel or someone who believes that the US should be disarmed of its nuclear weapons.

there's also the other point: torture does not work. a man who is being tortured will tell you anything to get you to stop. what happens? you get bad information.

Not if you do it right. By using humane methods of gathering information, it accelerates our progress in the war, and it polishes our image as a nation. It seems you argue that the information terrorists give us is always wrong - and oddly enough this is coming from the "there are no absolutes" crowd.

who would Jesus torture?

Jesus was never a president, so it's hard to say.

so let's prove we really are better than them...they've revealed themselves to be made of an ideology that belongs in the Middle Ages, and this has repulsed your average Muslim.

Proof of a superior society in warfare is the ability to know your enemy. Based on my own definition, I believe you are 100% correct in this comment.

but they are acting like the KGB and the Strasi. and this is why the KGB and the Strasi could implement a reign of terror over the USSR and GDR populations, but never solve a freaking crime -- once you start to torture, the good people leave, the sadists take over, and people will tell you anything, especially what you want to hear, to get you to stop torturing.

I find the comparisons with Soviet Russia unjustified. They started a holocaust with the KGB on their own civilian population which led to 30 million killings. We aren't playing man on the street to find Jihadists, as you seem to suggest.

why are you so concerned that he not have a lawyer? why do you think that traditional US military interrogation techniques are inadequate to stop attacks or gain information? they've worked in the past, why do you not trust them now?

I say go ahead and give him a lawyer, and a FAST, SPEEDY TRIAL. Give the Jihadists one half hour to defend themselves, give the prosecutors one half hour to state their case, and give the American people the justice to agree on a punishment that fits the crime. We're never going to get out of this war if we continue to try them as if they belong with our second-degree murderers in the general population.

or is this just a sick little maturbatory revenge fantasy you have? does it make you good knowing that they squirm? is it really just about revenge and bloodlust and sadism and not about actually protecting the US?

I continue to denounce what happened at Abu Ghraib. There are other methods that can be used in order to gain information that will allow us to track down more and more Jihadists. My preference is with loud music and cold rooms. I really don't prefer any such method that goes beyond that. I really hope I've made myself clear.

 

[BVS]

Obviously this isn't the first time Matt Lauer made Katie Couric look like Ann Coulter.

This makes me wonder what world you really live in.