Mood:
cheekyNow Playing: John McCain fired at the President, the President fired back....
Topic: This time he got mad
Start of Part two-----
President Bush: It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective. My job and the job of people here in Washington, DC is to protect this country. We didn't ask for this war. But this enemy has struck us, and they want to strike us again -- and we'll give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country. That's our job. It's a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish I could tell the American people, "Don't worry about it. They're not coming again," but they are coming again, and that's why I sent this legislation up to Congress.
Essentially, the President shot back with “Colin Powell? Who is that when it comes to what is happening today?” I loved it. Bush finally put his foot down and got it right.
Reuters' Steve Holland: "Senator McCain says your plan would put US troops at risk. What do you think about that?"
President Bush: Common Article 3 says that there will be "no outrages upon human dignity." That's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? It's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. What I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. Sometimes you actually have to question the people who know the strategy and plans of the enemy. The courts said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program because they don't want to be tried as war criminals! They don't want to break the law. They're not going forward with the program. They're not going to. The professionals will not step up unless there's clarity in the law. So Congress has got a decision to make: You want the program to go forward, or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America.
Most of these Questions that were asked by the press to the Preseident were totally ridicuous. LIke for instance, Gregory of NBC, said, "Mr. President, critics of your program on interrogation rules say that there's another important test. These days critics include John McCain, and that test is this: If a CIA officer or paramilitary or special operations soldier from the US were captured in Iran and 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 they were not able to see,' how would you react to that as commander-in-chief?"
President Bush: My reaction 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. 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. David, 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, and the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law -- 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 is not going forward.
Throughout that answer, Gregory kept trying to reask his question, but the president would have nothing of it. It was actually fun to see. The President...one of the most even tempered people I have ever watched...finally let the press have it with both barrels, and it was fun to watch their reactions.
To follow up a little, here are some questions for you. Did the North Koreans honor the Conventions as interpreted by our courts when they took the USS Pueblo and tortured the sailors? [NO] Did the North Vietnamese abide by the Geneva Conventions when they tortured McCain? [NO] Heck people, the Geneva Conventions were in existence for 20 years at that time! The communists didn't care.
David Frum, National Review Online, on the blog they call The Corner. It’s very fascinating, and shows the potential Machiavellian characteristics of McCain's personality. Here is what David Frum said:
"Some [people] have wondered whether the president's proposal was not timed to help Republicans in the 2006. I asked that question in this space last week. OK: now let me suggest we do the unthinkable and submit Sen. McCain's actions to the same suspicious scrutiny. Most political observers agree that the worse Republicans do in 2006, the more likely they are to turn to McCain's maverick candidacy in 2008. Republicans don't like or trust McCain, but they want to win – and the more they are convinced that their party is otherwise in serious trouble, the more likely they are to believe that McCain's anti-party candidacy is the solution.
"McCain may have heard these theories too. If he has, and if he agrees, is it not in his interest to maximize Republican losses in 2006? If a vote on military commissions would embarrass Democrats," and at the same time help Republicans, "does it not help Democrats to prevent such a vote from occurring before Nov. 2?" Is it that McCain only wants to stall this so that there's no action before the election, thereby not helping the president, thereby helping the Democrats? The point here is that McCain is only helping himself and the Democrats for the election of 2008.
Now, don’t ask “who would come up with this cockamamie idea?" I will tell you again. Mr. Frum has come up with it. When you hear it does it not resonate? And to those of you, who have pretty good knowledge of Senator McCain, does it sound possible to you? Does it sound possible that he's megalomaniacal enough, desirous of the White House enough that he would throw his own party under the bus in order to enhance his own electoral chances? I think that he is. And he shows that personality trait more and more all the time. It isn’t that far off of what could be the true thing that is happening here. McCain, just like Kerry, wants the Presidency, and he doesn’t care who or what he hurts to get it. They are both cut from the same cloth....the only difference is, that McCain isn’t proud of being a Liberal so he disguises it in a Republican moniker. Kerry on the other hand....is what he professes...a Liberal to the core. Watch out for these two. It would not be good for our country if they were the two running for President in 2008!
End of Part Two
God Bless America
-Robert-
