hey says they are lawful yet never explains why they were done in a secret prision

Umm ... wow ...

Before this, I had never seen Bush hold his own without a box strapped beneath his suit, spouting crap about changing Captains midstream.

I'm sorry to say this, but while we expect only so much from the President, Lauer did a lousy job of interviewing. It seemed like he got stubborn and insisted upon getting an answer that even if extracted, would mean peanuts relative to mentioning the whole "stoop to their level" argument. Lauer took too long to get around to that point.

Mr. Bush is an ass. Period.

I am very sorry to say this but we in Europe are utterly convinced that he is and will be an idiot. That man is capable to contradict himself three or four times in a 5 minutes speech. It doesn't take a lawyer to realise that. One of many things that surprises us is that the big political fractions in America continue to support Bush. This is something incredible. Because the only thing that Mr. Bush had accomplished in his term in foreign policies is making Iran into a strong country. Why? First of all he attacked Afghanistan. This is a neighbour of Iran. Then he attacked Irak, also a neighbour of Iran. And if your neighbours are weak, you are strong. That's very simple. It doesn't take a strategic genius to get that. A twelve year old who has played a strategic game a few times gets that. Mr. Bush had made Iran stronger. So now we have a strong shiite country in the Middle East. A country that actually supports terrorism and war against the USA and its allies. It is strong. It will and is building nuclear weapons (and in my opinion it has every right to do this since it is the strongest country in the region). So I repeat my initial statement: Mr. Bush is an ass.

Creepy how he has that smile on his face when he's talking about "these are people who want to kill your family."

good interview, amazing to see a reporter with some actual guts to ask some real questions for once. Bush's responses were very predictable, he never answered a single question directly, and then used scare tactics at the end to justify his policies. Just what we have come to expect from the president.

Clearly, the same "lawyers" who looked at the legality of the unnamed techniques (aka waterboarding) must be the same ones who said that the wiretapping program was perfectly within the law.

This was a very aggravating clip to watch. Bush's body language was confrontational and his words quite condescending. He so one dimensional that he can't even entertain commenting about blurring the lines if harsh interrogation techniques are used. Any real political should be able to have some kind of (even bullshit) compassionate answer but he sticks to his programming and goes on the attack about the reporters family even.

I would have stabbed him in the neck with that pen.

Basile: What gives you the slightest clue that a strong Iran isn't what this administration wants?

The torturing was 'within the law' in foreign countries who would not define it as 'torture'.

When Lauer asked about why we used secret CIA locations, Bushed repeated that he was protecting the American people and it was legal.

"It was within the law: We had lawyers look at it, and it's within the law."

This is another one of those 'Bush is either stupid or dishonest' moments, isn't it? Let me explain for those who don't understand (as the President seems not to): Professionals are not given some kind of selective omniscience during training: a lawyer knows the law better than a layman, but that's about it. What one lawyer says is within the law, another may say is outwith. The reason we seek legal experts to give legal opinions is not because lawyers are never wrong and always give the same answers on legal matters but because the nature (or rather structure) of the profession is designed so that a lawyer has more to lose by being wrong: their reputation will suffer and in extreme cases they may get disbarred. This is contingent upon the rest of the legal profession having access to view, review and judge their opinion. If the lawyer's opinions are given in secret what you have is not a 'lawyers opinion' because its being the opinion of a lawyer is contingent upon the transparency which the profession is founded on; what you have is just another 'opinion'; you may as well have declared it 'legal' yourself.

If Bush doesn't understand this, he's an idiot (or at least, not fit to have a role in government - at any level, let alone the top - which is inseperable linked to the legal system) and if he does understand it but makes the argument anyway then he's corrupt and dishonest.

Of course what Bush is doing is legal. He is the Decider and he decides what's legal.

And remember, Dear Leader is hitting us because he loves us . . .

Erm is it just me ... or does Bush look and sound like a six year old telling his mom how he drowned his GI Joes?

And what is it with his ring a ring a roses strategy? He starts with one sentence and keeps on repeating it ad nauseum without ever coming to the point. You have to admire him for that - few people have developed the art of saying nothing while saying something to such an extent.

Europeans have criticised Americans for 'stupidly' choosing the same fool. I reckon that you guys have managed to field the first useful politician. One that provides bouts of hilarity in between mucking up everyone elses lives. Shame he has to blow up so much scenery in the process....

If Mr. Lauer Had Been Interviewing Anyone Else, I'm Pretty Sure He Would Have Been Unbearably Tempted To Grab That Finger And Threaten To Break It. Obviously, Mr. Bush Was Never Taught Common Courtesy. People In My Neck Of The Woods Would Have Told Him To Go to Charm School Before He Embarassed Himself Any More.

I usually don't say this, but he [the President] did come off as very asshole-ish (best word I can think of?) His style seems better suited for addressing large amounts of people at a time, as opposed to a one-on-one interview where it just comes off as condescending and threatening. Terrible PR right there.

The interviewer did a terrible job, though I guess you're supposed to be soft when you're going against the President for fear of losing future jobs?

I didn't see that whole interview but to me it looked like a great job that Lauer did. I don't expect the press to ask all the questions that I could think of as a partisan. I also don't think that it's the job of the press to represent the opposition and provide complete rebuttals to his arguments. It is their job to ask him what he means, request verification, and compare Bush's statements with other things that he has said. As far as I could see Lauer did a fine job of that.

The lawyers that said the president can waterboard people are the same ones who have refused to acknowledge any limit at all to treatment of prisoners besides the preference of the commander-in-chief.

How the hell do you adjust to torture?

I know my father went through torture training, but that can only do so much to help you through it.

There are only so many techiniques of torture, and I'm sure if the terrorist really wanted to prepare for it, they could with simply finding out from released sources.

Matt Lauer putting GDub's feet to the fire..never would've guessed. Besides that: spookier than anticipated. Chills all over.

how do you adjust to waterboarding??

Quote from above - "Clearly, the same "lawyers" who looked at the legality of the unnamed techniques (aka waterboarding) must be the same ones who said that the wiretapping program was perfectly within the law."

And the supremes differ with those lawyers.

I thought Bush did better than I thought he could in spouting all that nonsense and fear mongering.

I thought Lauer scored some pretty good points there. Maybe did some damage - even though Bush is pretty damaged already politically.

i'd file duncans'dissertation on the law under "stuff i already knew, but had never seen put so clearly and simply"-my favorite kind of enlightenment. thanks, duncan!

They are clearly too close to each other. I call it the "Fox Friends" closeness (like the one that Rocky was forced to enjoy).

He gets really personal, right from the start of every question and answer. Tries to drag the listener away into what one wants to believe and not what the truth is.

They are trying to push through that we are not talking about torture, but about legally acknowledged interrogation techniques. Its again like trying to drag the people away from whats happening. Asking them for trust in exchange for simple-mindedness. Being, step by step, taken out of view on the ugly stuff that only complicates our simple life.

I couldn't stand being close to such a person if he was only in my own country or even on the same continent.

I'm not even sure I can stand being on the same planet.

They are clearly too close to each other. I call it the "Fox Friends" closeness (like the one that Rocky was forced to enjoy).

He gets really personal, right from the start of every question and answer. Tries to drag the listener away into what one wants to believe and not what the truth is.

They are trying to push through that we are not talking about torture, but about legally acknowledged interrogation techniques. Its again like trying to drag the people away from whats happening. Asking them for trust in exchange for simple-mindedness. Being, step by step, taken out of view on the ugly stuff that only complicates our simple life.

I couldn't stand being close to such a person if he was only in my own country or even on the same continent.

I'm not even sure I can stand being on the same planet.

Can I waterboard the Bush daughters? It should be ok, right? After all, waterboarding is not torture...

"Um Matt, listen to me man...I'm 'this' close to punching you". I love it when the prez gets all animated.

When it comes to torture, President Bush likes a lot of variety: Sleep deprivation, electrodes, waterboarding, etc...

Remember: He has very ek-electic tastes!

"how do you adjust to waterboarding??"

I hate to sound at all like I'm defending Bush, but teh very simplest way is by knowing that it is in fact intended (and provided) as a non-lethal form of coersion (read: torture). If you know the torturers aren't really going to drown you (except maybe by accident), you already have a psychological and physical advantage. I guess it would also be easy enough to dunk people under water for scary lengths in order for them to become somewhat "accustomed" to it and slightly desensitized. And at terror camp, yes, you can even run simulated waterboarding just like US torturers and their accomplices use.

The truth of the matter is that information obtained under physical or mental duress (torture) is widely considered highly unreliable. And inevitably people who should not be tortured and are mistaken suspects will get the full torture treatment. And once you start slip-sliding down the road to torture it gets easier to justify increasingly brutal treatment, whether specifically authorized or not. And it will be harder to rule out increasingly nasty methods.

And all who say a lawyer's opinion (especially a political hack lawyer) is worthless are entirely correct. You can make all sorts of legal arguments to justify whatever position you want to support. Indeed, that's what lawyers primarily do. Such a legal opinion is more akin to a piece of advocacy.

It is interestign and depressing that the Bushies no longer trust outsourcing our torture to questionable ally regimes, but want to do the job themselves. Sad. Why couldn['t Lauer bring up the fact that the Red Cross, human rights groups and other international observers have characterized waterboarding, stress positions and other such techniques as torture.

I know our President is a learned fella, has he ever ead ANIMAL FARM? or is he still on his book THE GIVER whci was on my sixth grade summer eading list.

It's aggravating to see Bush justify everything with the fact that terrorism is out there. Yes, it is, but that should therefore justify doing absolutely anything at all. If terrorism becomes the justification for letting our morality go to sh*t, then we're as low as those who are out to get us.

Bush is just another old man who gets his kicks scaring children with ghost stories and suddenly screaming boo...

Since when did President Bush's daughters commit terrorist attacks? You are a complete sorry ass to bring a advocate your comments and beliefs by using his daughters to make your point. You obviously have no children and if so think more of yourself then they. You surely are not well versed on the water board technique that is used today. Much different than Vietnam era. It is very difficult to drown or die in the type of waterboarding we use. You would last about five seconds thinking you were going to die but really you aren't. However different we believe there should be some level of respect to leave comments about the Presidents daughters and family to yourself. You only display your cowardice and ignorance. Don't be surprized one day when you have children and they come home after being bullied or made fun of and you are ready to go do more than waterboard somebody. Grow up.

After WW2, US prosecuted the Japanese for using waterboarding on US soldiers who were captured.

And now Bush and his Justice Department lackeys say to the world and US public as if they were talking to children.

This bit is taken from andrewsullivan.com

Andrew notes a transcript http://www.lawofwar.org/what's_new.htm from a trial of Japanese interrogators after WWII who waterboarded Americans in captivity -- being prosecuted for war crimes -- the testimony of an American soldier waterboarded: quote:

"Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at that time?

A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.

Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.

A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again.

Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you questions?

A: Yes sir they did.

Q: How long did this treatment continue?

A: About twenty minutes.

Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the towel, what did you physically feel?

A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

And the CIA's description of the waterboarding technique approved by Bush admin at Gitmo; quote:

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

Sullivan ends; quote:

Sound familiar? It's worth placing in the public record that the Bush administration's torture policies are, in this specific respect, the same as the Japanese dictatorship's in World War II. The American prosecutor at the time dismissed charges against the American serviceman whose testimony appears above on the following grounds: "The untrustworthiness of any admissions or confessions made under torture would clearly vitiate a conviction based thereon." How far we've sunk. And it took a Christian president, supported by Christian voters, to take us there...

Bush has utterly no knowledge of counter-terrorism tactics.

No terrorist or spy group will ever let any operative have more than a piece of the overall master plan and they will be prepped with misleading cover stories that they can say in their sleep or when they are being tortured.

=========

Amnesty Calls U.S. Torture ‘Widespread’

The torture and abuse of American detainees is “widespread” in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, said Amnesty International today in its report to the UN’s Committee Against Torture. The report’s authors dismiss the U.S. government’s attempts to deny the breadth of the conduct, and accuse political and military leaders of creating an environment in which torture has become institutionalized. The group didn’t limit its criticism to America’s activities outside its borders, also citing patterns of excessive force among domestic police, and inhumane conditions in high security prisons

USA AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEFING TO THE UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510612006