He convincingly explained the importance for Congress to give interrogators of terrorists the tools and protections they need so they can effectively glean information from the bad guys that will aid in the effort to keep the American people and our allies safe.
For the most part, the members of the press behaved respectfully -- for the most part.
David Gregory did not.
He's had a history of run-ins with presidential press secretaries Tony Snow and Scott McClellan.
Today, Stretch acted like a combative buffoon with the President.
To start off, when President Bush called on him, Gregory couldn't stand up. He was tethered, probably because he was already wearing his NBC mic. He struggled to free himself, digging under his jacket and going through a series of "gyrations," as the President put it, in order to stand.
It was an awkward moment, but no big deal. He was tangled up and looked silly on national TV, but that could happen to anyone wired for sound I guess.
The real problem came when Gregory started asking his QUESTIONS.
Other reporters were willing to ask their QUESTION and respectfully listen to the President's answer.
Gregory, on the other hand, kept interrupting the President.
TWICE the President said, "Next man," to cue the next question. Gregory wouldn't shut up.
When Bush refused to recognize Gregory any longer, he noted that it took as long for him to get through his question as it took for Gregory to "unravel," referring to the opening incident.
I thought that was a great choice of words.
Gregory definitely became unraveled at the news conference. In general, he seems unraveled.
Here's the exchange.
Q = David Gregory
THE PRESIDENT: ...Dave. He's back.
Q Sorry, I've got to get disentangled --
THE PRESIDENT: Would you like me the go to somebody else here, until you -- (laughter.)
Q Sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: But take your time, please. (Laughter.)
Q I really apologize for that. Anyway --
THE PRESIDENT: I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you're looking beautiful today, Dave. (Laughter.)
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?
THE PRESIDENT: 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.
And let me just repeat, Dave, 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 is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. 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.
Q But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends --
THE PRESIDENT: The point I just made is the most important point.
Q Okay.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is the program is not going 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. That's how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.
Next man.
Q No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point --
THE PRESIDENT: I know you think it's an important point. (Laughter.)
Q 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 okay with that?
THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.
And I will tell you again, David, 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 is not going forward.
Q This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your --
THE PRESIDENT: Next man.
Q This will not endanger U.S. troops --
THE PRESIDENT: David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.
No other member of the press behaved the way Gregory did.
The guy is an embarrassment and utterly unprofessional.
President Bush handled Gregory's foolishness masterfully.
The President also had some funny yet biting comments for The New York Times and The Washington Post.
For instance:
THE PRESIDENT: Let's see, New York Times, Sheryl.
Q Hi, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Fine. How are you doing?
Q I'm well today, thank you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Did you start with, hi, Mr. President?
Q Hello, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, that's fine. Either way, that's always a friendly greeting, thank you.
Q We're a friendly newspaper.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) Let me just say, I'd hate to see unfriendly. (Laughter.)
All in all, President Bush had a fantastic news conference.
When he meets the press and gets the opportunity to speak to the American public in a back and forth like that, he is at his best.
Complete Transcript
No comments:
Post a Comment