President Bush's news conference analyzed

I woke up this morning to the sound of the president lying and evading questions. I've excerpted the juiciest parts of the transcript and pointed out the clear logical flaws or evasive answers (transcript courtesy of the New York Times, courtesy of the White House):

Q Mr. President, can you explain why you've approved of and expanded the practice of what's called rendition, of transferring individuals out of U.S. custody to countries where human rights groups and your own State Department say torture is common for people under custody?

THE PRESIDENT: The post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge we have been given. And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves. We don't believe in torture. And -- (emphasis added)

Q As Commander-in-Chief, what is it that Uzbekistan can do in interrogating an individual that the United States can't?

THE PRESIDENT: We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country.

Now, the president is saying that the US is "renditioning" people back to their home countries with promises that they will not be tortured. Then why rendition them? He didn't answer the question. By reiterating that we seek assurances against torture, the president is feigning ignorance. Whether or not we seek assurances that these people will not be tortured, why are we sending them to countries (often to third countries, not to their home countries) that are currently using or have been known to use torture? This quotation of Human Rights Watch's Wendy Patten from a VOA article by Dan Robinson clarifies the true nature of "assurances":

"Assurances have been used not to satisfy U.S. legal obligations but rather to circumvent them. They are unenforceable promises from governments that routinely flout their most basis human rights violations by engaging in systematic torture..."

As if we would simply release a high value target with potential knowledge of al-Qaeda operations to a country that can't even keep it's lights on (not that the US can either). If these people were not high value then I guarantee that we would just send them to Guantanamo for interrogation.

Maybe, MAYBE, we would send someone to Saudi Arabia once, find out he got tortured - and then never rendition anyone to that country. But there is documentation that this practice has skyrocketed under this administration (although it was, admittedly, pioneered during the Clinton years). I'm glad to see, as reported in the the VOA article, that lawmakers are getting fed up with this. For real though, what do John McCain and other former POWs have to say about this? Widespread use of extraordinary rendition is one of the sources of shame that this president has brought to our country. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, "Jeff Gannon", and extraordinary rendition are all going to come back to bite us. This is why the world hates us.



Speaking of the world hating us, why even bother appointing Paul Wolfowitz to lead the World Bank? Hey George, just do like your dad and barf in the lap of every world leader - it would translate the same way. Better yet, why don't we just refurbish the statue of liberty into a cowgirl displaying a ginormous middle finger to the rest of the world. Here's the Wolfowitz segment of the news conference:

Q Paul Wolfowitz, who was the -- a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history ... is your choice to be the President of the World Bank. What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think people -- I appreciate the world leaders taking my phone calls as I explained to them why I think Paul will be a strong President of the World Bank. I've said he's a man of good experiences. He helped manage a large organization. The World Bank is a large organization; the Pentagon is a large organization -- he's been involved in the management of that organization. He's a skilled diplomat, worked at the State Department in high positions. He was Ambassador to Indonesia where he did a very good job representing our country. And Paul is committed to development. He's a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job in the World Bank. And that's why I called leaders of countries and that's why I put him up.

Again, he didn't answer the question. The fact is that Paul Wolfowitz is the face of America' s war in Iraq (arguably second to Donald Rumsfeld). Wolfowitz advocated an invasion of Iraq within one week of September 11th. This was long, long before we had no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It sends a horrible signal to the rest of the world when we entrust a logic-pooh-pooing maniac with the weighty charge of pulling developing countries out of poverty. What kind of a message does that send to the countries that are supposedly being helped by the World Bank. Make no mistake about it, the World Bank is an arm of the US government; we actually own 51% of the assets (I think). This is like sending US convicts into Southeast Asian and North African States as Peace Corps volunteers. This is like consulting the local Megan's list for prospective babysitters.

One after another, the president's appointments have been the most ironic and confidence-sapping people who could have possibly been appointed. First, we have the torture-apologist turned top law enforcement officer, Alberto Gonzales. Next, we have the woman who put the intelligence in "bad intelligence" nominated and confirmed as the diplomatic personification of the US, Condoleezza Rice. Now, we have the hallucinating prognosticator of candy and flowers becoming the US' front man in the very part of the world producing terrorists. Wolfowitz is looking out for one subset of the population of the world - and you better believe it's not going to be Togolese farmers. I hate to say it, but birds of a feather flock together. We should begin expecting the president appoint the last person who we would ever expect him to appoint.



Next, the president was asked about his fundamentalist judicial appointees and the Democratic filibuster in the Senate:

Q Mr. President, your judicial nominees continue to run into problems on Capitol Hill. Republicans are discussing the possibility of ending the current Democratic filibuster practice against it. And Democrats yesterday, led by Minority Leader Harry Reid, went to the steps of the Capitol to say that if that goes forward, they will halt your agenda straight out. What does that say about your judicial nominees, the tone on Capitol Hill? And which is more important, judges or your agenda?

THE PRESIDENT: Both. I believe that I have a obligation to put forth good, honorable people to serve on the bench, and have done so. And I expect them to get a up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. This isn't a new position for me, or the -- I've been saying this for the last several years. And they ought to get a vote. They're getting voted out of committee, but they're not getting a vote on the floor. And I don't think it's fair to the candidates, and I don't think it's fair to the administration for this policy to go forward. And so, hopefully, the Senate will be able to conduct business and also get my nominees a vote -- an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.

Is it really that unfair to ask that an appointment to a federal bench be able to earn a three-fifths margin of the Senate? I mean, three-fifths! It's not like they need a unanimous vote - or even two-thirds. I would like my federal juddges to not be so (insert bigoted opinion here) that they can't get forty rich white guys to agree to give them a job. If I were a (insert bigoted opinion here) then I wouldn't expect people to give me any job I asked for. These judges are on record questioning whether women should be working outside of the house, they oppose abortion in cases of rap and incest, and - let's be honest - they probably enjoy putting young black men in prison for the rest of their natural born lives.

It's funny how Senators' and the Congressmembers' memories extend only as far back as their own party has been in power. The Republicans were pulling this same tactic to block the appointment of Clinton's judges. We here Bill Frist talking about the "nuclear option" these days, but did you ever hear about Tom Daschle or even pugnacious Ted Kennedy talking about the nuclear option in those days. No, of course not (at least I don't think so)! How's this for irony: in a Senate debate today John Kerry for criticized the Republicans for sliding the ANWR drilling provision into the budget (thereby avoiding the possibility of a filibuster). He was then blasted by Alaska Republican Ted Stevens for criticizing a practice that the Democrats used frequently when they were in power. This is the height of hypocrisy.


And this was only the best of half of the news conference, check it out at NYTimes.com, it's like Where's Waldo with logic errors, evasive answers, and out-and-out lies.