In his press conference this morning, I heard President Bush endorse the use of torture on American troops. He said if foreign governments adopted the standards in his bill, he'd be OK with that. That means to me that he'd accept their use of waterboarding and other coercive techniques by their "professionals" and the conviction of our troops in their courts with secret evidence. That sounds like the kind of support from above that our troops don't need.

Is so unqualified he doesn't understand that he has an oath to the Constitution.

How anyone can support this man is way beyond me.

So, those who support Bush, answer me this: do you support torture? Really?

And you call yourself an American. The Nazis believed that they had the right to torture people. That is why it is profoundly illegal. Moreover, it doesn't work, and, as Gregory exactly points out, puts our troops severaly in harm's way.

So, you support that?

Oh, and by the way, the definition of torture is easy. If you wouldn't want it done to your son or daughter, it's torture.

For shame, for shame.

He did answer the question: "My reaction is that, if the nations such as those you named adopted the standards within the [White House's] Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better," he said.

It is apparently O.K. with him if U.S. military or intelligence personnel are captured, tortured, put on trial without access to evidence, and sentenced to death.

Because Bush spent (or mis-spent) his time in the stateside National Guard, he never had to come to grips with the fearful thoughts that every combat soldier and Marine at one time or another has had to ponder:

"What if I'm captured?"

Bush's response to those men and women: "Screw you, you're on your own."

I'm surprised Tony Snow hasn't told President Crabby-Pants to stop calling on David Gregory.

And, as usual, when he knows there's no *good* answer to a question at one of these press conferences, Bush just proceeds to answer some imaginary question of his own choosing. And what would one of these press conferences be without the usual Bush hyperbole whenever he thinks he's not going to get his way? In this case, ohmygod, we'll have to totally stop interrogating all detainees unless or until someone spells out for Mr. Bush just exactly how much torture is too much torture. (I think somebody needs a nap.)

This little exchange may not show up on NBC Nightly News tonight but here's hoping it shows up on Keith Olbermann's Countdown. I wanna see that flinty look he gets in those beady eyes of his and I wanna hear how his good ol' boy drawl disappears when someone dares treat him with something less than 110% respect.

Who'd have thunk it -- maybe the Republicans are actually going to start putting some of the fun back into politics!

Calling all Senators and Congressmen! Stand up against torture and dungeons now!

Preznit Bushit, the prick who puts the dick in dicktater, and the new new-kew-luhr, has just added to his "mission accomplished" and "bring it on" macho braindead legacy. God help our troops if- make that when- they're captured.

To those of you more right leaning among us lefties who frequent the site (if any exist) ... Do you really want to eliminate any argument that it is wrong for a foreign government to torture and then convict our soldiers based on information resulting from torture and anything else that may be manufactured without ever seeing that which provided the basis for the conviction? Do you really want our captured soldiers subjected to the same standard as that proposed by the White House? If you do, I would be really curious (seriously) to understand why you think that it would not be wrong for foreign governments to torture and convict our troops in such a manner.

Later on in the press conference, did Bush refer to the Pakistanis as "Paks"? Or is there a Pakistani PAC that I'm not aware of?

that this is the same man who defiantly declared, "Bring 'em on!"

Prosecute every torturer, and prosecute everyone who ordered or allowed or did not prevent torture. If they did it, they already are guilty. They could have refused to torture; they could have quit the CIA; they could ordered against torture. But it already is done.

And we already have perfectly good definitions of torture. No need to go back into that. Prosectute them. Let the regular American courts decide. If they are guilty, lock them up.

W.Bush's idea that his torturers need legal protection is obscene.

My understanding from the press conference was that someone actually followed up on Mr Gregory's question and Bush's response was along the lines of (paraphrasing):

We would hope that by altering our standards regarding the Geneva convention (with it's ambiguities and all other shortcomings of international treaties that "some say" we need to adhere to), that other countries would follow

Talk about a hypothetical!

Bush simply doesn't know what he's doing and it's frightening. At the expense of sounding trite, I'll say it anyway: this is where we separate the men from the boys and ask ourselves what do we stand for, what do we want to stand for and to which side do you want to pledge the soul of this nation? What Bush is demanding compromises not only our values, but ultimately reinforces the image of scared, quivering Americans reduced to operating from the extremes of our fears. Hell, we're even afraid of Mexico now.

Whether you think terrorism should be fought militarily or not, you cannot possibly believe that it couldn't be fought any more intellegently and with more of a pragmatic committment from Bush and congress.

I've had a lot of emotions since 9/11, but fear isn't one of them.

What are you afraid of?