I'm going to post a lot more on this tomorrow [err, later today/Friday], but I just saw a CNN article that talked about President Bush's press conference today. The whole thing made me sick. Bush's style was appalling. Bush didn't seem to get the memo that our country is in mourning and decided to kid and joke around in a childish manner with the reporters. Regardless of the “Reagan mood sweeping our nation“, Bush's behavior wasn't very Presidential and it's amazing he gets away with it. I found the transcript and I'll post a lot more tomorrow.

Anyway, back to the CNN article. There are reports that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last year had a memo/report given to him that included an advisory opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The report said in detaining al Qaeda and Taliban members, the United States was not bound by prohibitions against torture in the Geneva Conventions. Reporters asked Bush if he seen the memo/report and he said he “doesn't remember“. They continued to press the issue though. Check out this winner:

Q: Returning to the question of torture, if you knew a person was in U.S. custody and had specific information about an imminent terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or even thousands of Americans, would you authorize the use of any means necessary to get that information and to save those lives?

THE PRESIDENT: Jonathan, what I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law.

Mr. Bush isn't exactly answering the question, is he? Obviously this question is trap because it's a hypothetical, but it's a valid question. I don't agree with what we did in the Iraqi prisons, but I do believe we should use any means necessary if we knew a person in custody had specific information. Something like this would never happen though. We're never sure what exactly people know and this question would never be asked of the President. It would just happen and be swept under the rug.

 Let's watch as another reporter takes decides to take another angle. The questions don't get much more straight forward then this, folks:

Q: Mr. President, I wanted to return to the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that U.S. officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say that you want the U.S. to adhere to international and U.S. laws, that's not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified?

Are you on the edge of your seat like I am? I mean, how could the guy not answer the question, right? It's not hard to understand. It's simply “Is torture ever justified?” (for the record, as I said above I think it is. sadly, we're probably overusing it though.)

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. If I -- maybe -- maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions out of -- from me to the government.

Hey, thanks for making it more clear. Oh wait, Mr. President, you didn't. You didn't make anything more clear. You didn't even answer the question. The memo/report that went out from the Department of Justice says that the United States was not bound by prohibitions against torture in the Geneva Conventions. Does that mean we used torture? Obviously we know based on pictures, videos and reports we did use torture a lot. Did the President know this was taking place? Does he think its justified?

Spin. Spin. Spin.

Have I expressed lately how much I want Bush to lose re-election this fall?