Bush: 'We Don't Torture'

President Tells Katie Couric That Connecting Iraq To War On Terror Is Hardest Part Of His Job

(CBS)  It was one of the worst-kept secrets in the world — and on Wednesday, President Bush confirmed it: In a major speech about the war on terror, the president, for the first time, acknowledged the existence of secret CIA prisons around the world.

He said 14 terror suspects held in them have been moved to Guantanamo Bay — and he's asking Congress to change the law so they can be tried by special military tribunals. The 14 include men allegedly behind the worst terror attacks against the United States, including 9/11.

The President also defended the way terror suspects are being interrogated. CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric sat down with the President for an exclusive interview at the White House, and she asked him about this transfer to Guantanamo.

"The reason why we're moving them there is we want them to go through a military tribunal. We want them to receive the justice that they denied other people," Mr. Bush said. "But the other thing is that we have to have the capacity to interrogate — not torture, but interrogate people to learn information."

The President says information already obtained from interrogating terror suspects has protected the country from attack.

Couric asked the President if he could give any indication about the kind of information he was able to glean from the "high-valued targets."

"We uncovered a potential anthrax attack on the United States. Or the fact the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had got somebody to line up people to fly airlines, to crash airlines into I think the West Coast, or somewhere in America, and these would be Southeast Asians," Mr. Bush said.

"This is pretty rich data that has been declassified, so that I'm capable of telling America the importance of the interrogation program, and I'm going to call upon Congress to make sure the interrogators has the capacity to do so without breaking the law. See we're not interrogating now, because CIA officials feel like the rules are so vague that they cannot interrogate without being tried as war criminals. That's irresponsible."

Couric asked Mr. Bush if this is a tacit acknowledgement that the way these detainees were handled was wrong.

"No. Not at all. It's a tacit acknowledgement that we're doing smart things to get information to protect the American people," the President said. "I've said to the people that we don't torture, and we don't."

President Bush also insisted that the war in Iraq is a key part of the war on terror, and that it must be won. Couric asked the President what exactly he means when he says that the country can't cut and run, that the United States must stay to win — otherwise, we'll be fighting the terrorists here at home on our own streets.

"I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy, and will provide the enemy more opportunity, to train, plan to attack us, that's what I mean. One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror," Mr. Bush said. "I believe it, but the American people have got to understand that a defeat in Iraq, in other words if this government there fails, the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments. I truly believe that this is the ideological struggle of the 21st century. And the consequences for not achieving success are dire."

Mr. Bush added that when he thinks about potential threats, his biggest fear is that "somebody will come in, slip into this country and kill Americans.

"And I can't tell you how. You know, one way to look at it is we have to be right 100 percent of the time in order to protect this country, and they got to be right once," he said.

You can see much more of Couric's interview with President Bush on our CBS News 9-11 Special — "Five Years: How Safe Are We?" tonight at 10 (9 p.m. Central).

[book54552134]

I suspect that, because of recent media scrutiny, there is little American sponsored torture occuring at the moment. However, it is reasonable to believe that, in the past few years, there have been hundreds & perhaps thousands of violations of the War Crimes Act & Geneva Conventions by the CIA, & U.S. military personel as they were instructed to do by Bush Administration authorities. Anyone who believes the Bush Administration's propaganda regarding this issue is either blindly partisan, incredibly naive, or totally ignorant of the facts. All involved in these crimes must be brought before the bar of justice.

[grumpy1963]

<b>alphaa10 says:</b> ... Those who need reinforcement to begin a personal jihad or join a collective one get a huge boost from Bush, just as Hezbollah (and al Qaeda) get all the video of "Crusader Terror" they need for a lifetime from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

And, as far is Israel/Hezbollah go? Please. Who crossed whose border and killed/kidnapped Israeli soldiers? You act as if Hezbollah are innocent angels who were just simply minding their own biz when, all of a sudden, Israel decided to go berserk for absolutely no reason. If you expect us to believe Hezbollah and other jihadists, and their cohorts, haven't given plenty of "Jihadist Terror" throughout the decades to <u>reinforce</u> Israel's behavior? You've got to be kidding. Frankly, I'm growing sick of folks who seem to forget there are those in the ME who aren't innocent angels, who've perpetrated acts that have given <i>us</i> cause to be angry, just as much so as <i>they've</i> got cause to be angry. Why is it OK for these jihadists to hold animosity/anger for perceived wrong-doings done to them by the U.S./Israel - however, if the U.S./Israel harbors any animosity/anger, this is unheard of and unacceptable?

[grumpy1963]

<b>alphaa10 says:</b> ... Those who need reinforcement to begin a personal jihad or join a collective one get a huge boost from Bush, just as Hezbollah (and al Qaeda) get all the video of "Crusader Terror" they need for a lifetime from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

This is ***. They don't <i>need</i> <u>reinforcement</u> to begin a personal jihad or join a collective, from Pres. Bush. They've already <i>got</i> plenty of <u>reinforcement</u>, if they so choose, for such behavior simply in America's, or even Christian history, alone. In fact, BL has used everything from America's use of A-bombs on Japan, to slavery, to America's treatment of Indians and, even the Crusades, among other things, as his <u>reinforcement</u>. So, don't give me this nonsense that, somehow, BL and his cohorts <i>need</i> any kind of <u>reinforcement</u> from Pres. Bush or, anyone else for that matter.

[grumpy1963]

<b>wilkeske at 12:00 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:<i>Bin Laden is free</i></b> and we are bogged down in Iraq. Why hasn't Bush devoted more resources to securing Afghanistan and catching Bin Laden?

Interesting. I'd be extremely curious to know what your definition of "free" is. No wonder there are those who are too weak-kneed and lackadaisical to take bold and strong action. Especially, if their definition of "free" is attributed to bin Laden. Gee, if we were all just as "free" as bin Laden, the world would be a wonderful place...wouldn't it?

[grumpy1963]

<b>reyesron at 12:30 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> there was somewhat less fluff tonight than last night, some actual news made it on the show. I think I have become immune to George W. Bush. His condescending and snitty manner towards Katie Couric, in days past, would have really gotten under my skin. Now it is so incredibly difficult to take anything he says as being honest or truthful, I just flip the channel. As we approach the November elections, we now have this guy saying almost off the cuff, "oh, yeah, we stopped an anthrax attack." What is really scary is the press doesnt even bother to discredit him anymore, why should they?, it does no good. I have little fondness for Ms. Couric in this role, however, when Bob Schieffer interviewed the prez last year, he also let him skate the issues, and I like Bob. <i><b>There has to be some precondition to an interview with this particular president that you cant ask the guy tough questions and you cant say there are preconditions.</b></i>

Curious. Even though there <u><b>has</b></u> to be <i>some precondition to an interview with this particular President that you can't ask the guy tough questions</i>...but, <i>you can't say there are preconditions</i>, you seem to know there <u><b>are</b></u> <i>preconditions</i> to an interview with this particular President. Weird.

[grumpy1963]

<b>T-A-Roof at 11:58 PM : Sep 06, 2006 says:</b> The current administration has clouded the issue of why we declared war on Iraq. consider, A. Halliburton's no bid contracts.(Former employer of *** Chaney)B. GW is an Oil Man and Iraq has a very lucrative oil deposit. C. His father's mistake of not entering Baghdad (quoting Gen Norman Schwarzkopf Army Ret.)and finishing Saddam in the first Gulf war. I think the War on terror has been stretched into an all encompassing catch phrase hiding the real agenda. 1st and foremost, Iraq did not attack the Twin Towers! Why has the emphasis shifted to Iraq? Is it because the administrations views don't fit the political views of the majority of the American public? As yourself this, is it to far from the realm of possibility to think that G.W.'s agenda might be 1. To control the oil fields of Iraq with a permanent U.S. presence in the Gulf, 2. Complete his fathers legacy of a job left undone in the 1st Gulf War and 3. Help line the pockets of special interest groups? I firmly believe that the American people in general don't know the underling reasons behind the decisions of this commander in chief. My opinion, To serve the will of the people has been de-facto changed by the G.W.'s regime to "serve the people that matter to the White House and Blow Off the constituency. <i><b>What do you think?</b></i>

I think <u>someone</u> may quite possibly have their <i>aluminum-foil hat</i> screwed on a little too tight.

[grumpy1963]

<b>JaStewrt at 09:41 PM : Sep 06, 2006:</b> This man is so unqualified to be the leader of anything that it is pathetic to realize he is the President.
Anyone who believes anything he says is too bogged down with their own daily lives to be paying attention even though I am sure they mean well. <i><b>I wish they could see the truth.</b></i>

Don't ya' mean, in fact, you wish they could see <i>your version</i> of "the truth"?

[grumpy1963]

<b>Kenwillmore at 08:34 PM : Sep 06, 2006 says:</b> Whenever I see our President I get sick to my stomach. I can't believe there are those who continue to defend this guy. <i><b>He has done nothing for the poor or the middle class and the reset of the world hates us.</b></i>

<i><b>Your scare tactics with not work this time.</b></i>

Neither will yours.

[grumpy1963]

<b>nynative1340 at 07:40 PM : Sep 06, 2006 says:</b> Well, if Bush said it, it must be true. He truly believes if he says it, it's got to be true, and everyone will believe it, because he lives in 'Bushworld'.

<b>Well, if nynative1340 said it, it must be true. He/she truly believes if he/she says it, it's got to be true, and everyone will believe it, because he/she lives in 'nynative1340world".</b>

[grumpy1963]

<b>emhawks at 12:31 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> Bush said his biggest fear is that " somebody will come in, slip into this country & kill Americans." I doubt that's his biggest fear, don't you? I think his biggest fear might be that someone will come in, & actually bring he & Cheney ( the real President) to task by impeachment. I agree with T-A-Roof's posting. I would add to that to read about Project for the New American Century, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Brown & Root& the Bush families history with Mid-East oil connections.
There has been corruption in almost all American presidential adm., but this is by far the worst of any. For the record, I'm an Independent; I would feel the same way if this was a Democrat adm.

<b>How would ya' feel if it was an Independent administration?</b>

[grumpy1963]

<b>wilkeske at 11:59 PM : Sep 06, 2006 says:</b> ... Due in part to Bush's policy in Iraq, our list of allies grows thin and the number of nations who wish us harm has increased. ...

This is a blatant, <i>bold-faced</i> lie. Name one nation of which was an ally <u>prior</u> to the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom that is <i>not</i> still an ally today. You can't. Further, the nations who wish us harm has increased? Opposed to when? Which nations wish us harm today, that <i>didn't</i> wish us harm prior to the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Name them. I'm frankly tired of these outlandish fabricated claims. You people come in here and just simply pick things out of <i><b>thin air</b></i> that are just plain and simply not true and try to pass it off as gospel. And then, you even have the arrogant gall to turn right around and criticize and lambaste the President of the United States.

[grumpy1963]

<b>pj_ter at 11:31 PM : Sep 07, 2006 posts:</b>

Quote:
"Iraq is part of the Middle East. The Middle East ,as a region,has been waging a terror war against the United States since 1979 which gives the United States the right to wage war against the Middle East."

Since it was brought up - The article makes no mention of the fact that in the 80's, during Reagan's administration, we gave billions in weapons and training to fundamentalist groups in the Middle East INCLUDING Osama Bin Laden so they could fight the Soviets during the Cold War.
Guess the dog bit the hand that fed it.

<b>Now, if only we had a crystal ball which told us who would be on our side one minute, and then, turn around and stab us in the back the next, we'd be set...huh? I've had many folks who've I've been acquainted with who've turned around and stabbed me in the back. And, if I had the luxury of clairvoyance, I'd have never been acquainted with them to begin with.</b>

[pj_ter]

Quote:
"Iraq is part of the Middle East. The Middle East ,as a region,has been waging a terror war against the United States since 1979 which gives the United States the right to wage war against the Middle East."

Since it was brought up - The article makes no mention of the fact that in the 80's, during Reagan's administration, we gave billions in weapons and training to fundamentalist groups in the Middle East INCLUDING Osama Bin Laden so they could fight the Soviets during the Cold War.
Guess the dog bit the hand that fed it.

[grumpy1963]

Let's talk about this mantra that America's actions are creating animosity and anger in the Middle East.

Well now, gee, does anyone stop and think about the animosity and anger the Middle East's behavior may have created amongst the American people? Why is it okay for those in the Middle East and, some even imply they're justified in their behavior, to harbor animosity and anger and exact revenge upon the U.S. -- however, the U.S. isn't supposed to harbor such similar emotions toward the Middle East for their behavior over the last approximate 40 years, including September 11, 2001? Why is the U.S. expected to just simply take a lackadaisical approach and take in all in stride when its subjected to violence perpetrated by peoples of the Middle East...but, it's accepted as okay and, even justified, for those in the Middle East do to harbor animosity and anger and exact their revenge upon the U.S.?

[grumpy1963]

Well, it has been real, it has been fun...however, it hasn't been <i>real fun</i>. So long lefty suckers...and, have fun. Make sure you keep the <i>aluminum-foil</i> hats handy and keep an eye to the sky, in order to assure yourself the sky isn't falling.

[grumpy1963]

<b>alphaa10 at 02:33 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> And speaking of slow learners, you assure us you won't place your confidence in anybody but Bush. This reminds me of people who still can't believe the Enron stock they bought from that nice man, Ken Lay, is completely worthless. Try something different, Grumpy, take stock in America, not the neocons who sold you a bill of goods, and want you to keepf on buying into their worthless IPO (idiotic public offering).

No...ya' see? When I take stock in those so-called "neocons"? I <i>am</i> taking stock in America. I would be committing a treasonous act if I abandoned so-called "neocons" and cast my vote for an infernal weak-kneed lackadaisical lefty.

[grumpy1963]

<b>alphaa10 at 02:33 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> In contrast, you yourself desperately seek refuge from the point that a right-winger-- neocon George Bush-- put America much further into jeopardy. You are dragged screaming to the realization 911 happened on Bush's watch. Ignoring many, many warnings about al Qaeda,..."

First, keep your "neocon" cliche and put it in your <i>"neocon"-cliche-luggage</i> and save it for when you might travel to France or some other similar destination thereof. Second, clearly, you simply throw this cliche around in an attempt to insult and criticize, without knowing nothing with respect to what it means. I find it unlikely President George W. Bush has ever been...and, I <u>know</u> I have never been, a liberal who now espouses to conservative ideals and principles. If Jane Fonda were to suddenly become a conservative tomorrow? Then, your ridiculous "neocon" spiel might work. Third, it might do you well to remember that, in fact, the planning and orchestration for 9/11 happened on Clinton's watch...right underneath his nose. And, fourthly and lastly? Obviously, you are incapable of multitasking...working and playing at the same time. And, simply because <i>you're</i> incapable of such a complicated task? This doesn't necessarily mean President George W. Bush is.

[grumpy1963]

<b>alphaa10 at 02:33 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> Grumpy-- Your caricature of the American public isn't true to the facts-- most Americans think Iraq is a failure. And despite your disingenuous suggestion, no one expects to be safe. However, Americans do see through Bush and are tired of his incompetence, deceit and lame excuses.

Keep your polls and save them for impressionable young ones who might fall for it and who are incapable of grasping the grander scheme of things. Polling approximately 900 people and coming up with some result that's allegedly supposed to represent the thoughts and wishes of a nation that consists of more than <b>200 MILLION</b> <i>voting-aged</i> people, simply doesn't impress, nor concern me.

[grumpy1963]

<b>alphaa10 at 01:50 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> This relatively simple act is something that escapes most who side with Bush on his un-American approach to prisoners (see my post later in this thread)-- not to mention the fraudulent, failure-ridden policy debacle known as Iraq.

And, what approach to enemy prisoners would you be in favor of? Some boxes of cookies and group hugs?

<b>alphaa10 at 01:50 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> When you finally understand that hitting your head with a hammer doesn't work, I can assure you your first act is to cease that behavior. It clears the mind wonderfully, as other Republicans opposed to Bush on torture-- and Iraq-- can attest.

Too bad you simply haven't got the luxury of written history to solidify any claim we're merely hitting ourselves in a head with a hammer...eh? One may have been able to imply we were merely hitting ourselves in the head with a hammer on countless occasions during WWII...also.

[grumpy1963]

revgrljoan said-- "Typical liberal navel-gazing.... Whiny, silver-spoon, dingbat. As usual: All carping, but not a solution in sight.

<b>alphaa10 at 01:50 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> Careful with the whining, carping sneers, yourself-- it smears your combat lipstick gloss, and offers no solution, itself.

Ahhh...I can see alphaa fancies his/herself as the resident elite intellectual arrogant snob. How fun.

<b>alphaa10 at 01:50 AM : Sep 07, 2006 says:</b> Not a "solution" in sight, you say? Actually, the first part of any solution is to cease the brain-dead behavior that caused the problem.

What "brain-dead behavior" is that? And, specifically, which "problem" is it you're referring to? You <i>did</i> know terrorism and terrorists were in existence <i>long</i> before President George W. Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom came along...didn't you?