Bush hissy fit at this morning's press briefing

gldstwmn · #1 09-15-2006, 11:07 PM

David Gregory tries hard to get him to answer the question and George loses it for a minute. This is by far the most agitated I've ever seen him.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...r-and-gregory/

amber · #2 09-15-2006, 11:28 PM

Wow, I thought presidents were supposed to be tactful and controlled. Yet another quality in a long list of what presidents are supposed to do that Dub doesn't possess.

carrie721 · #3 09-15-2006, 11:34 PM

i saw this this morning ... i was surprised at first, and then i remembered who i was watching.

did you hear his response the other day to matt lauer's question about the secret CIA prisons? "so what? ..."

yeahhhhh.

strandinthewind · #4 09-15-2006, 11:41 PM

I LOVED when W tried, while smirking as if to imply that the questions were patently ridiculous, to move on and the reporter interupted W and asked him again to answer the question.

I think if America wants out of the Geneva Convention, it should do just that. But, this pu$$y bull****te of "we have to interpret it" is a load of cr@p and will NEVER withstand a legal challenge here or anywhere else.

SuzeQuze · #5 09-16-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I LOVED when W tried, while smirking as if to imply that the questions were patently ridiculous, to move on and the reporter interupted W and asked him again to answer the question.

I think if America wants out of the Geneva Convention, it should do just that. But, this pu$$y bull****te of "we have to interpret it" is a load of cr@p and will NEVER withstand a legal challenge here or anywhere else.

It is a load of crap. The conventions are very clear as read by Ed Shultz on air the other day. Bush probably has not read them!

strandinthewind · #6 09-16-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

It is a load of crap. The conventions are very clear as read by Ed Shultz on air the other day. Bush probably has not read them!

THe GC speaks of how to treat prisoners of war and then defines that term. Al-Q likely does not fall within that definition because Al-Q represents no country, does not fight under a uniform, etc. SO, Al-Q is not entitled to that status.

But, if I am not mistaken, the GC provides for the way to treat people like the fighters in Al-Q. SO, the US is bound to follow that.

BlackWidow · #7 09-16-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

It is a load of crap. The conventions are very clear as read by Ed Shultz on air the other day. Bush probably has not read them!

Little Hitler strikes again...

desertangel · #8 09-17-2006, 03:40 AM

That's the most passionate I've seen him act in public. I don't care for his bully type rudeness to David the reporter. Regardless of how he feels about members of the press, they're people and he is on national TV. I wouldn't let my kids watch him... that'd be a bad influence.

xxxmx · #9 09-17-2006, 09:43 AM

DG had a great question and W completely did not understand what was being asked. he thinks that a captured american op should be roughed up and then convicted using secret evidence? that's what he said.

i wish i could use more frownie faces!

jannieC · #10 09-17-2006, 10:24 AM

You know, I love the way he has to get that little jab in at the end. He's such an inarticulate bully.

strandinthewind · #11 09-17-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxmx

DG had a great question and W completely did not understand what was being asked. he thinks that a captured american op should be roughed up and then convicted using secret evidence? that's what he said.

i wish i could use more frownie faces!

Oh darlin' he understood it - he was trying not to answer it by changing the question - and he is too short for that gesture.