Video: Bush vs. Lauer
posted at 10:54 am on September 12, 2006 by Allahpundit
Via Sticky Notes. Forget what I said yesterday about the controversy over “Path to 9/11″ being a microcosm of where the country’s at. This is an even more perfect microcosm, as Matt Lauer asks the president with a straight face if waterboarding the mastermind of the September 11th attacks “blurs the lines” between us and head-hacking, plane-hijacking, skyscraper-targeting jihadist Nazis.
Update: The lines seem sufficiently distinct to Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib: “We preferred the Americans. We asked to move with them to Baghdad airport because we knew the treatment would be changed because we know what the Iraqis are. When the Americans left everything changed.”
Update (Bryan): Just to underline Lauer’s ridiculous squeamishness, head on over to JunkYardBlog–my old blog home and now in the capable hands of See Dubya–to get some details. Cold floors! Loud music! Why, it’s almost as gobsmackingly vile as the first couple of college dorms I lived in. Almost.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Like the Stooge Lauer is, Bush should have poked him in the eye!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 12, 2006 at 10:58 AM
This is the George Bush we need to see every day, at every press conference, at every opportunity.
F Lauer, bald idiot.
journeyscarab on September 12, 2006 at 11:03 AM
They will forever live in denial of the brutality of the enemy we face, hell,they don’t even consider them the true enemy.
bbz123 on September 12, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Bush looks like he is about to punch Matt. The President is about calling Matt, you are the enemy. If I tell you what you want, Matt, I am telling the enemy. Ergo you are the enemy.
I love that he said “so what?” to secret prisons and that he said (paraphrasins) “who cares about international law?”
CrimsonFisted on September 12, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Boy, ABC sure has turned into mush the last few years. Now that they have lost Monday night football, I don’t have to watch them at all. And, what is crazy to me is that the numb sculls at ABC can’t understand why they suck in the ratings. Looks like all of the broadcast network news shows have really been hijacked by mudheads. Good riddens.
Shmo on September 12, 2006 at 11:16 AM
I like Bush slightly pissed off. The rest of the time he is General George McClellan who has yet to identify the enemy and will drag this war on and on and on….
Valiant on September 12, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Maybe if we started sawing off their heads, THEN we’d be blurring the line.
The more and more I see, or read comments from, media clowns like Lauer, Rooney, Olby, and others, the more I feel embarrassed that I once watched them.
Gottafang on September 12, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Indeed.
Lawrence on September 12, 2006 at 11:26 AM
matt lauer-asleep at the switch-what a moron.
tormod on September 12, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Was Lauer trying to protect Kalid Sheik Muhammed? I think Christoper Hitchens is correct…we are going to have to be ruthless in our dealings with these thugs. We are learning but we have a long way to go. There is a group of Americans that Lauer represents that hate Bush more than the enemy. What’s that about?
d1carter on September 12, 2006 at 11:33 AM
I about choked when I heard that. I wonder if Matt realized he was spanked w/ that statement, or if its even donned on him yet.
StephC on September 12, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Nice hypotheticals, Matt. IF we’re doing waterboarding or this or that… it’s all legal and all need to know, dipstick.
If you really want to fire up the nutroots, why not get creative? What if we’re cutting off the nuts of the terrorists’ next of kin, sewing them in their mouths and sending them back to their families as the Soviets did to secure release of their hostages in Lebanon. Or what if we’re shoving hard boiled eggs up the rectums of dissidents like the mullahs are doing now? What if we’re doing that, Matt?
Terp Mole on September 12, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Matt Loser Lauer should NEVER be allowed access to our President ever again. It’s an enormous honor to be one-on-one with the most powerful man in the world and he points his finger and pen at him? I’d smack him upside his dull frickin head if I ever saw him.
Take his White House credentials away, he does not deserve to be in the Presidents presence again, ever.
Matt Lauer, you are a disgrace!
shooter on September 12, 2006 at 11:55 AM
This is a top pick. GW verbally bitch-slapping Matt Lauer is a highlight. The only thing that would have made it better is if it was David Gregory receiving the backhand.
Hoodlumman on September 12, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Why is Lauer so concerned for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s welfare? I mean, that whole line of questioning was ridiculous. One, it misses the point. Two, it’s been asked a gillion times. Move on already and quit crying about the terrorists not getting their milk and cookies. Bush was strong here. I’d like to see him like that more often. Way to go, Mr. President!
CP on September 12, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Bush: We’re gonna do what’s necessary to protect Americans.
vs.
Lauer: Aren’t you using mean techniques to get information from the terrorists?
Hmmmmm. I can’t figure out which side I’m on.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on September 12, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Liberals are just plain f*ckin’ retarded.
venmax on September 12, 2006 at 11:58 AM
I expect total MSM silence on the Abu Ghraib handover. I guess panties on the head and fake menstrual blood were better than mass hangings and old-school beatdowns after all, huh? If there was ever a microcosm of America in the Middle East, look no further than Abu Ghraib.
Lynndie England, where art thou?
Kid from Brooklyn on September 12, 2006 at 12:01 PM
First Russert with Cheney. Now Lauer with Bush. Evidently, NBC has the corner on Newsmen who wear panties.
there it is on September 12, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Do you think that Mr. Lauer is aware of the fact that all U.S. pilots and NFO’s are waterboarded, made to stay naked and beaten up during SERE training???
Babs on September 12, 2006 at 12:04 PM
I was hoping he’d slam Lauer with the moral equivalency thing when Matt was oh so concerned that we would sink to their level.
they: mass murderers, decapitators of innocents, suicide plotters, etc.
we: strap the guilty to a board and make them think they’re gonna die.
We’ve got a lot more sinking to do than using water-boarding before we get to their level. No pun intended.
jdpaz on September 12, 2006 at 12:12 PM
That’s the George W. Bush I want to see more of. And the Matt Lauer I’ve seen quite enough of, thank you very much.
Bryan on September 12, 2006 at 12:13 PM
How long have we all been waiting for that “so what” line to be tossed in the face of any one of the MSM liberal hack journalists?
More please.
It doesn’t need to be a constant drumbeat of only “so what” to the mindless questions conjured up by the interviewing newsperson. But it is high time for Republicans to stand up to the antagonizing questions, formulated from DNC talking points, and turn the loaded gun back on the biased interviewer. George Allen, senator from VA, has already mastered this art, one of the reasons I admire him and would vote for him as POTUS. Reagan knew how to turn the tables on the press too.
A little less defense and a little more offense is the order of the day. Why should they have all the fun? If the questioner asks foolish questions based on biased opinion and not on substantiated fact, call him the fool that he is. What’s the worst that could happen if Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc., stood up to these clowns and put them in their place? They’ll become hostile towards the administration and try to run them out of town? They’re already doing just that. We have nothing to lose, everything to gain.
fogw on September 12, 2006 at 12:14 PM
I used to wonder why the administration subjects itself to crackpots like Lauer and Russert, and then I realized it’s exactly what they want. As long as they grant interviews to Lauer and the like, it goes unnoticed that they never need to answer the tough questions and the Lauers will actually cover for the President on those tough questions regarding immigration and the terrorist allies ( Russia, Democrats, etc. ).
Perchant on September 12, 2006 at 12:19 PM
I know Bush is smart (125 IQ), but if he were a genius, he’d have volunteered to undergo the waterboarding technique himself — as all military and cia personnel are required to do — then given an answer to Lauer’s question that would have made his tiny testicles recede right up into his body.
wordwarp on September 12, 2006 at 12:19 PM
I think Matt Lauer should get a one-on-one with GW every week! GW is obviously comfortable being interviewed by Lauer. Therefore, he is able to make articulate responses that only help the cause.
ITmonkey on September 12, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Laur is a babbeling wimp and typifies the leftist, appeasing press in this country. Using their employers money and large megaphone these been nowhere, done nothing journalist majors frequently bite of more than they can chew.
rplat on September 12, 2006 at 12:23 PM
This is the Bush I love. Ask him a dumb question and he gets in your face. Matt Lauer is so freaking dumb – he’d be quoting international law as the knife was at his throat.
Ellen on September 12, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Funny and sick at the same time. I, too, thought Bush was going to pop that little, bald Schwanzlicker. And “Amnesty International?” Who gives a shit? “International Law?” Who gives a shit?
Someone mentioned that the terrorist maggots in Abu Graib were screaming and crying when they learned that the Americans were leaving the prison to the Iraqis to manage. Heh. Think about that for a second, Lauer, you panty waste…
Jaibones on September 12, 2006 at 12:27 PM
The President looked like he was having to teach a remedial child a lesson. And at one point, I thought Pres Bush was going to grab Lauer by his lapels and SHAKE SOME SENSE INTO HIM! *lol* Way to go. Mr President..MORE please!
labwrs on September 12, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Who cares what Lauer says ot thinks? He’s nothing but a sissified metrosexual anyway. His vanity will be his end one day.
darwin on September 12, 2006 at 12:40 PM
“this isn’t make believe”
Pretty much sums it up.
yo on September 12, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Valiant, McClellan knew who the enemy was and wouldn’t fight. He always overestimated Lee’s army strength and constantly demanded more troops. He wanted to win the war, but was afraid to fight for it for fear of losing.
Bush knows who the enemy is, and is willing to fight with what he has to win.
BacaDog on September 12, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Lauer needs a swirlie with a commode full of dung! What an ass & while Darwin is right and we shouldn’t care there are an awful lot of people who start their day with this morning crap and buy into it hook-line & sinker.
Catie96706 on September 12, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Memo to the Pres: You should have slugged the little turdy.
dhimwit on September 12, 2006 at 1:08 PM
I know that no one should care what this clown Lauer thinks but many of the people who watch this believe that we’re the enemy. I know many women who watch this every morning and buy into this show, including spending $125 for an outfit that they were modeling 4 year olds wearing. Matt needs a swirlie and Bush looked like he wanted to give it to him. Lauer is not interviewing average Joe, he’s interviewing the President of the United States and he needs to show some respect but guess that’s asking too much.
Catie96706 on September 12, 2006 at 1:10 PM
Bush nailed it. Lauer is the enemy.
Kini on September 12, 2006 at 1:17 PM
oh jesus, think I found my quote of the day!
james hooker on September 12, 2006 at 1:24 PM
I’ve seen thick-heads before, but you could have stamped the word on Lauer’s head with a hammer and chisel and not done any damage to the contents. Bush was doing everything short of using American Sign Language to try and get his point across to Lauer.
In short, our president was having a real “Hello, McFly” moment, and did everything short of knocking on Lauer’s head.
52Ranger on September 12, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Constitution. It’s pronounced “Constitution.”
Who? The f-ing terrorists? Can he (or any of you) think of a single American who doesn’t want the government to be able to listen to al-Qaeda calls, anyone who has advocated making FISA more strict?
Talk about your election-season straw man arguments…
Mark Jaquith on September 12, 2006 at 2:31 PM
I thought Bush was going to take him out. I love it that Bush kept getting closer and closer to Lauer and kept sticking his finger in Lauer’s face. Made my day. He needs to show this side more often.
pullingmyhairout on September 12, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Anna Diggs Taylor
yo on September 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM
This was the Dubya we like to see. By the way, Lauer was an ass, but did you guys catch Tony Snow’s press conference earlier? Specifically the usual David Gregory sideshow was priceless.
RightWinged on September 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM
RightWinged……Missed the press conference. Is there a link?
BacaDog on September 12, 2006 at 2:39 PM
Well, if actions speak louder than words….. Yes I can. In fact, there is a whole group of them that have a jackass for a mascot.
.
GT on September 12, 2006 at 2:39 PM
Are you being serious? This is articulate? It’s missing a verb!
Mark Jaquith on September 12, 2006 at 2:40 PM
I didn’t ask if there was anyone who wanted the NSA program to be conducted legally, I asked if there was anyone who wanted to shut it down, to prevent the government from listening in to al-Qaeda, as Bush accused.
Anna Diggs Taylor didn’t do that, and I haven’t yet found any Democrat who wants to do that. Bush says there are people who want to do that. Who?
Mark Jaquith on September 12, 2006 at 3:03 PM
.
If you mean leaking this classified program to the world so that the people its meant to prevent from doing us harm know its details (rendering it useless) – GT was right, the jackass party.
Rick on September 12, 2006 at 3:19 PM
wordwarp sez: I know Bush is smart (125 IQ), but if he were a genius, he’d have volunteered to undergo the waterboarding technique himself — as all military and cia personnel are required to do
All military personnel do not have to undergo the waterboarding technique. Sheesh!
baldilocks on September 12, 2006 at 3:48 PM
If they didn’t want to shut it down, then why did they leak this classified program in the first place? Why did they telegraph our actions to the terrorists?
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 3:50 PM
So now we are torturing our military. Quick, somebody call the ACLU – the Republicans are torturing helpless children that were brainwashed into joining the military. Mama Sheehan was right about these devils.
Rick on September 12, 2006 at 3:54 PM
A sharp uppercut to the jaw was the least that was called for. Too bad W restrained himself, though it must’ve been extremely hard. Lauer’s bleeding heart for his poor little terrorist friends is a sight to behold. That he will keep his job and his respect among liberals after this tells us all we need to know about them.
Halley on September 12, 2006 at 4:16 PM
Rick,
Shortly after signing modernizing amendments to FISA in October, 2001, Bush announced to the world (and the terrorists) that the government now could intercept all modern forms of communication that the terrorists were using. He also said that the new abilities would be used.
The only thing that the NYT/WSJ story revealed to the terrorists was that the program was intercepting communications without giving notification to the FISA court. This doesn’t help terrorists… the FISA court is a secret court. They still don’t know which calls are being monitored.
Because people within the administration were likely feeling queasy about tapping phones without warrants, in violation of FISA. There is also the possibility that the leak was politically motivated. That they wanted to “telegraph” terrorists is absurd. If they wanted to do that, they’d publish a list of all calls that had been intercepted. The focus was (and is) clearly on the very questionable legality of tapping phones without a warrant when FISA says that’s not allowed, even during wartime.
We’re getting off track though. Bush said people want to keep the government from intercepting calls from al-Qaeda. Who, other than al-Qaeda and terror sympathizers wants that?
Mark Jaquith on September 12, 2006 at 4:16 PM
Oh, and gee, that wouldn’t change the way terrorists operate, now would it?
Way to read minds, Bob Woodward.
NO!!! GET THE F— OUTTA HERE!?!?!?!!!!!!!! YOU THINK???????
.
Telling them after the fact wouldn’t be telegraphing. Telling them that the program exists in the first might change the way they operate though … is that too difficult for you to fathom?
Did it ever occur to you that there might not be time to get a warrant? Gee, maybe if they had a crystal ball that could see into the future, they might know when calls would be incoming and could pre-emptively get a warrant – I guess that’s what they should focus on, no?
Those who hide behind the “civil libertarian” mantle because they are afraid to admit what they really are.
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Mark Jaquith, what have democrats done to make it more legal? They are quick to place the blame [What Blame?!?!] on Bush, yet I have to hear a single relevant plan of fighting terrorism to come from them.
From SFGate…
Like it or not, democrats hate the power the President has to wage war against America’s enemys, and rare is the day that they are not providing hope to the terrorists by joining in with the BDS crowds attacks.
DannoJyd on September 12, 2006 at 4:38 PM
Despite not serving in the Marines, our CINC certainly knows his way around the 12th General Order.
Kid from Brooklyn on September 12, 2006 at 4:46 PM
WTG BUSH!!!!!
Man he spanked Lauers butt didn’t he? LAUER has revealed himself to be a liberal punk ass! He’s out of the closet and the only thing he can do now is practice his SHOW TUNES! Boy, if this interview didn’t reveal Lauer as a mewling yellow belly, I don’t know what does!
In the chest of a liberal beats the heart of a coward. They’re all little nothings that got their lunch money taken as kids, they wouldn’t fight for themselves then and they won’t now. You think Maher and the rest of these liberals who’ve been floating the trial balloon of “why don’t we just convert to Islam” are kidding? They aren’t. These cowardly punk asses have been so “bent over” by their continued advocation of Sodomy that they are about as good in a fight as tits on a bull. So weak and spineless are they that they even seek to change the meaning of , RUNNING AWAY IN MIND NUMBING TERROR WHILE SHITTING THEIR YELLOW LIBERAL PANTS. They now want this to be called “RE-DEPLOYMENT”.
Soothsayer on September 12, 2006 at 4:51 PM
Valiant – great comparison with General McClellan. President Bush really needs to understand the enemy within and get a permanent 6 pack of whopAss to send to the left and the enemy abroad. Time to quit McCellanin’ around finish like we started. Let’s Roll…
Wade on September 12, 2006 at 5:23 PM
The question I have for Matt Lauer is this. Matt, if you captured someone who had information of a plan to kill your family, what steps would you take to get the information from this person?
Wade on September 12, 2006 at 5:25 PM
Matt would take no steps whatsoever – he would sell his family down the river to save his own sorry, cowardly a–.
thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 5:41 PM
Mark Jaquith asks…..
ACLU.
Link
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.
Link
DailyKos
Link
Would you care for more?
.
GT on September 12, 2006 at 6:49 PM
Why should it? They don’t know anything more than they did in October, 2001.
Bush told them in October, 2001 that he was going to listen in to terrorist communications. Any change in operation happened then. Finding out four years later that he followed through doesn’t tell them anything except he meant it when he said he was going to listen. Do you think they thought he was bluffing?
It did. Which is why FISA allows them to listen anyway, and get the warrant afterwards.
Name someone. I certainly don’t want to make FISA more strict, if that’s what you were insinuating. It sounds fine, just the way it is. Hear it directly from the President:
Sounds great. Note that no mention was made that fourth amendment compliance (proactive or retroactive) was a constraint. Why would it be? They can get the warrant later.
To make it legal to violate the law? Nothing, I hope. It is already legal for the government to listen in to terrorist communications under FISA. They don’t have to wait for a warrant, they can get it afterwards.
I’ll be the first one to agree that the Democrats have few good plans for fighting terrorism (port security being one exception), but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong to insist that Bush follow the law whose modernizing amendments he signed. If he had a problem with FISA, he needed to ask Congress to amend it. He’s asking now, but only because he got caught violating it and court decisions are looking unfavorable.
Mark Jaquith on September 12, 2006 at 6:53 PM
MJ,
There is are two problems with your argument.
One, there was no actual wiretapping.
Second, the FISA court said in 2002….
Lets remember that it was the Carter Administration that setup the FISA court and it was also the Carter Administration that said it retained its inherent Constitutional authority.
GT on September 12, 2006 at 7:05 PM
Mark, Congress writes the law. If it is bad law, if that law allows terrorists, or terrorism to go unchecked, then someone needs to propose/push through a new law for national defence.
Democrats who are obstructing the Senate are not helping this country. If they put out even 1/4th of the effort to propose alternate plans for keeping America safe that they do in attacking our commander-in-chief, then they would have some relevance. Instead, they are the anchor that keeps us mired in political debates that are all pretty much nonsense.
Today’s Democratic Party helps terrorists more than they do America.
DannoJyd on September 12, 2006 at 7:16 PM
Mark, how about if we just outsourced the task? That would be perfectly legal, and it would probably work just fine right up until the New York Times decided to expose it.
Would you prefer that?
Pablo on September 12, 2006 at 7:37 PM
I am glad Lauer made Bushie look like the idiot that he is. Though, George was the perfect poster boy for Conservatives…ignorant, inarticulate, and hot-headed.
shackler on September 13, 2006 at 3:41 PM
shackler, it’s good to realize that Liberals are…enlightened, articulate and nuanced.
Your perfect poster boy is Howard Dean.
Entelechy on September 13, 2006 at 11:59 PM
That’s not legal at all.
Well said. Agreed. Bush should have done this in 2001! Even Democrats back then were fairly strong on national defense. Bush could have leveraged it to get some legislation passed.
Fine. Communications interceptions of some sort. I don’t care if they’re bugging phones are intercepting cell phone signals, it’s the same principle.
Mark Jaquith on September 14, 2006 at 1:17 AM