Reclassifying Illegal Behaviors As Legal By Wrangling Some New Legislation: Ethics, GW-Style

Lucky for us, the President took some questions in Thursday's introduction and welcome of the South Korean President. Let's have a look at what kind of rhetoric we get from our fair el Presidente, shall we?

W has a natural tendency to reveal more than he should while he goes off on tangents from the script provided by his dedicated team of speech and propaganda writers. Ah, here we go...

The very first question is a good one. Here we find another republican, once a friend off the W, Rove and Co, that is now coming to his senses and going contrarian:

Q Thank you, sir. Your former Secretary of State endorsed the plan to block the terror suspect interrogation legislation that you have proposed. He says it would raise doubts about the moral basis for the U.S. fight against terrorists and would put U.S. troops at risk. Does this hurt your efforts?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We have proposed legislation that will enable the Central Intelligence Agency to be able to conduct a program to get information from high-value detainees in a lawful way. And that idea was approved yesterday by a House committee in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. It is very important for the American people to understand that in order to protect this country, we must be able to interrogate people who have information about future attacks.

So the question I ask about any piece of legislation is, will the program provide legal clarity so that our professionals will feel comfortable about going forward with the program? That's what I'm going to ask. And I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity. And there's all kinds of letters coming out -- and today, by the way, active duty personnel in the Pentagon, the JAG, supported the concept that I have just outlined to you. This is an important program for the security of this country. And we want to work with Congress to make sure that the program can go forward. If there's not clarity, if there's ambiguity, if there's any doubt in our professionals' minds that they can conduct their operations in a legal way, with support of the Congress, the program won't go forward and the American people will be in danger.

So, a little expos facto construction of laws to remove said actions from the ethical low ground to the moral high ground. Sounds like a nice plan.

Or could it be that the W, Rove and Co is just confused? Have a look:

...In the case of Common Article III, of course, you have had some of -- the "prohibitions against cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" -- that's important to figure out what that means. As you know, in --

Q It's vague to you?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q Mean, cruel, inhuman, degrading?

MR. SNOW: Yes, because you have to specify exactly what you mean.

Q Keep smiling. (Laughter.)