Comments (53)

joevan wrote on December 11, 2007 12:22 PM:

What he said is that the "first recollection" he has is only recent. That's not actually the same as saying he didn't know. We all know how this works.
-joe

pv2k wrote on December 11, 2007 12:22 PM:

Liar.

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 12:25 PM:

"We do not torture."

Therefore there are no "torture tapes."

If someone were to ask him about "enhanced interrogation tapes" we might get a different answer.

TheraP wrote on December 11, 2007 12:25 PM:

Remember, here's his epitaph:

Here lies bush: "nobody ever told me about that!"

Les wrote on December 11, 2007 12:26 PM:

These discussions are rather silly.

Don't any of you understand that the country we knew as America is gone.

We had our chance, but we let it slip away.
For all intent and purposes the rule of law does not apply.
Those rules you use to be able to follow to inact change through elected representation now lay in shreds.
The only rule now is power.
There will be a ceremony January 1st 2008 at 1:00pm in front of the Lincoln memorial to symbolically and officially
lay america to rest.
It was fun while it lasted.

Alguien wrote on December 11, 2007 12:30 PM:

Like Daddy, like son...
Remember when Daddy said he had been "out of the loop" during the Iran-Contra scandal...?
If the president was at early stages of Alzheimer's disease and the VP was out of the loop...who was running the country?????

C92 wrote on December 11, 2007 12:31 PM:

And to pile on to "bestest buddy Harriet Miers" - remember the letters that she wrote GWB saying he was "so good"?

Yeah, I doubt she would have made the decision on her own based on this track record:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html

Henk wrote on December 11, 2007 12:31 PM:

He's a lying sack of crap. I have absolutely zero respect for anyone that thinks any differently.

Bob wrote on December 11, 2007 12:32 PM:

Am I the only one who is curious why a president who puts forward the theory of "unitary executive," and cites it to disregard laws duly enacted by Congress, can claim no responsibility for acts committed by his administration?

biff diggerence wrote on December 11, 2007 12:33 PM:

At the time I had just swatted a bitchin 7 iron at Burning Tree.

Roberta wrote on December 11, 2007 12:35 PM:

Why does the press keep interviewing Bush? Do they in any way think "Maybe this time he'll say something honest, and I'll have the scoop!" or is it an exercise in sadomasochism, in which they are both the sadists (torturing us) and masochists?

Yes, folks, there are many forms of torture, and the psychological torture Busheney have put us through in the last seven years is going to have lasting effects. Unfortunately, those torturers who experience psychological and emotional problems after they have tortured have one thing that this administration lacks--a conscience.

JohnW1141 wrote on December 11, 2007 12:36 PM:

Isn't this the same guy who knew nothing about Valerie Plame but wanted to get all the info out?

po wrote on December 11, 2007 12:37 PM:

my first recollection . . .? People don't talk that way, they just don't. And there are 2 events covered in his statement, when he learned about them and when he learned they'd been destroyed.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt (as he does for all those innocents held in Gitmo) and just believe he was drinking when he first learned about both?

Ferruge wrote on December 11, 2007 12:38 PM:

It's times like this where I really really miss the Daily Show.

Damn the AMPTP.

Wishfull thinking wrote on December 11, 2007 12:38 PM:

December 10, 2007
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Attorney General Mukasey:

We write on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee to request important information about the reported plans to cancel the upcoming 2008 presidential elections.
We also have some disturbing news of the "disappearance" of certain Democratic
candidates running for U.S senate in 2008.
Could you please get back to us at your convenience.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

ARLEN SPECTER
Ranking Member

Thank you for your (hoped for) prompt attention to this matter.

Hank Essay wrote on December 11, 2007 12:41 PM:

it depends on what the meaning of the word 'was' is.

-

oleeb wrote on December 11, 2007 12:43 PM:

Bush is such an incredible serial liar he makes Nixon look like George Washington. What a fucking sociopathic asshole he is! Oy!

turtleguy wrote on December 11, 2007 12:50 PM:

I wish someone would ask him the obvious question: Are you lying or are you just incompetently out of touch with what's happening in your adminsitration?

I guess we should expect no less from a man who has failed at everything he has ever tried to do. Loser hack.

disco wrote on December 11, 2007 12:50 PM:

did ABC ask him to comment on the Plame matter now that the invenstigation is no longer ongoing?

mo2 wrote on December 11, 2007 12:55 PM:

Dec 7 Press Briefing -

MS. PERINO: I spoke to the President, and so I will have to defer on the others. But I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday.

MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has no recollection knowing about the tapes or about their destruction

MS. PERINO: As I said, I'm not going to characterize -- I asked the President about whether he knew about the tapes and their existence or their destruction; he said he had no recollection of that. He did not remember being made aware of those prior to yesterday morning.

biff diggerence wrote on December 11, 2007 1:01 PM:

MS. PERINO: As I said, I'm not going to characterize -- I asked the President about whether he knew about the tapes and their existence or their destruction; he said he had no recollection of that. He did not remember being made aware of those prior to yesterday morning . . . and don't you just love my accessorizing ?

chabuka wrote on December 11, 2007 1:02 PM:

Bush is lying..his lips are moving!!

Iggy wrote on December 11, 2007 1:03 PM:

Riddle me this-
Before he got into office everyone thought he was a blooming idiot, no nothing bumbler. Then he was a leader, the decider, the man!
Now, he's being portrayed as the blooming idiot, no nothing bumbler all thought he was?
What is it exactly!

Jane wrote on December 11, 2007 1:14 PM:

What is it about the Republicans and tapes?

What did he know and when did he know it?

kevo wrote on December 11, 2007 1:14 PM:

I know Mr. Bush said he did not know of the tapes, but as he was speaking, I could be wrong, but I heard him say, "I didn't have sex with that woman!" Just saying! -Kevo

rita wrote on December 11, 2007 1:17 PM:

Why ask Bush these questions? The Nixon alumni in the Administration know how to shield the Pres. from embarassing information in order to give him plausible deniability.

Ask Cheney what he knew about the tapes.

Tom wrote on December 11, 2007 1:18 PM:

The "first recollection" line is a red herring, although it is indicative of the staginess and phoniness of this answer. Piggybacking on PO's observation, I find curious how GW articulates these two events, i.e. "whether the tapes existed OR whether they were destroyed." No one talks like this, if the speaker simply wants to assert his ignorance of some thing (or that thing's destruction). The easy, unconscious way to answer the question is to say something like "I didn't know the tapes existed until Hayden told me [at such and such time], so how could I have known that they had been destroyed?"

Granted, GW pathologically butchers syntax and word choice, but his answer does other rhetorical work than the usual verbal Bushwackjobbery. GW's response hypothesizes that the tapes might not be real at all, i.e., WHETHER the tapes existed (or not, to complete the colloquialism). Their destruction is equally hypothetical, "WHETHER they were destroyed." How could something that might not have existed have been destroyed, the President seems to be asking. In so doing, the President redirects the line of questioning: what me worry -- I'm ignorant of what you don't know too -- Now trust me.

The questions should pursue the path that GW leaves open about the nature of his ignorance. Q: so, you would prefer ignorance over knowing? Q: What kind of President are you that would prefer not to acknowledge what sits before us all to see of your administration and its vicissitudes? If you did know (of their existence, or of their destruction), then you're a liar. If you really didn't know (of their existence AND of their destruction), then you're a buffoon. And if you still disavow its existence (and by extension, its destruction), then you're insane. Q: Which would you choose whether you could, Mr. President?

Alice wrote on December 11, 2007 1:19 PM:

Um, let me think. Perhaps it's just that he's a DAMN LIAR?

sailmaker wrote on December 11, 2007 1:20 PM:

So what Bill should have said was, " I do not recall having sex with that woman" and all would have been well?

JohnG wrote on December 11, 2007 1:27 PM:

I am shocked, shocked, to find out that the White House didn't know about the destruction of the tapes that did not exist showing the torture that we did not engage in!

The administration conducts itself the way it does because on January 19, 2009 Bush will pardon everyone for everything they might ever had done, if they had done it!

mo2 wrote on December 11, 2007 1:31 PM:

It bothers me that the way GW works is to have a long meeting with the required people and then "pull aside" the key person and talk with them alone so that his true command/feeling/intention is not on record.

Felix Felix wrote on December 11, 2007 1:35 PM:

And Kucinich is apparently the only candidate for president who gets what a liar and lawbreaker this man is. Why isn't Bush impeached? Because Pelosi says it's off the table? Because Conyers says that the votes aren't there? Let's be honest...if we value the law, the constitution and the country, both Cheney and Bush would be impeached.

danger wrote on December 11, 2007 1:47 PM:

Offer Harriet Miers immunity from contempt charges if we have proof that she knows he knew about it. Dangle that carrot, then impeach the big kahuna. Get this done, NOW. I know some of you congresscritters and their staff read this, so GET ON IT NOW.

Kilfarsnar wrote on December 11, 2007 1:48 PM:

This man is incredible. If I ran my department like he runs the country I would be fired.

In this situation, the truth lies in what he doesn't do. As with the CIA leak case, he is completely passive. His attitude is, "Well, I don't know. But I would like to. So if someone tells me, that will be great." Any person with a clean conscience in his position would actively seek out the information. They would realize that members of their administration were keeping things from them and would get to the bottom of it. In short, he should be as pissed as we are.

But Bush seems not to care. "No one told me. Oh well..." This is what is most telling.

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 1:48 PM:

LYING COCKSUCKING PIECE OF MORALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY DEFECTIVE HUMAN FLOTSAM!

IMPEACH - IMPEACH - IMPEACH...........

glennpdx wrote on December 11, 2007 1:53 PM:

At least he's pondering what the 'true facts' are. I'm hoping he can tell us what is a 'true fact' versus, for instance, a false fact or a half fact or a maybe fact or just a plain ol' fashioned fact fact.

Ain't it great to live in a country where a fact can come in so many flavors? Me? I like the traditional, straight-up vanilla facts. Can we have some of those, President Bush?

imdwalrus wrote on December 11, 2007 1:54 PM:

Maybe Leahy or Reid or Pelosi can write him a strongly-worded letter. That'll show him.

Rick wrote on December 11, 2007 1:55 PM:

Why so surprised? The first recollection Bush had of being married was when he woke up this morning next to Laura. But, even then, she had to brief him.
He tends to forget things overnight, or when convenient.

m3vega wrote on December 11, 2007 1:58 PM:

More implausible deniability from the commander guy....what else is new.

parrot wrote on December 11, 2007 2:02 PM:

So, did the "Decider" decide or not? Seriously, this is the lyingest President that we've possibly ever had. We can't get rid of this lier fast enough...yet, because the Democratic Congressional leadership is in on the conspiracy to subvert the laws and Constitution, we have to put up with this...this...stupid thuggery?

eli wrote on December 11, 2007 2:35 PM:

My right wing friends still insist that Nixon's only mistake was not destroying his whole collection of tapes, instead of just erasing that especially incriminating 18.5 minutes "gap". They say he should have burned the whole lot, then dared Congress to do something about it.

The current crop of GOPs has learned from Tricky Dick's "mistake". Without explicit evidence of wrongdoing, they're legally invulnerable. They laugh at anything short of impeachment, and without the tapes, you'll never see a single GOP senator voting for impeachment.

That said, I'm betting George enjoyed watching the tapes. He's still the same little boy who liked to explode frogs in Midland. Other people's pain is fun.

anon wrote on December 11, 2007 2:36 PM:

...Why does the press keep interviewing Bush?...

I dunno Roberta, seems to me that the more Bush interviews the better. He's clearly lying and who better to put his foot in his mouth than him?

BRD wrote on December 11, 2007 3:06 PM:

The use of "recollection" is a huge red flag. He is starting to sound like he's channeling Gonzales.

But remember, he's a straight talking man of principle...

Alguien wrote on December 11, 2007 3:06 PM:

Felix Felix wrote on December 11, 2007 1:35 PM:
"And Kucinich is apparently the only candidate for president who gets what a liar and lawbreaker this man is. Why isn't Bush impeached? Because Pelosi says it's off the table? Because Conyers says that the votes aren't there?"

C'mon, Felix Felix!
WHO is going to impeach them???
Santa Claus, after he's done delivering the Xmas gifts?
And we thought the 108th was the "Do-nothing Congress"..??
Now we have a "See-nothing, hear-nothing, say-nothing Congress"!
WE ARE DOOMED!

mo2 wrote on December 11, 2007 3:21 PM:

It is very clear WHY impeachment is off the table now. We had wondered what Cheney/Bush had on Pelosi and now we know - at least part of it.

Mark Richards wrote on December 11, 2007 5:13 PM:

"I don't recall"

"My first recollection"

"It depends on what 'is' means"

Oh well. Innocent until proven otherwise, but not for the rest of us.

Scott wrote on December 11, 2007 5:18 PM:

Rule of law = Rule of the rich Law of the rich.

mln wrote on December 11, 2007 6:08 PM:

"My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they were destroyed was when [CIA Director] Michael Hayden briefed me."

Isn't Bush simply saying that Hayden just recently confirmed that the tapes, which Bush new existed, no longer existed because they had been destroyed?

Miles Webster wrote on December 11, 2007 7:02 PM:

What ever happened to his "I am the decider" talk? If he did not know about but his attorney and a number of other sources did then either he telling lies, or he needs to tell who actually functions as the president (or whatever the title may be) of the United States.

He cannot claim ignorance under these circumstances and expect us to believe him. If he wants us to believe he had no idea, then needs to identify the true power behind the throne.

Sincerely,

Miles Webster

DD wrote on December 11, 2007 9:23 PM:

"I have no recollection" is definitely what the Bushies and their ilk (remember how many times Ken Starr said that...) say when they remember perfectly and don't want to go on record with a definite "it didn't happen" (knowing they could be proven to be liars at some point) but want to sound a bit more faux-intelligent than saying "I don't remember". I've tracked this verbal usage closely; I promise you..... this is proof for me that he absolutely knew in detail of those tapes. I would also add that common sense tells one (a) they tape ALL of these sessions with important prisoners and (b) they wouldn't dream of totally disposing of EVERY copy of one of the most infamous interrogations related to 9/11.

noshrub wrote on December 11, 2007 10:31 PM:

"My first recollection" leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 10:52 PM:

Look at the similarity between the CIA tapes, US Atty firings, Iran NIE, and FISA violations:
- President claims to not know; yet he asserts "unitary" theory of power over all things; yet, cannot explain why he "cannot" control
- President's legal counsel involved, but the President claims "provilge" to hide details of what legal counsel openly admits
- Use of contractors, secret memoranda
- Congressional notifications in secret, without public discussion of the legal issues

We need an impeachment investigation to wake up the President and focus Congress. Thelonger tey spend on the CIA tape, the less time they'll have looking at the larger patterns which, in lighto f the Iran NIE, need to be challenged.

gavin immerson wrote on December 12, 2007 11:27 AM:

How many "Known knowns" do you need to know about Shrug?