In what way is this a Great Debate? Shouldn’t it be in MPSIMS, or, Dog forbid, The Pit?
:rolleyes: Please. There are both right and left elements in the national media. I think it’s true Republicans are better at manipulating their coverage, but they do it out of malice. And that goes all the way back to Nixon. The Democratic Party hasn’t produced anyone with a political “killer instinct” since Harry Truman.
**
Again, :rolleyes: Clinton did lie, on the stand, under oath. That’s what he got into trouble for. And remember “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?” Cum stains on the dress tell the tale. I highly doubt his law license was suspended in Arkansas because he was unpopular there. Or was the Arkansas Bar on a witch hunt too?
And Bush admitted to lying and fabricating evidence? When? Where?
**
This old saw is getting so very, very tired. Yeah, he’s so stupid he engineered the complete takeover of the federal government by the Republican Party. Only a real fool could do that. And only a group suffering from a mass delusion, like most of the Democratic Party, could keep claiming their opponent is a fool while they are run out of town. Wake up and smell the coffee.
**
Hey, I mostly agree.
**
He’s the President of the United States. Do you really think what you’re saying is so very easy to do? Hell, he’s under no legal obligation to talk to the media at all if he doesn’t want to. I highly doubt anyone who “got in his face” would ever even get into another White House press conference. And they know it.
**
So, in other words, you want the press to completely abandon even the pretense of objectivity and hammer away? How would that help matters, aside from completely discrediting the reporters involved and destroying their careers?
**
You can watch the press conference on TV yourself. Why do you need THEM to do it?
**
Even if it serves absolutely no other or constructive purpose of any kind?
—Yeah, he’s so stupid he engineered the complete takeover of the federal government by the Republican Party. Only a real fool could do that.—
While it’s lame to keep claiming Bush is stupid, it’s pretty darn deluded to think that Bush was the one that thought any of this out. If you read anything internal to the administration, it’s Rove Rove Rove Rove that built this strategy, not Bush. Bush is the figurehead, not the Machiavelli.
He was never “on the stand.,” and it’s debatable whether he lied. He was not technically guilty of perjury, in any case, since the blow-job question had no relevence to the fraudulent Paula Jones lawsuit. Clinton never lied about anything which actually pertained to running the country the way Bush repeatedly has. A few months ago he cited a “report” which allegedly showed that Iraq was six months away from achieving “nuke-yu-lar” capability. After some probing by the press, the White house was forced to admit that no such report existed and that Bush had made it up.
Junior had nothing to do with engineering it. His dady and his daddy’s friends did all the work. Junior just has to show up and look all serious and read off a TelePrompter once in awhile. Fear mongering and McCarthyism haven’t hurt either.
Actually, the president is obligated by the constitution to explain his policies to the country at least once a year (State of the Union Address). He can run from the press the rest of the year if he wants, but the press has every right to hound him and ask him questions. The WH briefing room does not belonf to him, it belongs to the American people, and the press represents those people. If he is afraid to defend his own policies to the press, what does that say about him?
I want the press to do its job and force the president to explain his own decisions. I don’t want to see a de facto policy enforced in which only friendly reporters are permitted to ask questions. How is the public served by questions about how Junior’s “faith” is getting him through his ordeal.
Because everbody isn’t as smart as I am. A lot of people actully believe everything the Smirk says. The press is supposed to filter out the horseshit and they’re not doing it.
Derailing a White House propaganda event is, ipso facto, a constructive activity.
It’s interesting to see how many people believe that challenging the White House line on any issue, in even the slightest way, is a case of journalists playing politics. But giving the President lay-up after lay-up, and failing to challenge a single word that comes out of the Administration, is considered objective journalism. Your sycophancy is showing, folks.
And, if Thomas’s questions to Ari Fleischer to end up turning into what december and others call political confrontations, it’s largely becuase of Fleischer’s refusal to actually answer the question at hand.
For example, at a January 6 press conference, Thomas asked:
“At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the president deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world?”
Fleischer: “I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds.”
Well, no matter how horrible that attack, Fleischer’s response can in no way be construed as an answer to the question he was asked.
So Thomas said: “My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?”
Fleischer, in turn, instead of answering the question, tried to tell Thomas what her question actually meant: “Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, our allies and friends.”
Again, no effort at all has been made to answer the question, and nor does he make any effort to answer it in the rest of the exchange.
When Thomas asks what harm Iraq has done America in 11 years, all Fleischer can come up with is the 1991 Gulf War, and Thomas very reasonably then asks: “Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?”
Thomas then asks, again: “Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?”
Fleischer replies: “The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.”
Thomas: "And he thinks they are a threat to us?
Fleischer: “There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.”
Thomas: “The Iraqi people?”
Fleischer: “The Iraqi people are represented by their government.”
So, after Bush’s long months of trying to justify a possible attack on Iraq by saying that the government is unrepresentative and is not in the best interests of the Iraqi people, the Administration then tries to say that it’s the Iraqi people’s fault if they get bombed because “the Iraqi people are represented by their government.”
Every question Thomas asked here falls within the bounds of reasonable journalistic practice. Just because she’s not the panting lap-dog that half the White House press corps seem to be does not make her a bad journalist. What people like Sam Stone call “haranguing,” other see as a genuine attempt to get past the lies and spin endemic in political discourse (Democrat or Republican). And the whining from some people about “haranguing” the government sounds pretty damn close to appeals for self-censorship.
And here’s an interesting insight into the way that White House Press Conferences work. The journalist is Russell Mokhiber who, like Helen Thomas, often asks some stiff questions of Ari Fleischer.
Happy to follow the rules when it suits them, it seems.
I’m not saying the snubbing of Ms. Thomas is a big hairy ass deal. Its rather a cheap and tawdry petty deal. Which, to my mind, is the point.
Let me repeat this just once, so you can pause to reflect, as you called it, on the “reasonable journalistic practice” of the question asked by Thomas:
“…why does the President want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqi’s?”
This sounds like reasonable? And just how the heck does anyone answer that question? And why would anyone give it legitmacy by taking it seriously? What kind of answer might Ari have given:
“Uh, you know Helen, you’re right. There’s no way we can ever wage war, anywhere at any time in this world, because innocent people will die. Thank you for your clarity and wisdom in this matter. The President will inform Saddam Hussein and the Security Council that war is henceforth an unacceptable alternative.”
or:
“Thanks for that useful question, Helen. We’ve decided to wage war only against Iraqi armed forces. As a result of this change in military policy, we will wait on the borders of Kuwait until actively engaged by the Iraqi armed forces. Should any peaceful citizens of the world be in harm’s way, we will immediately cease and desist. I’m sure Saddam Hussein has read our proposal on this matter and is implementing similar instructions on his side.”
or:
“What an incredibly stupid question, Helen, as usual. We don’t intend to wage war against civilians. Unfortunately, our experience with this enemy is that he goes to great lengths to maximize the potential loss of innocent life during military conflict. That you should feel the need to ask such an asinine, fatuous question confirms my intention to switch your seating assignment with Les Kinsolving, effective immediately. Thank you.”
Personally, I like number 3. I’d like to see Ari call a spade, a spade once in a while. Why the heck he should have to be treated to such foul implications is beyond me. Or is any question a fair question in your eyes?
Do innocent people suffer in war? Yes. Is there a way to wage war without the innocent suffering? Not that man has devised. Does Helen Thomas give a flying fig for the innocent lives that Saddam has taken in his years of rule? The answer to that is clearly “no”. That alone makes her a shrew.
Err-ahh, if I may, I’d-uh like to answer this thread with-uh yet another flip remahk…
Why he should be subjected to hard questions is because his salary is paid for by us the tax payers, not by Prince George. His job is to give us real information, not to cover and spin for a lying, amoral, criminal president. Helen Thomas’ question was fair because we would be the aggressor. Iraq has not attacked or threatened the US in anyway. We would not be defending ourselves, so the rote rationalization about war being hell doesn’t wash. This war is not necessary. This administration has decided that it would be ok to set children on fire solely to serve its own political interests. Thomas was exactly right to ask that question, no matter how much it makes you squirm with discomfort. An unprovoked attack on a country which has done, and can do nothing to us is simply reprehensible and we need more reporters who are going to call it what it is.
What an irritating thread. If war comes, casualties could number in the tens of thousands. If war is avoided and Saddam’s WMDs are used, casualties could number in the tens of thousands. Yet, Dopers are urgently debating the fact that Bush didn’t take a question from one particular reporter. :rolleyes:
BTW many of us are hoping that any use of force against Saddam will be done under UN auspices. Bush’s press conference was seen worldwide. Taking a question (i.e., a rant) from Helen Thomas would be counterproductive in Bush’s effort to convince UN members to support action against Saddam.
Really? You honestly believe that the adminstration of GW is willing to set children on fire to help their own political interests?
Statements like yours go a long ways towards showing the stupidity of the Left, Diog.
Is there breaking news? Have we actually discovered WMDs in Iraq?
You’re damn right I believe it. He has so far utterly failed to show any other justification.
From all indications, the “tradition” of recognizing Thomas’ right to ask questions at all press conferences should be on its way out. Allowing Helen Thomas to serve as a spokesperson for war opponents strikes me as a tactic doomed to failure. Rabid partisanship is no substitute for thoughtful, tough questions. People tend to be repelled by obvious attempts at manipulation, whether from the Administration or its opponents.
Similarly, contemptuousness and sneering asides about Bush’s supposed intellectual deficits are not going to help galvanize opposition to the Administration. After all the events of the past few years, one would hope this sort of naive underestimation would be history.
What “events of the past few years” have proven that GWB is not an idiot?
Exactly. If she wants to grandstand for her own political beliefs, let her do it in a forum available for that. A press conference isn’t a stage for self-important journalists to parade their political thought in front of the American people. Jeez, Helen Thomas is about as partisan as they get, her questions sound something like it would be if Molly Ivens was let into the room. In other words, ridiculous. Reporters are pretty stupid people in general, they never really have anything insightful to say, they should stick to asking questions and digging up facts, it’s the only thing they’re good at. Loaded questions in a public forum at a televised conference aren’t helping anything but to showcase the reporter’s own political agenda.
[quote[Loaded questions in a public forum at a televised conference aren’t helping anything but to showcase the reporter’s own political agenda.[/quote]
Substitute “President’s” for “reporter’s” and you have a description of what this “press conference” was all about. GWB should have just demanded air time and given a speech, since that is what this event amounted to.
And your statement shows the naïveté of people who think most presidents, right or left, haven’t been willing to go to war with flimsy motives to further their political interests, regardless of the loss of innocent life.
Yes, he was. Testimony before a grand jury is legally binding tedstimony given under oath.
**
I hardly see how it’s “debatable,” since
a) He denied sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky, and
b) the semen on her dress was proven to be his.
**
Whether it was relevent was something for the judge in the Paula Jones case to decide, and nobody else. Dertainly not you or me. And “fraudulent”? The Supreme Court of the United States allowed it to proceed, and I daresay they know the law better than most about whether a suit has merit or not.
**
This is really, really weak. First, your source. This is a web page published by the Progressive Labour Party of Australia. It cites the sources for its information as “NBC, MSNBC and news services,” but doesn’t give any links to the original material, and for the most part doesn’t say which pieces came from where.
So what we have is a cobbled-together piece of innuendo published by an political party with an anti-war agenda to push, as their homepage makes clear.
Bush has certainly played fast and loose with the facts, in the manner of political leaders trying to influence the public have since the dawn of time. But this site is hardly an objective source for information on what Bush has/hasn’t done. It’s bias is very clear.
**
Yeah, somebody else mentioned Karl Rove, who is obviously the Antichrist. That guy is so brilliant, I wonder why HE isn’t the President!
**
No, he’s not. The Constitution says in Article II, Sec. 3:
Note: it does not say “explain his policies.” Nor does it say he must speak to Congress “once a year.” That tradition was started by Washington. In fact it specifically says the President has the initiative in this address, since he must talk about matters “he shall judge necessary”
And this whole issue is a straw man anyway, since I said the President is not obligated to talk to the press. Congress is not the press, and the State of the Union address is not a press conference. Congress could elect to bar all media and members of the public when the address is given, if it so wished, and there is nothing anyone could do about it.
**
Speaking as someone who worked as a journalist for a newspaper until just six months ago, I can say without a doubt that you are very wrong. The press does not have the right to “hound” anyone. Not only that, but there is a price to be paid at any level of society for acting like an asshole.
And like I said before, it does mean something to be the President of the United States. Ask him questions? Sure, if they can get close enough. He doesn’t even have to lay eyes on them if he doesn’t want to. Reporters who hound the President live to regret it.
**
This is real news to me. I’m represented by the press? I don’t recall voting for any reporters to be placed on the White House press pool. I was under the impression that my Congressmen represented me. And here I thought reporters just worked for companies interested in turning a profit, when they all they really were doing was representing ME!
**
Well, since nobody has established that he is “afraid,” I would say this is yet another straw man.
**
There is not a single law, federal or state, in the books anywhere that gives the press the power to force anyone to do anything.
**
Clearly, it isn’t. On this we agree.
**
An attitude as cynical as yours is frankly dangerous. Not everything said by Bush (or any other president, including Clinton) is just a lie delivered with intent to manipulate the public. Thinking like that leads everyone to feel we can’t trust anybody, and we’re all fucked. And I’m right back to my point: how is that helpful? Calling a press conference a “propaganda event” is just a case of you saying 2+2=4 and someone else saying it equals “more than 3 and less than 5.” Of course the administration holds these conferences to push its own point of view. They’re free to argue their case all they want. And the questions from many of the reporters present made it clear that Bush has a whooooole lot of explainin’ yet to do. And that’s all that we can say about it.
I’ll take revealing quotes for $500, Alex.