It’s your prerogative to not be convinced by Bush’s reasons. But, the point is, the press conference served its purpose. He presented to the press and the public what he believes are reasons to disarm Saddam.
I sure do.
Of course, he has never deigned to share any of his “information” with the people he is asking to fight this war and fund it.
I sure would.
No I don’t.
They’re not “enthralled,” they’re in on it-- at least Powell and Rice are. I think that the administration decided it wanted a war first and that they would figure out how to justify it later. Some of them probably even believe their own bullshit.
december, there’s not a single, legitimate causus belli in any of that stuff. Just a lot of blather about what a bad guy Hussein is. As I said, Bush did not give any reasons for an invasion or demonstrate that Iraq is, in any way, a threat to the US.
The information Bush has, or claims to have, is irrelevant to the illegality of attacking Iraq without UN support. So is the question of whether he shares such information with the American public. The UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory, expressly forbids the use of force against another nation except in specific circumstances.
From the UN Charter:
Article 2 (4)
The two exceptions to the ban on the use of force are when force is authorized by the UN Security Council, or when a country is acting in self-defence. These exceptions are outlined in:
Article 42
Article 51
While some have argued that Article 51 implicitly includes the right of self-defence against an “imminent threat,” the Article itself makes so mention of this. And even if it did, the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate - to the American people and, more importantly, to the UN Security Council - that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. Nor does UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which Bush constantly referrred to in his recent speech, authorize force as a remedy for its violation. The US needs to get permission from the Security Council if it is to use force in order to punish Iraq’s failure to comply with SC1441. If Bush goes to war without Security Council approval, it will be a violation of the UN Charter, and an illegal act.
The National Lawyers Guild gives a much more comprehensive overview of SC1441, and analysis of US and UN attitudes to it, here. (note: this is a pdf file)
This thread has infuriated me to no end, but the two following comments by RexDart got my blood boiling especially.
Hey, Rex, I’m a reporter. A political reporter at that. Do you hate me? I don’t know if you do (though it sounds like it), but I do know that you don’t know a whole lot about how reporting works.
We HAVE to ask loaded questions. Why? Because if we ask “safe” questions we’ll get nothing but safe, scripted answers that make for crappy stories and reveal nothing. When I ask sources questions, regardless of party, I am intentionally antagonistic because I know it will get their emotions going and get them to actually say something interesting and, god forbid, revealing. Our questions don’t have to be objective, only our stories have to be.
But even if you disagree with that, it doesn’t apply to Helen Thomas. She’s not a news reporter anymore; she’s a columnist perfectly free to express her views in print. That happened over a year ago, and that would have been the best opportunity for the White House to take her position away from her because they would have had a legitimate reason for doing so. Or, if she had already been a columnist when Bush came into office, they could have pushed her back right from the start, as part of a general “shaking things up” deal.
But they let her stay, and there’s no doubt they knew what they were getting into by doing so. If you’re going to give an opinionated columnist such privileges, be prepared to face the consequences.
A press conference is not for the president to give his opinions. That’s what speeches are for, and Bush has used them to rather good effect. By opening himself up to the press, he should accept the burden of bearing unforgiving questions. Instead he turned the thing into a farce.
And, Rex, I’ve met Helen Thomas several times. She’s not stupid. Nor am I. And nor are the countless reporters that I work with. We’re proud of what we do. We’re proud to be an essential part of a free society.
Finally, if you hate reporters so much, I’m surprised you can even stand to live in Columbia, Mo. Some of the very best of our profession have come out of there.
Moderate Republican female putting in her $.02:
Bush shouldn’t have snubbed Helen Thomas. It IS a tradition. She’s a feisty old broad and I like her, even if I don’t agree with a lot of her politics. Watching the most powerful men in the world try to wiggle their way around her pointed questions throughout the years has been a hoot. I’ll be sad to see her go when they finally drag her out of there, kicking and screaming.
Just don’t care much for some traditions, myself. I personally don’t understand what the big deal is? Its not like she owns the seat. I never really cared where Clinton placed his reporters.
I didn’t like him, either, but I find rudeness unaccepatable. I sometime fail at that, myself, but still. She doesn’t “deserve” a place in the limelight - none of us do.
Uh… he moved her. Its not like he nanned all questions. Nor did he require that only too crony reporters ask pre-approved questions like Chirac. But he is under no obligation to please Helen Thomas with her choice of chair.
Helen Thomas was “snubbed” because she no longer works for the organization she worked for while she was sitting in the 1st row and asking the 1st question. She now works as a columnist for a magazine, and her new seating arrangement reflects this. Seating arrangements and the order of questions are governed by the organiztions present, not the personality of the reporters.
Helen Thomas changed jobs a year ago and Bush continued the tradition anyway. He snubbed her because the Bushistas are desparate to control their message. They absolutely despise a free press.
Oh… OK.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of repeating my previous post, Diogenes.
Actually, Bush did nearly the same thing. A colleague of mine who was at the Gridiron Dinner (an annual Washington schmooz-fest) and who knows several members of the White House press corps, and knows Helen Thomas extremely well, said Bush had a pre-ordained list of reporters to call on. Some of the reporters that were called on didn’t even expect to be called. After a little bit, the reporters wised up and realized raising their hands was pointless and would have no effect on whether Bush chose them.
So let me get this straight - Bush stages the first press conference in two years, one which is intended to show American resolve to the rest of the world, and you think it would be a good idea to open the press conference by letting a doddering old leftie ‘question’ the president by launching into an anti-Bush tirade?
Thank goodness Bush had more sense than that.
That’s one of the things that makes America great, the diversity of opinions and the openness of expression thereof!
Look, I’m as pro-war as anyone here but Sam’s latest made me :eek: It sounded like he is saying he is pro-stifling the press. Not that that’s what Bush is doing, but it certainly doesnt provide very good PR to the world to appear to be stifling the press!
Stifling the press?
Tell you what - Call the White House, tell them you’re from the Podunk Times, and you want to ask a question at the next Presidential Press Conference. Let me know how that works out for you.
‘Freedom of the press’ does not mean unlimited access to the President. It doesn’t even mean that the press has the ‘right’ to be in the White House at all. All it means is that the government will not stop the press from writing about whatever it sees fit.
The White House Press Corps is a carefully selected collection of journalists who are allowed special access to the president. This is a purely voluntary thing on the part of the government. They could kick the whole lot of them out tomorrow, and there would be no 1st Amendment problems.
And the fact is, Helen Thomas has been behaving unprofessionally for a long time. She is a REPORTER. She is supposed to ask tough questions, and report on what the government says. She’s supposed to maintain at least an air of objectivity. A White House press conference is not the McLaughlin Group, and she is not a pundit.
And yet, she has grown increasingly combative and tendentious, and lately she has barely even bothered to ask questions. Instead, she uses her privileged position to harangue the president and his spokespeople with her own personal political opinions. If she were a reporter working for me, I’d fire her.
Can’t you guys get past the partisanship for a minute and look at this objectively? Imagine if Clinton had had someone like her launching tirades at him instead of asking questions. What if a reporter said something like this:
Clinton: Next Question. Brit, go ahead.
Brit: Mr. President, some people in America think you have abused your position of power over an intern for your own sexual gratification. That poor girl, Monica, was star struck. You abused her trust. How dare you! You should be ashamed of yourself! Your actions were unbecoming the President of the United States, and I think it’s shameful!
Clinton: Do you have a question?
Brit: Oh, yeah. Do you agree?
That’s essentially what Helen Thomas is doing, and if the tables were turned and it was an old Republican attacking YOUR chosen president, all you liberals in this thread would be howling in rage.
If he just wanted to show American resolve, an Oval Office speech or a speech before a supportive crowd would have sufficed.
Going before the press implies that you plan on being questioned, perhaps critically, about your policies. If you’re going to face the jackals, be a man about it and let them off their chains.
Wrong. Helen is a pundit and has been for more than a year. She’s a columnist for Hearst Newspapers and thus is expected to NOT be objective…
Well then, she has no business sitting at a White House press conference. Last time I looked, I didn’t see George Will or Bill Press there.
Honestly, why is this a big deal??? Why does this matter? Is this is just another excuse to bag on Bush for a while? This is getting really old. :rolleyes:
I beg to differ. Bagging on Bush never gets old. 
I want to respond to the original topic rather than the subsequent debate.
I don’t see why Helen Thomas should be entitled to any special consideration. The tradition changed, but so has Thomas. She recently said, “I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter,” said Thomas, who is now a columnist for Hearst News Service. “Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’” Her short list of answers seems not to vary from war, President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and cowed citizens …
Thomas has shown an active bias toward the president. Considering this message board: if you showed an active antagonism to moderators, you would be on your way out. Sure the president is different, but how many people would, seriously, continue to honor and give preference to someone who has demonstrated such open bias toward them?
The White House isn’t yanking her press credentials. No one has taken away her ability to speak. It just didn’t kiss her ass. I can’t see why it should.
Thomas’ importance has waned. She was big when UPI was big. Now her audience is shrinking and she’s living off her laurels and legend. When she called Bush the “worst president in all of American history,” she demonstrated that she has lost her objectivity and perhaps her sense of perspective. Like a lot of reporters, she feels that having access to presidents has made her as important as presidents. She isn’t.