[patconnole]

The perfect plan: Invite Saddam to a "friendly debate", and kill him! Just thought this was funny-- from the white house press briefings Tuesday.

Q Ari, given the fact that the President has talked about the potential conflict with Iraq as a continuation of the war on terror, if an opportunity presents itself, would the President authorize the assassination of Saddam Hussein, and did he tell a U.S. senator that, in fact, he would do that?

MR. FLEISCHER: The executive order that deals with these matters remains in place. And that guides the --

Q What is that?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is an executive order that prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders, and that remains in place. So that's the answer to your question. Now, of course, in the event of military conflict, command and control are different matters, it is well-known, in accordance with previous practice and the law. And that is reflected in anything the President would have done or said.

Q But the question is, if the opportunity presented itself, would he rescind that order and take that shot? So did he say that to Senator --

MR. FLEISCHER: I've looked into it; I can't confirm that he did say it. I do not see that --

Q Did you ask him about it?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President doesn't recall if he said it or didn't say it. The staff doesn't recall the President saying it. But bottom line remains the same, the executive order is in place, and so it's a hypothetical that doesn't exist.

Q Well, but it's not a hypothetical in the sense that this is, as he says, a continuation of the war on terror. And we know it was rescinded with regard to Osama bin Laden. Why shouldn't it be rescinded with regard to Saddam Hussein? And we know that the President wants to avoid war by having him exiled, or something else, so would this be an --

MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is no question the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein would leave Iraq, would disarm, and the situation could be resolved differently. That remains the President's hope. And in the event anything changes, and nothing is planned to change, I will let you know. But there is nothing that has changed it, it remains in place. That's the facts.

Q -- a question I want to ask on a different subject. Can you explain, first, what you meant by the rules of engagement or military conflict? I assume that means the executive order does not apply in military conflict. Could you explain it --

MR. FLEISCHER: It's the longstanding policy about command and control.

Q And how would that apply to the potential assassination of a leader of a country that we are invading?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that in the event there were hostilities, all military commanders could be part of a war operation. I don't think it would surprise anybody to think that if we go to war in Iraq and hostilities result, command and control and top generals, people who are in charge of fighting the war to kill the United States troops, cannot assume that they will be safe.

Q Including the head of that --

MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, including Saddam Hussein. of course.

Q The directive actually says that?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, we're talking -- we're not talking about the directive. We're talking about in the event of war.

 

[DRB]

Did you listen or read the whole thing? The assassination thing came back up at least 5 more times. It was like a broken record.

 

[Damn True]

pffft, reporters.:angry:

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
Did you listen or read the whole thing? The assassination thing came back up at least 5 more times. It was like a broken record.

Yeah, I couldn't believe it.... although I enjoyed it. Thought I might post the rest.

No offense here DT, it's just funny how perspective plays such a huge role in interpretation..... I was thinking, "pfft, Ari".


Some of those questions reporter ask or so tailored to the peace-movement's side--

Q ........ He just mentioned that U.S. troops will be put in harm's way. Won't there be greater sacrifice on the families and the American public? .....

Q Dr. Blix has said this morning at the U.N. that he's received a number of letters from the Iraqis which, apparently, report the destruction of chemical and biological weapons. It says that they reported a warhead filled with liquid, and he was asked if this amounted to substantive cooperation, and he answered, yes. Your reaction?

Q ......The President has never been on a battlefield. Does he -- has he gotten any estimate of how many people will die in this?

This is my personal favorite. Think it's Helen Thomas.
Q What has he done in the last 12 years? And why do you keep subliminally linking up 9/11 with the Iraqi thing? Do you have an actual link? Can you really prove it?

As far as quid pro quos go:
Q One more question. The Prime Minister of Bulgaria, out at the stakeout, said that in the context of his conversation with the President on Iraq, "The topic of possible guarantees for Bulgaria came up."

Q All right. But are we to assume that Bulgaria's support is, in part, contingent on financial or other guarantees?

Q The President started the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, especially, after 9/11. And I hope he has seen today's Washington Post editorial, and which I have been saying for many months, that al Qaeda and Taliban are -- they have a hub in Pakistan and they are regrouping. Since President and U.S. is engaged with the war in Iraq, they are trying to get advantage attacking the -- and also, the Washington Post said that Musharraf has come back to telling the Indian government, the world's largest democracy. My question is how is the President going to deal with this one front where he started, and now Iraq?

Q This morning the President said, again, that he doesn't think he needs this resolution. Is that message intended -- what is that intended to do? Because it could be the signal to other countries that you're -- either get on board or the train is leaving; less a message about what he thinks is important, as a signal to them, that now is your last opportunity.

Q But does he intend to signal to the other countries that it's now or you're not in --

Q But it seems to echo the reports of what Bolton told Russia, which is essentially, the President is saying, I'm going to do what I'm going to do.

Q Two questions; one relates to your answer to Jim's question. The fact that Iraq is dribbling this stuff out late and under pressure, you take the lesson that they can't be trusted, that they don't intend to comply. Could that not be turned around and used by the French and others to make the argument that the pressure is working; inspections are working; inspections backed by pressure, backed by the threat of armed force are slowly wringing this stuff out of Iraq and there's no need to --

the grand finali:
Q Ari, last week, the President described, in reacting to protests around the world, literally millions of people, he said -- he likened that to a focus group, which we all in this room know to be a time-honored thing, a group of 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 people representing, perhaps, a cross-section of opinion. Did he really mean to draw that kind of a comparison?

Q The front of the Washington Post yesterday, on the front page reported that it felt many people in the world increasingly think that President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Why do you think that millions of people around the world hold that view?

Q How do you get from the latest U.N. resolution, and, in effect, all the previous U.N. resolutions to a top-to-bottom regime change? That issue is not addressed in any of these resolutions.

Q Did we just unilaterally glom that on to the U.N. resolution, and say, okay, the U.N. approves this --

 

[Damn True]

No offense here DT, it's just funny how perspective plays such a huge role in interpretation..... I was thinking, "pfft, Ari".

Perspective was exactly my point.
There was a time when the media saw "reporting fact" as it's duty. Nowadays it seems that they are as much trying to create news and be an influence on public opinion depending upon the political slant of the individual organization. No longer do they present fact, but they are as much "spin-doctors" as representatives of individual political organizations or causes.

The mainstream media (TV networks and most newspapers) IMO are the most guilty in this as they present themselves as unbiased but are far from that. The nightly news presents their particular "spin" (usually way to the left) and they hide the dissenting opinions early on Sunday morning (Face the Nation etc) when few will be watching. Fox get's my vote as the least biased TV news source because they seem willing to present opinion and spin (at least they don't try to disguise it as anything but) from both sides in an equal forum. There are individual shows that are slanted toward one side or another but in most cases they give dissenting opinion a voice. They also have Hannity (right) & Colmes (left) that does a good job of presenting both sides at the same time.

 

[Silver]

Oh God, the liberal media myth again.

You a Bill O'Reilly fan by any chance?

 

[patconnole]

From reading the transcripts though, I'd say Ari is really good at saying exactly nothing.... So I don't see how passive reporting would bring us any more facts than we're getting now with somewhat biased reporting (on both sides, left and right).

Can't remember the "official" definition of the news...: Is it report the facts? Be the people's "check" on their elected government officials? If it's the first, I don't think Ari would say anything, we wouldn't even have press conferences. If it's the latter, then by all means, Helen, ask your biased questions.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Silver
Oh God, the liberal media myth again.

You a Bill O'Reilly fan by any chance?

I don't know about the media in general, it's hard to say. As for Bill O'Reilly--- not that I have TV, but if I did, I wouldn't watch his program anymore after he blew up at the anti-war kid. Couldn't believe it.... If the media's job is to at least report the facts; and on an opinionated show, to report opinions, I don't think there's any good explanation for telling someone to "shut up" and end the interview prematurely. Whether Bill thinks it's stupid or not, we can at least let people talk.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Silver
Oh God, the liberal media myth again.

You a Bill O'Reilly fan by any chance?

You missed the point.

The point is not wether or not the media is liberal or conservative. The point is that the media, by and large, fails to report fact. Prefering instead to issue opinion, or to present events in a manner so as to attempt to influence public opinion.

Bill O'Reily has a show that is unabasedly conservative. He dosen't hide that fact. He does bring on dissenting opinions even if the point is to disagree with them at least there is debate. I watch his show, but I also watch stuff that is admittedly leaning toward the other side.

God forbid one look at BOTH sides of an issue.

The "myth" as you quaintly refer to it is anything but. The VAST majority of media sources are leaning hard to the left.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Damn True


The VAST majority of media sources are leaning hard to the left.

That's because the left is better than the right!

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by patconnole
That's because the left is better than the right!

IS NOT!

duck season

 

[rbx]

usally in regimes like saddams their were always be somebody to take his place especially that 50 000 of his elite solders (which are sons of rich families that flourished under the his regime) have a personnal stake in his regime to keep going with or without him.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by rbx
usally in regimes like saddams their were always be somebody to take his place especially that 50 000 of his elite solders (which are sons of rich families that flourished under the his regime) have a personnal stake in his regime to keep going with or without him.

You mean the vaunted "Republican Guard"?

The ones that ran like scalded dogs or rolled over like $2 whores and surrendered in '98?

For Sale:
Iraqi rifle. Never fired, only dropped once.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
From reading the transcripts though, I'd say Ari is really good at saying exactly nothing.... So I don't see how passive reporting would bring us any more facts than we're getting now with somewhat biased reporting (on both sides, left and right).

Can't remember the "official" definition of the news...: Is it report the facts? Be the people's "check" on their elected government officials? If it's the first, I don't think Ari would say anything, we wouldn't even have press conferences. If it's the latter, then by all means, Helen, ask your biased questions.

Certainly Ari is good at that, just like every other Press Secretary for the last 40 years. Press Secretaries are hired for their ability to do two things and two things only and this is EVERY press secretary.

1. Provide "answers" to "questions" that reflect the stance of the current administration.
2. Not provide any meaningful "answers" to any relevant questions.

And if you believe that a press secretary has any real answers is naive. Just tell me the last shocking piece of news that a press secretary delivered.

The real fact of the matter is that you could take ANY of the last 20 press secretaries and put them into ANY administration and you would hardly know the difference. Well the only difference would be who would be asking the hard questions of them.

Can't remember the "official" definition of the news...: Is it report the facts? Be the people's "check" on their elected government officials?

It is neither of these things. Its about ratings, sell rates, subscritptions, etc. Each has a target market and they sell to that market. They will report things in a manner that their demographic will associate with and to which they will return.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by patconnole
From reading the transcripts though, I'd say Ari is really good at saying exactly nothing....

I would add that the role of the press secratary is too not stray from from the publicly stated policy of the President.

I think Ari is a great press secratary.

 

[Jeremy R]

Assassinating Saddam. Now that is something that could make everybody happy. I don't even think the hippies would be concerned with that. A bullet in his head would be just marvelous. None of our soldiers get killed, none of their citizens get killed, and everybody sits down to have an apple pie.
The only problem then is which reject is next in line.
It is absolutely amazing to see some of the things that prick
did to his own people. Without taking out his regime, nothing would change. The same torture would go on blah blah blah.
Now if there was a way to get to all his top guys, then we would be in business. ( I realize this post is wishful thinking to the highest degree. War is always Hell.)

 

[laura]

Originally posted by Damn True
Perspective was exactly my point.
There was a time when the media saw "reporting fact" as it's duty. Nowadays it seems that they are as much trying to create news and be an influence on public opinion depending upon the political slant of the individual organization. No longer do they present fact, but they are as much "spin-doctors" as representatives of individual political organizations or causes.

.

stop the fvcking presses. EVRYONE, I NEED YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE. i totally agree with DT. i cant believe it. it certainly is refreshing to know that we see eye to eye on at least one issue.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I would add that the role of the press secratary is too not stray from from the publicly stated policy of the President.

I think Ari is a great press secratary.

Can't really argue with any facts here, I don't hear the president speak much---- But that's my impression, the president doesn't speak much, Ari is his mouth. Agreed though, Ari's great at what he does.... I just don't like it.