How open was the white house to questions before war?

No Limit

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
9,018
Reaction score
1
I have a lot of respect for Helen Thomas so today I went through some of her questions in the press room before the war. Amazing how well the White House responded :dozey:.

Q Then why are you going to bomb them? (Laughter.) I mean, how do you bomb people back to democracy? This is a question of conquest. They didn't ask to be liberated by the United States. This is our self-imposed political solution for them.

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me guess that you will not be at the speech tonight. Helen, the President is going to --

Q I'll be very interested in what the President has to say because I don't think -- I think if you ask five people anywhere, what's the reason the President wants to go to war, you'll get five different answers. Usually there's one defining moment and solution.

MR. FLEISCHER: Tonight, the President is going to discuss this. I think you will hear the President tonight talk about the threat of Saddam Hussein and how he poses a danger to the American --

Q In 12 years he hasn't done anything.

MR. FLEISCHER: We will temporarily suspend the Q&A portion of today's briefing to bring you this advocacy minute. (Laughter.)

Q Ari, how much is this war going to cost?

MR. FLEISCHER: That will depend on a number of factors, many of them up to Saddam Hussein and to Saddam Hussein's henchmen. If Saddam Hussein and his henchmen do not follow orders, if they don't follow their orders from Saddam Hussein, that can lead to one scenario. And so it is too soon to say with precision how much this war will cost.

Q You can do better than that, with all respect. The administration has to have gamed out these scenarios and put numbers, dollar figures to them. And I wonder -- you have been reluctant to tell us what those numbers might be. Why be reluctant to level with the American people about the real dollar costs of the war?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's not a question of leveling. There is unquestionably a responsibility on the Executive Branch to provide to the Legislative Branch an estimate about what the war would cost, what the humanitarian operation would cost. And that is a responsibility the administration takes seriously.

Because we take it seriously, I'm not in a position to speculate what the number may be. At the appropriate time, and if the President makes a determination to use force, a request for the funding will, of course, be sent up to the Congress. And then it will be based on the latest information that is available. It is too soon to be able to have any type of reliable number to indicate right now.

Q But you said there are scenarios. It would cost X amount of money with scenario one. You've had -- you have to have done that. Why not share those, so that people get a sense of what they will be called upon to pay?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because scenarios aren't sent up to the Congress. Supplemental requests for funding are sent up to the Congress based on more recent information, and it is too soon to say at this point -- that's the answer.

Q Can you explain for us how deposing Saddam Hussein improves the chances for Mideast peace?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President will discuss this tonight, but suffice it to say that Saddam Hussein has provided funding for terrorism in the Middle East for suicide bombers; Saddam Hussein is a force of instability in the Middle East; and the President does believe that the more there is movements toward democracy in the region, movements toward reform, movements toward government that is helpful and reform-minded toward the people, the better the prospect for peace, broadly speaking.

Q So you're saying that there's a direct linkage between violence in the Middle East and Saddam? It seems to me --

MR. FLEISCHER: Unquestionably. When Saddam Hussein pays suicide bombers to engage in suicide bombing, it's a direct correlation.

Q It seems to me, though, that historically and ideologically, Iran has been a much bigger influence in that area than Saddam has ever been. But are you saying that if you remove Saddam from power, suddenly you can pave the path to Mideast peace?

MR. FLEISCHER: I know you will be at the speech tonight, as well.

Q Ari, since there is an atmosphere of the imminence of war in this White House, and since we have no direct access to the President, will you state for the record, for the historical record, why he wants to bomb Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I dispute the premise of your question, first of all. There's regular -- there's regular access to the President. The President is asked questions all the time. And when the President --

Q He hasn't had a press conference for months.

MR. FLEISCHER: And when 14 of your colleagues spend 36 minutes asking scores of questions to the President just two days ago --

Q Well, that's not a news conference.

MR. FLEISCHER: -- they asked the President a similar question, although they phrased it a little differently than you did. They asked the President why does he feel so strongly about the need to use force, if it comes to that, to disarm Saddam Hussein. And the answer from the President was that, given the fact that the world changed on September 11th, the threat to the American people was brought immediately to our home and to our shores and to our families, the President thinks it is in the interest of peace to make certain that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction which he can use against us, either by transferring them to terrorists or using them himself.

Q There is no imminent threat.

MR. FLEISCHER: This is where -- Helen, if you were President you might view things differently. But you have your judgment and the President has others.

Q Why doesn't he prove it? Why don't you lay it out? When have they threatened in the last 12 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: They have attacked their neighbors. They have gassed their own people.

Q Twelve years ago.

MR. FLEISCHER: They have launched attacks.

Q With our support.

MR. FLEISCHER: And September 11th showed the United States is vulnerable to those who would attack us. And one of the best ways to protect the homeland is to go after the threats abroad.

Q You haven't linked terrorism to Saddam Hussein, in terms of 9/11.

MR. FLEISCHER: It's not -- the threat is what took place on 9/11. You don't have to make a direct linkage between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 to know that others who are planning can try to do it again, Saddam Hussein included.

Q It sounds as if you're saying about Russia, France and Germany, that when they say, we will not allow the passage of a planned resolution which would authorize the use of force, they're lying.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I'm saying exactly what I've said. I urge you not to leap to any conclusions about what the final outcome of the vote will be.

Q What is the conclusion to be drawn about the meaning of the words, the plain meaning of the words that they uttered today, that they don't mean them?

MR. FLEISCHER: If you think the story is written and done, then I can't change your interpretation of it. But I'm suggesting to you that you might want to think twice before you leap to final conclusions. There's a lot of diplomacy going on involving many different people in many different countries. And you have not heard the final word from any nation.

Q 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? And I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.

Q My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --

Q They're not attacking you.

MR. FLEISCHER: -- from a country --

Q Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then.

Q Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.

Q Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?

MR. FLEISCHER: 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.

Q And he thinks they are a threat to us?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Q The Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --

Q So they will be vulnerable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --

Q That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown.

Q I think many countries don't have -- people don't have the decision -- including us.
 
wow she really hammers it home
they must have a lot of respect fo her in the white house otherwise fleischer would have just ignored her questions
plus it just shows how sneaky the US was in going to war - no reasons even back then
 
Embarassing for the administration. This is exactly why we should not be in Iraq right now.
 
Gh0st, are you absolutely sure this isn't some kind of experiment your doing to us? :)

Even so, I like it! Keep going..
 
well many do see Fleischer as the architect of the war on iraq ..it was his prodding that set the wheels in motion
 
john3571000 said:
wow she really hammers it home
they must have a lot of respect fo her in the white house otherwise fleischer would have just ignored her questions
plus it just shows how sneaky the US was in going to war - no reasons even back then


there were no reasons because even they knew there wasnt any wmd
 
if you read the news back from 2001 even before afghanistan the Bush admin were openly mooting a war in Iraq - just like that
 
john3571000 said:
wow she really hammers it home
they must have a lot of respect fo her in the white house otherwise fleischer would have just ignored her questions
plus it just shows how sneaky the US was in going to war - no reasons even back then
She had a lot of respect. She has been hammering every President for years in those press rooms (including Clinton); Bush was the first to ruin that tradition by not asking her anymore questions as he couldn't handle it. He simply skipped her everytime.
 
Back
Top