Last night, on another thread on this forum, two posters, stated, with no citations to support their argument, as if it were fact, that White House correspondent, Helen Thomas, reporting from the White House for the last 45 years, was not trustworthy or credible.
Today, she asked white house press secretary Scott McClellan, the question that has been on the minds of many.....<b>"Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?"</b>
(The news services have not "picked up" the transcript of the daily "press gaggle" as of yet. This is the only source that I can find. When this transcript is displayed on the white house website, probably by tomorrow, I will add that link in the quote box.)
Two questions:
1.)If you disagree with my opinion that Helen Thomas is one of only a few, or perhaps the only journalist covering the white house who truly represents the American people by asking the questions that they would want to ask the white house, if they could be there to "do it", who would you maintain is doing a better job of asking the "hard questions", than Helen is?
....or do you not agree that asking the "hard questions", on behalf of a skeptical and challenging public, is the core function of a white house press corps member? Would you prefer that they should ask questions that help the president "look good", instead of what Helen Thomas asks?
2.)Do you believe that the president is close enough to ordering our military to attack Iran, that Helen Thomas's question today is timely and appropriate. If not now, when would it be more appropriate to ask? Do you agree that it is appropriate for the United States or Israel to launch attacks against Iraq in 2006? If you agree that attacks are appropriate, is it appropriate to include use of tactical nuclear bombs?
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000329.php
McClellan Gets Peppered On Iran, Libby, et al.
By Josh Marshall - April 10, 2006, 11:37 AM
In this morning's White House press 'gaggle', Helen Thomas got things started with a simple question. "Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?" Full transcript below ...
QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: It is now your turn.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, we're pursing a diplomatic solution by working with the international community. I assume you're referring to some of the media reports. Some of the media reports I've seen, which are based on anonymous outside advisors and former officials, appear to me to be based on people that do not know the administration's thinking. I think it is a lot of wild speculation. We are working with the international community, particularly the EU-3, to pursue a diplomatic solution to a serious and growing concern.
QUESTION: Does the President think that the American people would accept any kind of an attack on Iran?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Now you're engaging in the wild speculation I just talked about. Look, those who are seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about the administration's thinking. The international community is united in its concern about the regime obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, and that's why we are working with the international community to prevent that from happening. And we are seeking to resolve this in a diplomatic way.
QUESTION: Would the President consult with Congress before --
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to engage in all this wild speculation. No President takes options off the table, but our focus is on working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.
QUESTION: Scott, what does that mean, "normal military contingency planning"?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, if you want to talk to the Pentagon, you can talk to them about it further. I'm not going to get into discussing it further.
QUESTION: So you're basically just not denying that there's military planning relating to Iran?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: This is hyped up reporting based on anonymous sources and a lot of wild speculation.
QUESTION: Well, why is it so wild --
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Our focus is very clear. We are working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.
QUESTION: But you also have left open the other possibility of military action.
SCOTT McCLELLAN: I told you where our focus is, and I told you --
QUESTION: I know where your focus is.
SCOTT McCLELLAN: -- that no President takes options off the table. But our focus is on finding a diplomatic solution.
QUESTION: But why would you even attack Iran?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: How many more times I can tell you I'm not going to engage in all that wild speculation, Helen.
QUESTION: Exactly when does it start? (Laughter.)
SCOTT McCLELLAN: We've said multiple times -- we've said multiple times that Iran is not Iraq.
QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to Senator Specter's request that the President and Vice President speak more fully about their role in declassifying the NIE prior to July 18th?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, there is an ongoing legal proceeding and investigation. We want to make sure that we don't do anything to jeopardize due process and a fair hearing. And that is why we have had a policy in place, going back to, I believe, the October time period of 2003, saying that we are not going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
QUESTION: There are anonymous sources that have confirmed the President did declassify prior to July 18th. Can you go on the record to confirm that?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: I assume you're referring to articles like The New York Times article today. I've made it clear I cannot get into commenting on an ongoing legal proceeding. I read that article, like you all did, with interest. I think it talked about how a significant portion of the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified on July 18th, 2003, and how it went through a declassification process. But I know it referenced a separate effort. I can't get into commenting on that issue because you can't separate that from the ongoing legal proceeding. I made clear the other day that the President has the authority to declassify information as he chooses, and I would reiterate that.
QUESTION: Is there something the President can say --
SCOTT McCLELLAN: And by the way, I did look back further, not only on my comments from July 18th, but I looked back at additional information over the last couple of days, and I will leave it where it was on July 18th, 2003. What I told you then was based on what I knew at the time. But I would discourage you from assuming that it has to be an either-or situation. I know some of the reports did make that assumption. In this article, one example kind of dispels people from looking at it in that way.
QUESTION: Is there something more the President could say that would not be dealing with the Libby matter, but the war is certainly much bigger than the fate of Lewis Libby -- is there something more that he could say that might answer some of the concerns people have about what he declassified or did not declassify?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, I talked about it. I mean, I talked about the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate and how that was in the public interest. Because if you remember at the time, there were a lot of questions being raised about the intelligence, and the President felt it was important for the American people to see what the executive branch was basing our public statements on before the war. The National Intelligence Estimate is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. It served as the underlying basis for how we viewed the regime's weapons program.
Now, an independent commission looked at all these issues and found out that the intelligence was wrong, and that's why we've taken steps to implement a bunch of reform. But at the time there were those who were making these wild accusations that we were misusing, or misrepresenting the intelligence. That's why it was in the public interest to declassify that information, because it provided important historical information. There is nothing in that National Intelligence Estimate that would compromise national security, that was released -- there's nothing in there that was released that would. And that's why it went through the declassification process and it was -- and a significant portion of that National Intelligence Estimate was made available to the public through you all.
QUESTION: It did say it was dubious, what you were putting out.
SCOTT McCLELLAN: I'd go back and look at the National Intelligence Estimate. <h3>Helen,</h3> what we're talking about -- what we're talking about is the underlying intelligence. You're talking about one specific part, and that's why we put it all out there for the public to look at. So let's remember what the issue here -- is here. That's not what the issue was......
|