Mylezylez
03-17-2003, 01:44 PM
These words are not directly from my brain, it is true. But I found this spoke for me quite clearly.
<<<
News conference raises questions but not from reporters
Margie Burns
Many of us remember when presidential press conferences used to be rowdy, with reporters yelling ``Mr. President!" from all over the room, waving arms and note pads in thr eagerness to raise questions affecting Americans.
Not now. Under the Bush administration, the order in which reporters will be called on - if they're called on at all - is prearranged beforehand by the White House after reporters have submitted thr questions. Thr seating - if they're allowed in the room - also is determined by the White House.
Thus, only questions allowed by the White House are entertained. At the president's prime-time news conference March 6, almost all the questions pertained to Iraq, with a couple on North Korea.
The questions not asked include the following:
Did Osama bin Laden die in late 2001, as Pakistan's President Musharraf, the FBI and the Pentagon have suggested? If so, why hasn't the White House told the public?
Why are we still bombing civilians in Afghanistan?
Why did the White House oppose forming an independent panel to investigate 9/11?
Why isn't the administration declassifying information the panel would need to fulfill its duties?
Why did the White House support liability protections for insurance companies and forgn-owned security companies?
Why has the White House opposed lawsuits brought by 9/11 victims' families? Is there any chance that position will change?
Why is the White House pretending that Saddam Hussn supports Islamist fundamentalist partisans?
Why is Bush pretending that Iraqis were connected to the attacks of 9/11, rather than Saudis?
During the news conference, Pakistan and Saudi support for Islamic partisans was not mentioned, nor were Bush family ties to the Saudi and Kuwaiti ruling families, nor Vice President Cheney's and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice's business connections to Iraq, American oil companies' purchases of Iraqi oil, Reagan-Bush support of Saddam Hussn, or the U.S. economy.
Even with the ongoing emphasis on ``regime change" in Iraq, questions were omitted about how Iraq would be governed afterward and by whom.
Another note missing from the press conference was the voice of longtime great reporter Helen Thomas, who was not allowed to ask a question - or to close the news conference with her traditional ``Thank you, Mr. President."
Some big questions also could be asked about Bush's endlessly repeated, powerful word ``disarm," such as: Mr. President, exactly what weapons does Iraq have to disarm? If you know of them, why don't you tell the U.N. inspectors?
If Iraq does not have multimillion-dollar weapons systems to disarm, will you insist that it does? Will thr absence be proof of thr existence?
My son, who is still in school, has noticed the witch-trial quality of some demands on Iraq, including the fact that weapons that are not brought out is taken as proof that the Iraqis have them.
President Bush looked thinner-faced at this last news conference, more worn and somewhat tired - a good sign, probably. On the whole, if a man is about to force this country to invade and take over another country, you'd want him to show some tread marks, oil fields or no oil fields.
What is unspeakable is that a president of this country could contemplate doing such a thing. And, sure enough, the unspeakable wasn't mentioned. >>>
________
OXYGEN VAPORIZER (http://oxygenvaporizer.com)
<<<
News conference raises questions but not from reporters
Margie Burns
Many of us remember when presidential press conferences used to be rowdy, with reporters yelling ``Mr. President!" from all over the room, waving arms and note pads in thr eagerness to raise questions affecting Americans.
Not now. Under the Bush administration, the order in which reporters will be called on - if they're called on at all - is prearranged beforehand by the White House after reporters have submitted thr questions. Thr seating - if they're allowed in the room - also is determined by the White House.
Thus, only questions allowed by the White House are entertained. At the president's prime-time news conference March 6, almost all the questions pertained to Iraq, with a couple on North Korea.
The questions not asked include the following:
Did Osama bin Laden die in late 2001, as Pakistan's President Musharraf, the FBI and the Pentagon have suggested? If so, why hasn't the White House told the public?
Why are we still bombing civilians in Afghanistan?
Why did the White House oppose forming an independent panel to investigate 9/11?
Why isn't the administration declassifying information the panel would need to fulfill its duties?
Why did the White House support liability protections for insurance companies and forgn-owned security companies?
Why has the White House opposed lawsuits brought by 9/11 victims' families? Is there any chance that position will change?
Why is the White House pretending that Saddam Hussn supports Islamist fundamentalist partisans?
Why is Bush pretending that Iraqis were connected to the attacks of 9/11, rather than Saudis?
During the news conference, Pakistan and Saudi support for Islamic partisans was not mentioned, nor were Bush family ties to the Saudi and Kuwaiti ruling families, nor Vice President Cheney's and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice's business connections to Iraq, American oil companies' purchases of Iraqi oil, Reagan-Bush support of Saddam Hussn, or the U.S. economy.
Even with the ongoing emphasis on ``regime change" in Iraq, questions were omitted about how Iraq would be governed afterward and by whom.
Another note missing from the press conference was the voice of longtime great reporter Helen Thomas, who was not allowed to ask a question - or to close the news conference with her traditional ``Thank you, Mr. President."
Some big questions also could be asked about Bush's endlessly repeated, powerful word ``disarm," such as: Mr. President, exactly what weapons does Iraq have to disarm? If you know of them, why don't you tell the U.N. inspectors?
If Iraq does not have multimillion-dollar weapons systems to disarm, will you insist that it does? Will thr absence be proof of thr existence?
My son, who is still in school, has noticed the witch-trial quality of some demands on Iraq, including the fact that weapons that are not brought out is taken as proof that the Iraqis have them.
President Bush looked thinner-faced at this last news conference, more worn and somewhat tired - a good sign, probably. On the whole, if a man is about to force this country to invade and take over another country, you'd want him to show some tread marks, oil fields or no oil fields.
What is unspeakable is that a president of this country could contemplate doing such a thing. And, sure enough, the unspeakable wasn't mentioned. >>>
________
OXYGEN VAPORIZER (http://oxygenvaporizer.com)