Saturday, March 18, 2006

Helen Thomas Makes a Preemptive Attack              If the Bush Administration gets us into a preemptive war against Iran, it won't be because we didn't know they were planning it and didn't know that it was illegal and contravening a slew of international treaties. Because veteran journalist Helen Thomas asked the hard questions this week and put Scott McClellan's nose in it. Is anyone listening? Here's the transcript of the White House press briefing: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060316-4.html Q Does the President know that he's in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us. MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I would just disagree with your assessment. First of all, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign -- Q It's not a long-standing principle with us. It's your principle. MR. McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question? Q It's a violation of international law. MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, let me back up, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign policy. It is also part -- Q It's never been. MR. McCLELLAN: It is also part of an inherent right to self-defense. But what we seek to do is to address issues diplomatically by working with our friends and allies, and working with regional partners. That's what we're doing when it comes to the threat posed by Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. That's what we're doing when it comes to resolving the nuclear issue with North Korea. So we seek diplomatic solutions to confront threats. And it's important what September 11th taught us -- Q The heavy emphasis of your paper today is war and preemptive war. MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish responding to your question, because I think it's important to answer your question. It's a good question and it's a fair question. But first of all, are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes and then respond? September 11th -- Q Under international law you have to be attacked first. MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, you're not letting me respond to your question. You have the opportunity to ask your question, and I would like to be able to provide a response so that the American people can hear what our view is. This is not new in terms of our foreign policy. This has been a longstanding principle, the question that you bring up. But again, I'll put the question back to you. Are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes before we respond -- Q You had no threat from Iraq. MR. McCLELLAN: September 11th taught us -- Q That was not a threat from Iraq. MR. McCLELLAN: -- some important lessons. One important lesson it taught us was that we must confront threats before they fully materialize. That's why we are working to address the threats when it comes to nuclear issues involving Iran and North Korea. That's why we're pursuing diplomatic solutions to those efforts, by working with our friends and allies, by working with regional partners who understand the stakes involved and understand the consequences of failing to confront those threats early, before it's too late. Q What are the consequences? MR. McCLELLAN: The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, they are very serious in terms of stability -- Q Are you warning Iran that it has consequences as you did Iraq? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what has happened with Iran right now is that the matter has been reported to the United Nations Security Council because the regime in Iran has failed to come into compliance with its safeguard obligations, and they continue to engage in enrichment related activity. And we have supported the efforts of the Europeans to resolve this matter diplomatically, but the regime in Iran continues to pursue the wrong course. They need to change their behavior. They continue to defy the international community. That's why the matter has been reported to the Security Council. We have now entered a new phase of diplomacy. And there are a lot of discussions going on about how to prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapon capability, or developing nuclear weapons. And that's why those discussions are ongoing. This is an important issue. It outlines in our national security strategy that this is one of the most serious challenges that we face. Q Are we threatening Iran with preemptive war? MR. McCLELLAN: We're trying to resolve this in a diplomatic manner by working with our friends and allies. -RH   7:45:07 PM    comment []

Reproduction News Roundup Two more women die from RU-486 abortions. In the previous four cases it was sepsis from using the product in an off-label manner, delivering the pill vaginally instead of orally. FDA is investigating. Planned Parenthood is no longer recommending vaginal administration of the pill. When used in the label-approved manner RU-486 is quite safe. Anti-abortion lobby will use these tragic events to push for banning the pill altogether. There are calls for a tourism boycott of South Dakota where all abortions are now illegal except in a life-or-death situation for the pregnant woman. Anti-abortion groups have countered with a call to vacation in the state to show support. Mount Rushmore and the Badlands (including the HBO-famous Deadwood) are the top sites for visitors. Maybe your tourism dollars could go into creating an underground railroad for SD women to get to an abortion clinic or hospital in neighboring states. Lawful or not, women will assert control of their own bodies. Here's something that's completely legal: Beautiful women offering eggs for IVF as well as beautiful men offering sperm for same -- check the story of the wildly popular donor 401. Bush Administration opposes a new vaccine that could end cervical cancer which kills 5,000 US women annually and hundreds of thousands worldwide. The vaccine would thwart the sexually-transmitted HPV virus which has been proven to cause cervical cancer. The catch: the vaccine needs to be administered before children become sexually active, which means, in this country at least, well before age 15. Bushies argue that the vaccine would promote pre-marital sex and therefore shouldn't be administered. How sick is that? -RH   5:14:33 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Robin Herman. The Girl in the Locker Room™ name and design are trademarks owned by Robin Herman. Last update: 4/1/2006; 9:38:31 PM. Powered by   Girl in the Locker Room!