I'm not defending Bush, I'm saying that some degree of removing protestors from events may well be a legitimate security concern. I should also point out that freedom of the press is not freedom to snoop. You cannot, for example, break into someone's house then claim to be a reporter looking for a story so it's all okay. There is nothing in the first amendment which requires the government to allow access to a location, only one which forbids it from presenting exercise of free speech. Which is why parades cannot be banned in a city for content, for example, but can be banned based on not having filed the proper paperwork to provide for shutting down the streets, requirements to pay for the streets to be shut down, or may be banned due to conflicting events which have already been properly filed. If it weren't a political function this would simply be another event properly filed. You may compain about lack of access or transparency, but it is not a violation of free speech.
incidentally as to "as I recall" you might identify when these things happened- an event in 2002 which had a chilling effect on the freedom of speech which has since stopped does not mean we are currently losing our freedom of speech...

Last rebel stronghold falls.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...21380b96c9ce3d

Looks like Assad wins this round. That said, I don't think he can hold out long-term. I foresee a change of power in the next decade or so, simply due to pent up resentment amongst Syrians.

Pent up resentment doesn't usually win against dictators with a reliable supply of Russian weapons. It's helpful, but there is certainly far more required. I think the best chance is past.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...syria-15908090

Russia has no intention of curtailing military cooperation with Syria despite calls from the West to stop arming President Bashar Assad's regime, a senior Russian government official said Tuesday.

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Russia will abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria despite Assad's yearlong crackdown on the opposition, during which the U.N. says over 7,500 people have been killed.

"Russia enjoys good and strong military technical cooperation with Syria, and we see no reason today to reconsider it," Antonov told reporters.

Fair point, although Russia is under a lot of pressure from the US and Europe to cease such activities. While it won't happen immediately, I think eventually the Russians will come over, and at the point China will likely stop caring as well - not a battle worth fighting for them long-term.

Verbal pressure. We won't actually do anything about it even if we could. And they're not wound up about international opinion like we are. And they know that.

True, but they're also aware that after a while a difficult ally becomes a liability. They do still care about international opinion after all. Just not as much. Once Syria becomes more trouble than its' worth, they'll back off. Possibly once the US or someone offers them a nice juicy concession behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, the Onion had this today.

Sadly we here in the West are more likely to lose interest in Syria than the Russians. If you were to turn on the news in the States you would be more likely to hear about an upset in the March Madness tournament or something that Newt Gingrich said than you are about Syria. The Russians just have to wait for us to lose interest in Syria just like we have with so many other things.