Posted on 12/19/2001 11:50:13 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl
Often regarded as the dean of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas began writing for United Press International during World War II. After leaving UPI last May, she began writing a political column for Hearst Newspapers. They run on this site twice a week.
WASHINGTON -- Well, now that phase one of the war on terrorism is down to the mopping-up stage, what's next? Phase two?
To hear some of President Bush's hawkish advisers talk, it's on to Iraq. Or is it Somalia? Or Sudan? Or the Philippines?
Whatever. These advisers apparently don't want the world's only superpower to quit while it's ahead.
Bush has warned the so-called "rogue states" that they are being watched "and will be held to account." He did not name them.
Some of his conservative retreads from the Cold War have regretted, ever since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the fact that the U.S.-led coalition failed to finish off Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 1991.
A key exception to this kind of thinking is Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired general who knows the horrors of war. He ran the gulf war in the Bush I administration and is essentially a man of peace in the tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Powell stands in stark contrast to some Pentagon officials who have spoken blithely of killing. For instance, the swaggering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this month, "We are there to capture or kill the al-Qaida and foreign invaders in Afghanistan who are terrorists."
He added that "we are there to change the Taliban leadership and change the government of Afghanistan." And he said he wants to "deal with" the Taliban, the former ruling regime ousted in the U.S.-led campaign, but wants to deal with al-Qaida "completely."
Whatever that meant, it sounded sinister. Then there were reports this week that U.S. military advisers in eastern Afghanistan had refused to let members of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's terror network, surrender to opposing Afghan forces. An Afghan leader who took part in the surrender negotiations said the U.S. team wanted to take no prisoners. "They just wanted to kill them," he said.
Such remarks made it look as if the Pentagon was bent on extermination.
Rumsfeld quickly backed off. In a briefing Thursday with Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he agreed with Myers' comment that "this is not a war of extermination" and denied that U.S. forces had scuttled a surrender offer.
Rumsfeld also said, "I personally would like to see people surrender. I personally would like to see us get our hands on them and be able to interrogate them and find out about the al-Qaida networks all across the globe."
But the earlier threats were heard around the world. Pope John Paul II said that while it is right to defend oneself against terrorism, that "right must be exercised with respect for moral and legal limits." American leaders should listen to him.
Still, some administration officials are gearing up for another anti-terror war, urging the president to move swiftly from Kabul to Baghdad. The big push is coming from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who served in the department in the George H. W. Bush administration. He is joined by Richard Perle, an important outside adviser to Rumsfeld and himself a Pentagon official in the Ronald Reagan administration.
They note that Saddam Hussein has long sought to build weapons of mass destruction and stubbornly refuses to allow international inspection of his arsenal.
But evidence that Saddam actually could use such weapons is skimpy, and the United States still has no concrete case of terrorism against Iraq.
Without tangible provocation, Bush would be making a big mistake to start the new year by targeting Iraq or any other another nation. America should be returning to its traditional post-World War II role as a peacemaker and a healer.
So let's hope the president will resist the siren calls for new wars.
If he heeds those calls, moderate leaders in the Middle East -- that is, the few who are left -- will be the losers and the region will be even more radicalized against the United States.
Yet in a speech at The Citadel military academy in Charleston, S.C., last week the president again warned leaders of states that harbor terrorists. "The authors of mass murder must be defeated and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass destruction." Bush said.
"Above all, we're acting to end the state sponsorship of terror," he declared. "Rogue states are clearly the most likely sources of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons for terrorists. Every nation now knows that we cannot accept ... states that harbor, finance, train or equip the agents of terror."
In fighting another hot war against Iraq, Bush might have to have to go it alone. Key allies such as Britain and France would probably desert him, and he would not have the support of the United Nations.
What then? A Pax Americana that we dictate? Whatever happened to collective security? Would the American people tolerate war without end?
Sure, a continuing conflict can kill a lot of potential terrorists, but can it wipe out hatred?
On Sept. 14, three days after the terrorist catastrophe, Congress adopted a resolution giving the president power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons (that) he determines" planned, authorized or committed acts of international terrorism.
In doing so, the lawmakers gave up most of their constitutional authority to play an important role in war and peace. And that was another sad day for the country.
1. Did Helen Thomas always write editorials, or did this nightmare begin with President George W. Bush?
2. Is she grandstanding every day at the press meetings in order to be famous in all circles, or does she plan to run for office after she retires?
3. Who is it in the White House that she really hates?
4. What did she do to deserve being called the Dean of anything?
friend: Would you pass me the dinner rolls, Helen?
Helen: I'll crush that Fleischer with the power of my intellect. He thinks he has all the answers, but not to my questions. I'll topple the White House with my questions!
friend: I just want a dinner roll, Helen. Please.
Helen: Oh. Here. Get it yourself next time. I burned my bra for the feminist movement; it's needy women like you that keep us back in the dark ages.
friend: Sorry. I'm hungry.
She is totally incompetent, everybody knows it, and why, oh why, did she become the dean of the White House journalist corps?
I tell you it is not merely their ridiculous bias that makes the press in this country have zero credibility.
It is also the naked emperors walking around in droves who gravitate into certain privileged positions in journalism and then are in our faces for decade after decade.
Like, Rather, Hugh Downs, Bryant Gumballs, Katie Colonic, this chick, and about one hundred others.
I mean they are preposterous. Utterly embarrassing.
Doesn't the Left realize how bad these spokespersons of theirs make them look?
It is amazing.
Then all she'd do is spit and drool while trying to ask a question.
They could then have her taken out on a stretcher shrieking and wheezing.
I also find her much more interesting than the don't disrupt media, when you read one article don't bother reading anyone elses for they mirror each other.
W. won't do this with Helen Thomas. He reaps what he sows.
I think she outlived 90% of her brain cells.
As long as it's a Democrat. Horrible, partisan woman. The fact that she drools over Powell confirms everything I think about him, too. BARF.
She is Lebanese to boot. She has a dog in this fight and it seems clear whose side she is on. Hideous woman.
I'm sure she looks at President Bush with the same mushy goo-goo eyes. Right? (Yeccch.)
Well, no sh&%, Helen, you f@%$ing cow. He was talking about sub-human scum who were complicit in the murder of over 3000 people on 9/11. If that offends your delicate namby pamby, limp wristed liberal sensibilities, then tough. Let it be said with words and deeds that whoever tries something like this in the future will be also dealt with completely. If this sounds sinister to you, then tough titties. Sinister is all these scum understand.
Helen really is a vitriol spewing, spiteful old battle axe (and hero at DemoratUndergarments). Memo to Helen: Get used to it, best case scenario is 3 more long, long years of Ari & Co....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.