Helen Thomas, Impartial Journalist, in Today's WH Press Briefing

White House Website ^ | 6 January 2003 | the White House

[SFConservative]

ARI FLEISCHER: And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions. Helen.

HELEN THOMAS, Hearst Newspapers columnist: At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.

FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.

THOMAS: My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --

THOMAS: They're not attacking you.

FLEISCHER: -- from a country --

THOMAS: Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?

FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then.

THOMAS: Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?

FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.

THOMAS: Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?

FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.

THOMAS: And he thinks they are a threat to us?

FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

THOMAS: The Iraqi people?

FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --

THOMAS: So they will be vulnerable?

FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --

THOMAS: That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.

FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown.

THOMAS: I think many countries don't have -- people don't have the decision -- including us.

[Dan Day]

If we renounce the globalist agenda, protect our borders and lead by example, terrorism will no longer be a threat.

Oh, excuse me... I had previously mistaken you for someone who wasn't so incredibly naive as to be beyond my ability to educate. My mistake.

Two clues for the clueless, although I'm not going to bother trying to expand on them sufficiently to bring you up to speed: 1. "Renouncing the globalist agenda" enough to please our detractors would involve digging a deep hole in the middle of Nebraska and burying ourselves in it, never to be seen again, and 2. Terrorists hate us primarly not because we actively oppose their agenda, but because our example as a successful, tolerant, free country stands (by our very existence) as a strong temptation for young Muslims to abandon (or at least strongly question) the old fundamentalism.

Furthermore, I must in the strongest terms question the morality of your "foreign policy" which amounts to the US throwing the rest of the world to the wolves of terrorism, in the hopes that they'll eat us last.

[Contra]

"Ummmm isn't Helen Thoman of Arab Extraction?"

This is what I had heard, that possibly she is Lebanese, or at least of Arab extraction, as you say. This would explain a lot, wouldn't it? Maybe she is related to Danny and Marlo Thomas (Phil Donohue's wife), both Lebanese. I would be interested to know what these peoples' real names' were before they were changed to Thomas. How many Arabs are named Thomas? I wonder if their careers would have been as successful had their names been Mohammad or Abdul or whatever it was rather than Thomas?

[UnBlinkingEye]

The actual question, (and I'm restraining myself from adding "fool" or "idiot" or "democratic shill" because that wouldn't be polite), is WHETHER CHINA OR RUSSIA (or North Korea) WILL USE ITS NUKES ON US.

Robert, some times I drink too much too.

See, totalitarian communist military governments (like the former Soviet union and current China) want a salable, live country to take over.

Go on.

That why North Korea hasn't used nukes yet - because it wants to USE South Korea once it invades. A nuclear wasteland isn't a good thing to conquer. A belittled, tame, easily controlled fearful country (like you and Thomas prefer to US to become) IS easier to invade: which IS what Clinton is doing. (Still.)

Bush is the President now.

North Korea WASN'T a specific threat UNTIL the democrats PROMOTED it the past three months with their propaganda.

They claim three or more nuclear weapons, ejected inspectors and renewed their efforts in the past days.

North Korea WAS (wasn't it?) just the source for Carter's NOBEL PEACE prize!

I don't know or care.

Doesn't that mean either Carter is a lying idiot and imbecile for believing their false "promises"; or does it mean that North Korea really isn't dangerous? Clinton claimed for eight eyars that North Korea wasn't dangerous.

And now I am saying it is, much more so than Iraq, so why would you attack my position?

Cliton claimed for eight years that Iraq WS dangerous. That's what he's been saying since 9/11 at least. Clinton was the one attacking "innocent Irapi's" in their aspirin factories the day Monica's news came out.

Robert, I don't think those factories were in Iraq.

But Helen didn't complain about that.

I'm not generally a fan of her's, but I'll give credit where it's due. Good night and Best Wishes.

[Dan Day]

Given a choice would you pick George Washington or Benedict Arnold as the father of our country(colony)?

Wow, a false dichotomy *and* a straw man fallacy, all wrapped up in the same sentence. I'm impressed.

[Lancey Howard]

I agree with you. Picking on Helen Thomas is like picking on a retarded mouse. Nobody, and I mean nobody, takes that shriveled heap seriously. So why does Ari let this idiot participate at all? My opinion is that she should simply be ignored until she takes the hint and retires.

[UnBlinkingEye]

How would that "foreign policy" have prevented 3000 of "OUR" fellow citizens from dying on September 11th?

Why would there have been an attack if we avoided foreign entanglements and led by example instead of trying to rule the world?

[ArneFufkin]

I was taken aback watching a Bush 41 press conference on CSPAN"CLASSIC" recently: the disrespect, boorishness and arrogance Thomas and Donaldson displayed in their questioning was appalling.

[sushiman]

Helen Thomas ought to be lock in a cage stock naked with a gorilla on LSD ...

[sushiman]

That's :

Helen Thomas ought to be LOCKED in a cage STARK naked with a gorilla on LSD !

[rwfromkansas]

Not every journalist has the freedom to be in the WH press pool. Freedom of the press is freedom to write, not freedom of access. Therefore, Helen Thomas can rightfully have her credentials rescinded, as she is not even interested in pursuing fair questions.

[ArneFufkin]

That's cruelty to animals.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Why would there have been an attack if we avoided foreign entanglements and led by example instead of trying to rule the world? "

Come back? How did we "try to rule the world", and please tell me the justification you have for the Islamists attack on our cities.

[cubreporter]

Ari is a gentleman and allows Helen to show her ignorance, rudeness, and lack of manners (professional and otherwise) to all those present. She makes an fool of herself everytime she opens her mouth. Why stop her????????

[UnBlinkingEye]

Iraq has been violating sanctions/resolutions, and flouting WMD restrictions, and firing on our planes (etc. etc. etc.) for over ten straight years now.

Enter the Twilight Zone:

Israel has also been violating sanctions/resolutions, and flouting WMD restrictions, and firing on our ships (etc. etc. etc.) in the past thirty five years or so.

We (and the UN) have long since exhausted all peaceful means of getting Israel to act responsibly (although we're *still* trying a few last attempts before we unleash the dogs).

Doo-Doo-Doo-Doo Doo-Doo-Doo-Doo

Not suggesting we attack Israel, just pointing out some parallels.

North Korea, on the other hand, has just given the international community a hearty "go f*** yourself" for a few weeks now. We have a long way to go before we'll have to concede that we've exhausted all other options beside military methods.

We, the United States have been officially at war with them for the past fifty years.

Now, was that really so hard to figure out on your own?

Not with a little help...

[ArneFufkin]

if we avoided foreign entanglements

The Gabor sisters again?

[atomic conspiracy]

I prefer a different furry-critter analogy: It is wonderful to see a leading icon of the left reduced to this kind of bat-cave outburst. The desperately aggressive barrage of neo-60s sloganeering is typical of the increasing cognitive dissonance on the left, the final stages of political dementia.

Here, we actually see a Kennedy-era fossil, a certified Camelot relic, reduced to a position that amounts to an endorsement of nuclear proliferation. We will see more of this in the weeks to come, with even bat-wacky Greens and other retro-reds unable to reconcile their dogmatically required support for Kim and Saddam with their traditional positions on WMD and nuclear energy.