Redstate

But if we're going to revoke Helen Thomas' press pass, can we get rid of McClellan as well?  His responses to her outrageousness are spineless, as is his usual daily performance.

This is a pathetic excuse for a white house spokesman.  A combative (but well spoken) spokesman would be great.  Ann Coulter anyone?!?  Ok, really.  Someone more like a Bill Buckley or a Mona Charen.

And yes, Helen should be asked the next time she spouts her leftist crap if she is a journalist or columninst.

A real spokesman would hear Helen out, role his/her eyes, and then state, "Helen, there you go again.  If you have questions fine, but if you're to be a talking point recycler we won't have time for you.  Yes, you in the back row..."

Then no more questions directed to Helen.

That phrase just bears repeating.

That bears on this discussion exactly how?

that Gannon was originally targeted because of is ideology?

You're so judgemental.

Aren't we all the world? Aren't we all the children? Aren't we the ones who make a brighter day? So shouldn't we start giving?

...that quoting bad pop lyrics isn't a banning offense here.  :)

Well, it is kind of silly to pretend that we haven't killed any civilians.  That's not a slur of the military, it's a simple and unavoidable fact of war.

is all that bad.

The WaPo has an interesting profile of McClellan today.

This is one of those occasions that requires an unfortunate accident to befall the journalist, in or out of the White House press room, an incident that cannot be traced back to the perpetrator.

Such rough justice would serve as strong discouragement to similar journalistic attacks. If you torment us you may enjoy your press access for a decade or two or five, but ultimately, you die a painful death.

Metaphorically.

Now, in a serious vein, Helen Thomas is like the proverbial crazy aunt you put up with out of nostalgia and loyalty. You show a little respect to your elders. You put up with her bad manners and odd smell. She'll be gone soon enough.

Besides, can you imagine the brouhaha if the White House were to try to punish that nice, old, poor, little, old, old, old, little lady?

And it's kind of silly to pretend, as Helen Thomas does, that anyone is pretending that US military forces haven't killed some civilians.  Talk about a straw man, that's a straw elephant!

Howard Dean is about as much of a journalist as Helen Thomas is.

The crazy aunt was locked in her room when company was over? You wouldn't want her to start hurling cats at people.

to understand how a guy can think posting graphic abortion pictures is OK but asking questions about the civilian toll isn't.

I thought this was a Leon H diary. In any case, I don't quite understand the problem.

It is silly. But the White Press briefing should not be a personal forum for reporters to vent. I would totally agree with her if she was asking tough questions with the same type of combat, but she is definately showing that she is not interested in that - she apparently want to to be combative and make the news, not report it.

It's sorta like saying "leaving aside Teddy's aquatic motoring".

not only that, it would make for a pretty pitiful rant about the unfairness and intolerance of Red State.

I'll consider myself self-warned.

Helen, in support of Islamo Fascist Extremists, has made the ultimate sacrifice, after a quick trip to a S. Korean research medical center, and the purchase of 72 tickets to Valhalla.

And it's kind of silly to pretend, as Helen Thomas does, that anyone is pretending that US military forces haven't killed some civilians.

True, but this wasn't the main thrust of her questioning until McClellan started obfuscating on the Iraqi dead.

Regardless of history, qualifications, legacy or whatever, just where or when is Ms. Thomas's journalism published? I don't believe I've read a single word of hers, ever, and now that I think of it, don't ever recall seeing a byline or televised story by her.

Exactly what "press" is there supporting her holding a press pass?

PS - I'm serious - I'd recognize most of the bylines at the NYT, certainly enough to avoid reading them if desired, and similar network/talking head relationships.

I think Ari had more finesse, but McClellan is completely effective.  His job is to be selective with the presentation of information that the press gets from the Whitehouse, and that's what he does well.

We saw a few days ago when the President ventured an opinion on an ongoing investigation, and the press pounced on Scotty for it, but he handled it...  it ain't easy!

Per Wikipedia:

Helen Thomas (born August 4, 1920) is a news service reporter and dean of the White House press corps. She was White House Bureau Chief for United Press International (UPI), where she was employed for 57 years until resigning in 2000 when UPI was acquired by News World Communications. News World owns The Washington Times; Thomas claimed she resigned because of News World's ties to Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Thomas then became a White House correspondent and King Features Syndicate columnist.

I think I knew most of that, so I guess we've been reading her anyway in uncredited UPI stories?

I'm not going looking, but seeing how many of her colleagues have branched out, I'm surprised how little she's seen outside of the WH press room - no TV, no books, no radio, no puff pieces. For pity's sake, Sam Donaldson got written up for that emu ranch he owned in NMexico, or ostriches or llamas, or whatever it was.

Political sniping aside, just what "work" of Ms. Thomas's have I missed?

That Thomas is a male hooker too? Damn you for linking Gannon/Gluckert and Thomas. A vision I will not get out of my mind anytime soon:-) Must, take, shower, unclean, unclean:-)

Where's the beef? Role of the press in a free society is to be contrarian. Helen was a hell of a lot tougher on Clinton's slew of press secrataries then she has ever been on Bush's. And not to defend Helen Thomas I think her point was missed.

Original reasons to go to war with Iraq

1. WMD's
   
   
2. Saddam evil loose cannon
   
   
3. Nuclear program
   
   
4. Link to 9/11

Present day

1. No WMD's
   
   
2. Saddam evil pathetic prisoner soon to be dead
   
   
3. Sometimes a smoking gun is just a smoking gun
   
   
4. No links to 9/11

Sole remaining rational

1) PNAC thought experiment that you can create a democracy under boot and bomb anywhere you want.

Didn't we try that in the 50's in Iran? Yeah, that worked out real well.

So if the four reasons we went into Iraq are accomplished what the hell are we still there for? Oh yeah, a PNAC "snowflake", as Rumsfeld calls them. That's the point Helen was trying to make.

Have at me:-)

We take the "no profanity" policy seriously around here.

Second, 4. is just false - it was actually, Saddam had links to Al Qaeda - a charge which is actually growing MORE credible by the day (not less), and you failed to observe how number 2 changed from how it was to how it is now.

senile, old battle axe that should have been given the boot a long time ago? Her logic was no existant and yours is worse. Personallly, I think we must still be in Iraq because Karl Rove wants to insure another Donkey defeat. The White Flag Party needs a war to run from and against.

As BushLiedPeopleDied™. Hard to believe you all are still stuck on the WMDs/9/11 connection talking points. Hasn't Dean faxed out anything more recent?

Did anyone besides Bush go on tv right after 9/11 and say that we need a democracy in Iraq?

Didn't think so.

and asked "Mr. Bush, your Campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train.  How come you're so popular?"

when new people of any stripe ask useless questions it seems fair to look at why they are there.

"That's six times that Ms. Thomas asserts, in the White House briefing room, that US troops, have and are killing innocent Iraqi civilians.  For added measure, she throws in a torture accusation as well."

I'm sorry, what do you object to? Do you assert that no innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by US troops? Or do you think it is inherently partisan to discuss the facts of the matter and to ask questions about it?

I'm sure you want a reporter to ask questions about the "good news." But if it's partisan to ask about the bad news, it must be partisan to ask about the good. Throw everyone out of the press room! Only questions of fact! Except if the facts aren't palatable!

Don't try to cover up a demand for censorship by pretending it's about journalistic integrity.

I may have missed it and am curious

Maybe because she wasn't asking a question so much as giving an ANSWER rally speech.

Pretend that all critical questions must be aligned with a political party or action group, and can thus be dismissed as partisan. Except the critical questions you ask your opponents, which by definition are made in good faith.

It's a tiresome game, and it only works on cable TV.

rather than insult her or slap her back to reality. Helen purposefully asks the question in such a way that she seems to imply that we intentionally or recklessly kill civilians withoput saying it. Plus she goes further by saying "Iraqis". Well, of course we are killing former members of the Iraqi regime and others that are committing terrorists acts, most of whom are Iraqis. The Iraqi security forces are also Iraqis. Hell, most everyone in the war theatre are iraqis. We are in Iraq.

Scott didnt want to be mean to an old crazy woman.

Is to pretend to ask a question but fillibuster by spewing non-sensical talking points instead.

why I don't own a television. Let alone cable.

No one is asking for censorship.  Ms. Thomas is free to assert that US troops are deliberate killers of innocent civilians all she wants.  She has no right, however, to do it from the White House press room.  Censorship is when the government prevents or prohibits speech.  No one is suggesting that here.  

I'm sorry, what do you object to? Do you assert that no innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by US troops? Or do you think it is inherently partisan to discuss the facts of the matter and to ask questions about it?

The implication of Ms. Thomas' questions is that US troops deliberately kill innocent Iraqi civilians.  That the US went into Iraq for the purpose of killing innocent Iraqi civilians.  She can believe that all she wants.  She is wrong.  And so are you if you think these are "facts of the matter."

Don't try to excuse Ms. Thomas' opinions about US troops with a complaint of censorship.

the White House worries much about hurting someone's feelings. But it's a nice thought.

Scott presumbaly doesn't want to provide an honest answer. Perhaps the honest answer wouldn't have been as extreme as Helen wanted, but Scott has a message he needs to deliver, and collateral damage is not a part of it.

The issue is revoking Helen Thomas's press pass because she is asking questions the original poster didn't like for political reasons.

There is a long standing recognition that the government has a duty to respond to questions from citizens -- and people like Helen Thomas, who represent a huge number of them -- even when they don't like it.

Everyone is talking about Helen Thomas's implications. You know, when I think someone is asking a question that is implying something else, I just answer the question and ignore the implication. Scott should try the same.

about 3 weeks ago (You Can't Play Hardball With a Limp Wrist).  Part of Scott's problem is that until recently the WH Press Office didn't try to win the story of the day.  Part of it is his lack of presence, quality riposte, and willingness to be combative without being argumentative...he doesn't even try to refute some of the scurrilious attacks from the corps.

before Bush said it.

Nice try, though.

Here's the link to a letter to Clinton in 1998 signed by quite a few notables.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

but that one was particularly blatant.

Posting abortion pictures (with clear warnings to viewers who didn't care to look at them, btw) vs. suggesting multiple times that our soldiers in Iraq are deliberately killing Iraqi civilians.

Where is the connection?  Even a little tiny one?    

I give up.

Surgeon, why are you still cutting people.

The question was stupid and she kept interruting. Moreover, the question contained many false premises that would have required paragraphs to unravel.

"Pres Lincoln, why are you killing Americans". She has been around too long.

First of all, you have only your own paranoia to think that Thomas was suggesting that widespread deliberate murder of Iraqi civilians was taking place. Once again, you seem to think that Thomas's choice of words warrants her censorship; I don't believe you want to deny that the military is killing Iraqi civilians.

Secondly, others might indeed want to ask "Why are we deliberately shooting innocent Iraqi civilians?" Jury is still out on that, we only the families to believe.

I won't even bother to link to the "torture" articles. As far as I can tell, die hards have stopped denying torture in Iraq, and have started defending it.

Good enough?

PS: as much as you'd like to believe, I don't think Abraham Lincoln would have considered the question of killing Americans during the civil war illegitimate.

Sorry, the link I posted was for a British contractor deliberately shooting Iraqi civilians. Here is the link for U.S. contractors. Those making the allegations are veterans who went back to Iraq to work for a private company.

that's quite some ideology.

It's kind of like: "Leaving aside Paris Hilton's underage porn tapes". That's just funny.

I think that any time you have a seemingly casual phrase like "Leaving aside Gannon's links to gay porn sites" as part of a serious discussion about anything, it's funny.

I mean, when was the last time a reporter, with access to the White House, was simultaneously a male escort?

You just can't make that kind of thing up.

was insulting? She wants to know why we are still there since no wmd stockpiles were found. We are in a war. War is killing the enemy. To ask why are we still killing Iraqis is unecessarily provocative in that it strips away the goals of the war and implies we are sadistic. One could alsop say, why are we still there blowing up things.

(It doesnt seem to me that she even wanted to discuss anything partcular about the collateral civilian deaths, which i actually would like to know given Bushs vague info. I mean this 30,000 that have died? Is that all civilians or all iraqis incl the criminals and terrorists. Is that how many we think were killed by us or also by the iraqi security forces and the enemy?)

Moreover, anyone that doesnt know why we are there is a fool and has no business with a press pass even if the president hadnt given 4-5 long addresses on the subject over the past 3-4 weeks.

It would be like asking a job applicant in NY that got turned down for the job 3 weeks ago, why he was still there, urinating and defacating.

All the OLD reporters there asking all their stupid useless questions? And repeating the same ones over and over?

Again. censorship is when the government uses its power to prevent or prohibit speech.  You and Helen Thomas are free to spout all the nonsense you want about US troops, you don't have the right to do it from the White House press room.  Helen Thomas can write all the columns she wants, no one is suggesting banning her writings or opinions, stupid as they are.

The whole point of my diary was that Helen Thomas' questions are every bit as partisan as Gannon's, yet no one in the MSM seems to confront her over her blatant partisanship.  Her beliefs about the troops are disgraceful.  The White House shouldn't stand for them.

because of the contents of his questions.  The details of his life were secondary to the real scandal he created by asking questions friendly to the president.  Had he been everything you allege and asked Helen Thomas' questions, he might have gotten a Pulitzer.

Ms Thomas is free to write whatever she likes. Denying her a public stage from which to spout her ideology - in the guise of jounalism - isn't censorship.

This woman needs a metaphoical slap the next time she pulls a stunt like that - somebody sick Rumsfeld on her!

It should be clear - even to the moonbats who use this as a talking point - that her assertion was:  US troops are deliberately killing innocent Iraqis. That is reprehensible.

Saddam was responsible for the death of over a million Arabs and Persians during his 35 year rule. Perhaps someone should point out that innocent deaths have fallen by 200% since Saddam was removed - and that the vast majority of those since have been the work of terrorists and not the US.

that Saddam was in constant fear of the religiously fundamental Shiite majority in his country (which he had been suppressing for decades). Because the Shiite leadership see Osama as a hero, Saddam was very concerned about that Al Qaeda (the fundamentalist Islamic-militant group that it is)  could threaten his control over Iraq.

I'd be interested to hear what you have been reading as well.

---

---

More on topic - at least part of the assertions of this topic is quite silly:

"That's six times that Ms. Thomas asserts, in the White House briefing room, that US troops, have and are killing innocent Iraqi civilians."

It's a simple fact that we Americans are killing innocent Iraqis. None of us (at least I hope none of us) are happy about it. No troops as far as I know are intentionally killing innocent Iraqis, but we know for a fact that there have been Iraqi civilians killed by our troops. War is hell.

Just keepin' it real.

---

---

paranoid re helen? Come now doc, I know its cold up there but yopu have been know for better comments than that, if random. In fact, I'll bet you she has asked and even acused us of deliberately killing civilians as a matter of policy.

The question by Helen and the hypo to Lincoln are simply insulting to the military. I wouldnt, and didnt say that the question was illegitimate in its underlying intent once the false premises of Helen are stripped away.

And, I would have knocked the question out of the ballpark as phrased! He did try and answer her but she kept on interrupting and I do actually blame Scott's style for that in some ways. He should look away and answer due to the way his eyebrows seem to invite interruptions. Moreover, I would be a mean ass and raise my vopice a bit and embarras her in some way to get her to shut up and concentrate her mind for the next time she asks a question.

You know, I would ask her if she is feeling well or offer her a battery for her hearing aid or give her a free pass to a manners class.

Or better yet bring in a vet and ask Helen to repeat the question so the vet can follow the conversation.

Maybe also ask her why she is still there slobbering all over herself despite the dementia? Give her a depends for the benefit of others in the stuffy small press room.

And just exactly what answer that she didnt already know was she looking for?

Did she think McClellan would all of a sudden break down and scream through sobs:  "Ok Hellen! OK!  I admit it! You caught us!  We are purposely targeting innocent Iraqi woman and children.... and little puppies too!"

No she did not.  She in fact was making a statement.  There was no purpose to gain any further insight in her question.  

There was no answer to her "questions" that has not already been answered.  

You can wax on about censorship and ethics.  Fact remains the old hag was doing nothing more then badgering President Bush through McClellan.

Pretty petty coming from the "dean" of the White House Press Corps.  She is nothing more then Robert Byrd dressed in drag.

do you harbor any resentment for the current administration?  The issue, as I understand it, is that reporters are to be part of the press corp, not commentators, and especially not partisan hack bloviators.  If you think that the aged sage represents a huge number of citizens, well, its a pretty blue pill that gets you there.  

So Scott should just admit we are terrorists.  I ask you, are you complicit in the terrorist acts of your country?  Assuming of course its true.  Is murderous blood on your hands as a American citizen, as Helen suggests?  Should you just answer the question and ignore the implication?

The only type of person who would suggest ignoring the implication of the comment/question is one who agrees with the political message.  However, the WH press corp could be more effective without such obvious bias.  It marginalizes everything they report.

I would refer you to the work of Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard, a small portion of which can be found here. For the rest, Google is your friend (it's a very lengthy series of articles, I'm not linking the whole thing).

that Saddam was afraid of ANYBODY in Iraq.  He had a police state stranglehold on the country that Stalin would have envyed.  Or at least applauded.  I would note the mass graves with upwards of 300,000 bodies.  Using chemical weapons on Kurds.  Dropping people feet first into industrial shredders.  Etc.  With the exception of a third party showing up from outside the country, he was safe and secure.  Paranoid maybe, but nonetheless, safe and secure.

AQ was certainly no threat within Iraq.  If it was, Saddam never would have allowed them to train in the northern provinces.  Nor would he have allowed the current #2 guy to recover and be treated in a Baghdad hospital from wounds in Afghanistan.

You can drop "Americans killing Iraqi civilians" mantra.  The VAST majority of civilian deaths are from terrorist bombs, not US bullets.  

Much of the sarchasm I intended didn't make it all the way across the wire.

Nice link by the way.

even given that "the VAST majority of civilian deaths are from terrorist bombs, not US bullets" that still leaves a "minority" that have been killed by US bullets.

Really, it's a bit ridiculous to assert that no civilians have been killed by American troops. Never mind the terrorist bombs, what about the air strikes? Shock and awe and all that.

It is war, after all.

Likening Helen's questions to Scott to "urinating and defecating" is really is serious troll territory.

You've also shifted your position. Helen's question is no longer illegitimate, it was worded in an insulting fashion. We all have different levels of ettiquite, so I won't argue the point. I suspect many would think the White House should have a thicker skin.

I was joking too... it was just that your joke/comment got me thinking. Most are banned from Red State (I assume) for some lame attempt to Speak Truth to Power (man) or some such 60s twaddle. This probably merits a few points in the Kos community.

I'm thinking not so many points are available - anywhere - for being banned for quoting bad pop lyrics. Kind of like going to jail for animal cruelty: everybody hates those people.

... course, I could just be over-analyzing this.

I don't want to get into word definition territory here. The original post said that Helen should lose her press pass because her questions implied that she supported the "wrong" political position. [It's a bit hard to parse the post because of layers of irony, but as for Gannon, the reason he should have been thrown out was because he was not a member of a news organization that I (or you) would remotely consider legit.]

Whether or not you want to call that censorship is up to you. If I was asking a question at speech at a conference and at the end someone suggested that I should have my conference pass revoked because the question implied that I did not support the speaker, you bet I'd call it censorship.

Helen's manner of asking the question would be regarded as improper if in the context of an academic seminar. That said, so would the usual evasive answers from Scott. Politics is much more rough-and-tumble.

I think you said in another comment that you would have "knocked her question out of the park." I'd like to see Scott do the same (or, at least, give it a fair swing.) I don't like politics when it's two sides feeding talking points to each other.

Helen Thomas was strongly implying that civilians were targeted.

Are you?

Everybody take a step back for a moment. I've replied to a different comment about why I consider this post a call for censorship.

As for this: "So Scott should just admit we are terrorists.  I ask you, are you complicit in the terrorist acts of your country?  Assuming of course its true.  Is murderous blood on your hands as a American citizen, as Helen suggests?  Should you just answer the question and ignore the implication?"

I just have to say "huh?" It's a pretty big leap from Helen's questions to the implication that "we are terrorists." That's putting it mildly. To put it less mildly, that's a strawman. If Helen had asked questions that in any way remotely resembled the ones you just posed, she would be, well, trolling.

Do you really, honestly believe that Helen thinks this? If you do, you have been dosing on far more blue pills than I. If you don't, why say it? Suggesting it is not going to make for a better discussion (although it might well work on TV.)

It seems what makes you the most uncomfortable here is the idea that we may have done things in Iraq that are not purely moral. It's fine, and good politics, to talk about morality and the moral demands Saddam made on us, but the room gets quieter when we have to face the fact that innocent people in Iraq have been killed by our troops.

If I wanted to take a turn at analysing the implications behind Helen's question, I'd say she wants Scott to confront that in a way the administration has really not been able to do yet.

[Whether or not the death of innocent people can be a reason not to support the war is a totally separate question mind; we're only talking about whether Helen's question is legit, or can be dismissed as "partisan hack bloviator".]

(I have to get back to work, so won't be able to respond until tomorrow.)

troll mean in this context? Its funny that normal bodily functions asscoiated with staying in a city offended you much as the mentioning of the normal activity of war by Helen offended me? Given the alternative ways of expression, eh!Maybe there is hope.

to the previous poster.

Nowhere did I imply that civilians were targeted. I'm merely saying that it is ridiculous to assert that civilians are not killed in a war. Period.

The administration could use some more churn. Clinton seemed to be swapping people out all the time. I think some new blood would probably be a good thing. People do get tired and need to be replaced.

Claiming someone said something they didn't works much better when applied to something Bush supposedly said years earlier, not a message a couple posts back.

And it can be trolling to use it. So, my bad.

I'm not squeamish (although I've never actually seen someone take a dump in the street.) You likened Helen's questions to "urinating and defecating." As you know from our discussion, I consider her question legit for a press conference.

Making such an extreme statement pushes the argument in a bad direction. If you really believe this, then the best thing to do is abandon the discussion with me, as for you I'm a lost cause.

A war is not a press conference; discussing it will get more intense. Yes, talking about the moral aspects of war can push buttons, but it doesn't mean talking about them is by necessity trolling. I don't believe Helen was trolling; as I've said before, I believe "behind" the question are Helen's moral concerns about war, which you may not share.

That said, I'm sure we'd both flip out if someone used "defecation" in an analogy as a press conference question.

OK, I'm really getting back to work now.

why our soldiers are still maiming the Iraqi people?  I mean not all collateral damage kills.

Getting the point yet?

The original post said that Helen should lose her press pass because her questions implied that she supported the "wrong" political position.

The original post didn't say anything like this.

Here is what I actually said:

--Let's count the number of insults to the troops Ms. Thomas metes out in this exchange with Scott McClellan.

--That's six times that Ms. Thomas asserts, in the White House briefing room, that US troops, have and are killing innocent Iraqi civilians.  For added measure, she throws in a torture accusation as well.

--I can't think of a reason why the White House should continue to provide Ms. Thomas with a platform to spout her opinions, especially when they are as vile as she has demonstrated hers to be.

--But if the White House can revoke the press pass of conservative journalist because he was perceived to be a partisan hack, they can do the same for a liberal one.

Nowhere did I say she should be censored or that she should lose her press pass because of her political opinions.  What I said was that Helen Thomas' opinions of the conduct of our troops are disgraceful and the White House should not put up with them.  Rather than answer my actual charge, you yelled "censorship" and made up a charge that I am not alleging.  You have yet to state whether or not you think her opinions of the troops are disgraceful.  I think I know why.

Did she get a chance to ask "Why does Bush hate black people?" after Kayne made his statement on the Katrina special. That would've provided all the cover she'd need. Then when Scott's answer didn't begin with the word "Because" she could wig out and start interrupting him with more "evidence" of how he does in fact hate black people.

focus on "civilian deaths" and the US military in the same breath.  Sorry, but it brings back very vivid and very nasty memories of moonbats screaming "baby killer" at uniformed military.  CodePink is just about there now with their demonstrations outside of Walter Reed.

The point is, and cannot be made forcefully enough, that the US military takes extraordinary measures that put our soldiers and Marines in greater danger in order to minimize civilian casualties.  The enemy, in this case the terrorists in Iraq, go out of their way to TARGET civilians.  Civilian deaths in Iraq at the hands of the terrorists are not "collateral damage", they are purposeful murders.

In the case of civilian casualties, whether by US fire or by terrorist bombs, are typically treated by US military hospitals.  Severely injured children are routinely flown to the US for specialized treatment.

So, bottom line, I find your discussion of "civilian casualties" very misleading to the point of being dishonest.  As the father of a United States Marine who, along with his men, put his life on the line to protect civilians I find your discussion offensive to the point of being maddening.

i think the link to alqueda is that sadaam hated al queda because saddam was a secular heathen

They must've hated Al Qaida too since they drank and went to strip clubs.

Helen Thomas is an Arab-American, I believe she is Lebanese and (judging by her biography) probably a non-Muslim.  As such she is unremittingly hostile to President Bush and everything he is trying to do in Iraq. This is the reason for her bizarre attacks on the President and her insistence that we are killing Iraqis, etc.

It's not a well-understood fact that the majority of Arab-Americans are not Muslims, but Christians, who left Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt when those oh-so-tolerant countries made it impossible for Christians (and Jews, Chaldeans, etc) to live alongside the Muslim majority(many came here in the 19th century and early 20th century).  James Zogby, the pollster, is another Arab-American who allowed his hatred of Bush to distort his polling last year.  You might expect that these Arab-Americans would appreciate what Bush has done for the spread of democracy and freedom in the middle east, but you would be wrong.  Bush received a majority of their votes in 2000, but not in 2004.

Yes, the Iraqi-Americans were grateful for what Bush has done for their country, but they are recent immigrants.  People like Helen Thomas are blinded by their ethnic loyalties.  It's that simple -- Bush is killing Arabs, end of story.  

She hates President Bush for the same reason Michael Moore does. She just hates Republicans. She has always hated Republicans (or at least as long as I can remember). That is who she is. She probably started with Lincoln.

you know someone is serious when they end their post with "Just keepin' it real."

As has been pointed out since, America in the new millennium goes to extraordinary measures not to harm civilians.  Billions of America's tax payer dollars have gone into high-tech "smart" weapons that can drop a bomb into the lap of truck driver, from a plane going 600 mph.  You wanna save some money in Iraq, lets go back to dumb munitions and just start doing WWII bombing runs.

We haven't done anywer near as much as we should be doing to disarm possible partisan fighters.  Political Cowardess has so hamstrung the military it is amazing they can even do their job.  2000 Americans shouldn't have had to die; we should have been far more aggressive in our post invasion clean-up.

BTW, while we are "keepin' it real" somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 (THOUSAND) French Farmers were killed by Allied bombing, and naval bombardment on the day of the D-Day Normandy invasion.  That was on one day of WWII.

Helen Thomas is an old hag who gets propped up by the left so that if anyone attacks her, they can stand up and throw down a pair; sexism and ageism.  It makes her the perfect toothless lap dog.  Lookout Howard Dean, someone nuttier than you is eyeing your job.

If I believed that Helen Thomas was saying that U.S. troops deliberately kill innocent civilians, or that Bush went into Iraq for the purpose of killing innocent civilians, I'd be upset with her too.

Now, I am a blue stater who only takes an occasional glance at this site, so it may not surprise you to learn that I don't have a clue as to why you believe that Helen Thomas was saying those things. And I'm not asking you to give me a clue; I'm fully prepared to accept that liberalism has warped my mind to the point where it's not worth your time to try to educate me.

What I will say in my defense is that I am no more liberal than Helen Thomas. If I can't understand why you believe that Helen Thomas was saying what you claim she was saying, then it's a safe bet that if Helen Thomas came to this site, she couldn't figure it out either.

Leon -- I enjoy your posts.  Don't know if you saw Drudge's "Bush Told of No Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties in 2001".  It links to a Murray Wass article that tells more about the classified "Daily Presidential Brief" on 9/21/2001:  

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The 9/11 commission concluded much the same thing:

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.

Guantanamo testimony seems less than credible to me.  I can't even imagine the things I'd wind up "confessing" just to stop a waterboarding session.

...just dig up the bodies of his enemies -- mostly Iranian sympathizers, Islamic fanatics and separatist Kurds.  

Of course, these are the groups who just won the election.  

about U.S. civilian conduct...

"They claim heavily armed security operators on Custer Battles' missions -- among them poorly trained young Kurds, who have historical resentments against other Iraqis -- terrorized civilians, shooting indiscriminately as they ran for cover, smashing into and shooting up cars.

On a mission on Nov. 8, escorting ammunition and equipment for the Iraqi army, they claim a Kurd guarding the convoy allegedly shot into a passenger car to clear a traffic jam."

As has been pointed out since, America in the new millennium goes to extraordinary measures not to harm civilians.  Billions of America's tax payer dollars have gone into high-tech "smart" weapons that can drop a bomb into the lap of truck driver, from a plane going 600 mph.  You wanna save some money in Iraq, lets go back to dumb munitions and just start doing WWII bombing runs.

Wasn't there once a tradition where Helen Thomas always got to make the first wild rant --oops I mean ask the first "question" at each Presidential press conference? Was it Reagan who ended that? I know he was the one who ended the goofy "have every reporter yell 'Mr President!'" thing and just start picking them out.

I'll take her questions where I bolded parts and change them so as not to be ofensive to the troops.   Then you read both and tell me if you can see the difference.

•  Why does he insist on staying there if we were there falsely?
•  I want to know why we're still there when we went in by mistake?
•  Do you think we're spreading democracy when you are percieved to be spying and put out disinformation and do all the things that -- secret prisons, and torture?
•  By going to war in Iraq?
•  There was no collateral damage there?
•  You admit that sometimes civilians are accidently killed?
•  Fallujah, there was no collateral damage?

it just wouldn't be newsworthy to find a reporter for the NYT or WaPo was a hooker or escort.

work out well in Germany and Japan.

You seem to think Thomas is right to object to the fact that we've accomplished our mission. (see 2, 3). No one ever claimed a link between Saddam and 9-11, though there is evidence that the leaders of the hijackers met with Iraqi intelligence in the Far East. There were links between Saddam and bin Laden, for instance, when he was expelled from the Sudan in 1998 Saddam made an offer of asylum and Zarqawi was wounded fighting US forces in Afghanistan and ended up in a Baghdad hospital.

The WMD issue has been cover over and over.

Helen Thomas is just a pustulent old bag of guts who has no place in the White House press corps.

that Saddam was in constant fear of the religiously fundamental Shiite majority in his country (which he had been suppressing for decades).

I think Saddam was equally in fear of a coup from within the Sunnis also. That's why he had the Republican Guard to watch the Army. The Special Republican Guard to watch the Republican Guard. The Saddam Fedayeen to watch the Special Republican Guard. The secret police to watch most everyone.

Because the Shiite leadership see Osama as a hero,

Counterfactual. Osama considers the Shia to be apostates... worse than we Crusaders and Polytheists. There is no evidence to support the idea that Shia leadership anywhere considers bin Laden a hero. The target of AQIZ is primarily Shia civilians.

Saddam was very concerned about that Al Qaeda (the fundamentalist Islamic-militant group that it is)  could threaten his control over Iraq.

Maybe. I think there is much more evidence that he believed he could coopt and use them. Iraq and AQ signed an agreement to work together against the West. Saddam offered bin Laden asylum when he was expelled from the Sudan. Saddam subsidized the formation of Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan, Ansar al-Islam is now AQIZ.

We are killing innocent Iraqi civilians...the point is that we are not targeting them.  We can't close our eyes to reality.

And you have to love the line:  "Leaving aside Gannon's links to gay porn sites".

Real comedy.

are

1. The CIA was right on this occasion but they were wrong on WMD, and
   
2. All new knowledge ended with the 9-11 Commission.

Fine by me.

from the commentary on the Iraq elections and abortion, is that group of people don't consider either group to be human.

to the above post? Or a retraction?

Do you deny that Gannon was originally targeted for investigation because of his ideology?

While you can drop a bomb, or an arty shell, in a waste basket, you cannot hold territory without boots on the ground.

We will have ceased all combat operations in Iraq, giving the Iraqis only support (intel, comm, etc) long before our military presence is out of Bosnia.

waive the profanity rule, Helen Thomas is it.  (Not suggesting the rule be waived, just getting around it through the back door...)

killed "some" civilians.  The issue is that Helen Thomas and her ilk pose the question in a manner that posits the policy and tactics of the US military is to move thru an area and slaughter people.  It's a 2005 version of the newspaper ads that John Kerry and VVAW took out in 1971 warning people that the US military was going to come thru their neighborhood and kill the men and rape the women (I've got a copy of the ad if you want to see it.)

In Iraq, the US military's tactics and rules of engagement are designed to protect civilians and avoid civilian casualties to the point of putting our soldiers and Marines at greater risk.  Civilians are not ever intentionally targeted.  Civilian deaths are the result of the terrorists billeting themselves amongst the civilian population, using "neutral" sites for weapons storage, etc.

On the other hand, terrorists actively target civilians.  IED's are placed outside of schools and hospitals.  Go back and do some homework on civilian deaths, even a review of the NYT bad news reports will yield the conclusion that civilian deaths are overwhelmingly because of terrorist targeting.  And please avoid the saccharin Democratic talking point that if our troops weren't there, terrorists would not be setting off bombs.

Why do you suspect this? Is that based on any inside info?

Or, do you just generally "suspect" this like I "suspect" there are UFOs?

Today the place I grabbed lunch had a TV on Headline News or CNN. I couldn't hear what was being said, but they had a segment on DC pay raises. I don't recall one of the names on there nor the exact amts, under a heading of "WHAT THEY WILL MAKE" or something like that it had:

Sen. Hillary Clinton $163,000

Sen. Bill Frist $183,000

AJ Antonin Scalia $201,000

Sec. Donald Rumsfeld (?) $whatever

VP Dick Cheney $whatever

Call me cynical, but to me the intent was for the gullible to be left with the impression of "Oh my God! Hillary is the greatest Senator we've ever had and she makes less than all those other white male right wing nuts."

It would have been at least as informative to present it all generically if possible. (Maybe some of these have slight ranges on them due to time in office or cabinet position):

Rep - $X

Speaker - $X

Senator - $X

Leader - $X

A. Justice - $X

C. Justice - $X

Cabinet - $X

VP - $X

Prez - $X

You can see this every day. Anne Applebaum's WP column on Jack Abramoff earlier this week listed him as "Republican lobbyist" in the lead paragraph for example.

The MSM put this subtle or sometimes not-so-subtle spin on much of what they produce, but are always careful enough in the choice of words to be able to argue it's completely innocent. It all comes down to how many things you're willing to accept as coincidence before you'll admit there's a careful, intentional pattern.

then to the substance of her question

Q I want to know why we're still there [killing people,] [when we went in by mistake.]

Not to mention the false premise at the end that makes the question akin to the "when are you going to stop beating your wife" canard?

What is she asking? If she is asking why we're still there, then why add the gratuitous comments, especially when the nouns used after killing do not identify the zarqawi al qaida or deposed baathist deadender enemies in exclusion to other "people" or other Iraqis"?

Her question pretends not to know that we are fighting al qaida and former despot regime members that are trying to depose the new government? She pretends that we went there only to find wmd and that it would be morally acceptable to just leave the innocent civilians to the mercy of the enemies that would slaughter them for working with us.

She is not a serious person.

You agree with that Im sure even if you cant or wont see that to gratuitously insert a reference to killing unidentified people or Iraqis is to imply that we are there for the purpose of killing, for its own sake,  iraqi people unrelated to their status, conduct or our mission and goals.

Why do you think she structured the sentence the way she did? I could be convinced that she just isnt very smart and didnt mean to imply anything other than a pacifist bent.

You think its a big leap?  I would say she is in the Kerry terrorizing camp, but thats my opinion.  And, no I am not uncomfortable with war.  It is HELL on earth, but sometimes necessary.  What she wants is validation of her own socialist liberal peacenik philosophy, and to force the acknowledgment of her viewpoint as well as satisfy her ego.  It is her opinion, and hence, the reason why she should be scratched as a reporter.  Again, this is a fallacious argument of the left:

"I'd say she wants Scott to confront that in a way the administration has really not been able to do yet."

What you are implying is that the Administration has not been enlightened to the more pure view of the left.  It is unable to see that the war is unjust and immoral.  Right.  The Administration has nothing to apologize for, and need not engage in such divisive philosophical pandering.  Peacenik's reject war a priori, pointless to try and engage them in debate.  If you don't think its a war, that is still just your opinion, and not reporting.  If you think no innocent people die in war, thats naive.  Anyhow, any way you approach this, its not reporting.

Gee, I wonder why she didn't ask why so few troops have died in this war, unprecedented in modern times.  Or how we were able to engage and secure the whole country with only 30k casualties, when in the first Gulf War, at least that many died, and we never penetrated deep into the country.  Why didn't she ask how many of the 30k were killed by terrorists?  Or how many were former Bathist killed in fighting?  Now that, I presume, would get her ostracized from the press corp, but would be reporting, wow, an oxymoron.

[McClellan]:Our military goes out of the way to minimize civilian casualties. They target the enemy --

[Thomas]: You admit they kill?

Oh, my goodness gracious sakes alive, I never knew that our military actually kills people!

(/sarcasm)

I wonder why you never hear about how many innocent Iraqi civilians we probably haved saved by toppling Saddam. (Actually, I don't wonder that. I already know about MSM bias.)

How about a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation. Someone above mentioned 300,000 people in mass graves, and someone else mentioned Saddam's 35 year rule. It is a virtual certainty that Saddam killed more people than that, so to make the numbers come out even, let's (conservatively) estimate that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of 350,000 innocent civilians during his 35 years. That's 10,000 a year, or about 27 people a day. Every day. For 35 years.

We invaded in March, 2003, and Baghdad fell the following month. Saddam was captured in December of that year.

Had we not invaded, we can assume that Saddam would have killed another 30,000 innocent people by March, 2006, just 3 months from now.

Bush said that about 30,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war. He did not say that 30,000 were killed by American troops.

The vast majority of Iraqis that have died violently since then were either:

Remember, two of the dead Iraqis were brothers named Uday and Kusay. And many cheered. Even many Iraqis.

I didn't think of that, we could actual identify a few of those "poor innocent civilians"  who were "terrorized in the night by US forces" (Kerry) and then "killed" as Helen states.  Here's hoping Uday and Qusay had a few rough nights before "martyr-DOOM".  Nice observation.

I am not even aware of an investigation involving Gannon, since I could care less about the guy.

The woman is a lawn ornament with a press pass.

most Lebanese-Americans I know are conservative.

was is and will be until tossed out on her senile buttocks a hack.

they let her hang out when she was the token woman.

Now she is a typical lefty hack journailist.

Her day passed oh, >20 years ago.

Pitch her out to the curb like the trash she is.

and Helen is a great example.  In fact she would be a great posterchild for both ugly and politics.

She is not practicing journalism, she is playing dirty politics.

Just never answer her questions.

And if any of the pressies get aggravated about it, tell them

"Helen's used up her lifetime quota of stupid, partisan cheap shots dressed up as "questions" - and the rest of you should be glad she's not getting to waste your question time anymore."

"Next question."

If McClellan ignores her question, protocol in the press corps requires the next reporter to ask the same question, and the next, and the next.

Actually McClellan handles the old bag of guts pretty well. She asks here tendentious questions and he answers with his talking points.

would re-phrase her dis-jointed rants passing as questions and see if she interrupts the rescuer!

I agree with that.  Andy Card, for example, has to be exhausted.  Bush, for his part, values loyalty and clings to predictablility and familiarity like no other president in modern times.  

Problem is, the Dems are bent on destroying all serious Republican talent by exaggerating scandals (like Ralph Reed's ties with Abramoff) when they themselves are much more ethically challenged.

that you've given a serious response to my comment.

Let me begin by noting what you did not edit out of Helen Thomas's questions when you edited out the stuff you consider offensive to the troops. The last three questions all deal with collateral damage, and one spells out exactly what we are talking about: "sometimes civilians are accidentally killed."

I think that most knowledgeable people, including yourself, and even Scott McClellan if we could ask him off the record, would acknowledge that civilians are being killed in Iraq. The rules of war call for soldiers to carry arms openly and wear distinctive uniforms precisely because when one side fails to do so, civilians are placed at risk. The current situation in Iraq demonstrates this.

But the exchange between Thomas and McClellan makes it clear that McClellan will not admit this when speaking on the record. Taking the life of an innocent person is generally considered to be immoral, so if McClellan were to acknowledge that we are killing civilians in Iraq, he would be put in a position of having to argue that our reasons for being in Iraq are sufficiently compelling that the war is morally justified even though civilians are being killed. He doesn't want to go there.

The difference between the Helen Thomas' original question and your rewrite, as I see it, is that you've omitted the moral aspect of her question. In your rewrite, you have Thomas asking four questions about the reasons for staying in Iraq, worded in a way that makes clear that Thomas doesn't think that Bush has articulated a good reason yet. You then have her asking three questions about collateral damage, with no connection between the first four questions and the last three. In the actual press conference, Helen Thomas brought up the issue of collateral damage in her first question, in order to set a high bar for what would constitute an adequate justification for staying in Iraq.

So, comparing your rewrite with the original press conference, I conclude

1. Acknowledging that collateral damage occurs in a war like the one now going on in Iraq: not offensive to the troops.
2. Questioning whether we have any reason to remain in Iraq: not offensive to the troops.
3. Questioning whether it is moral to remain in Iraq (and perhaps, by implication, questioning Bush's moral character): offensive to the troops.

I assume that these are not the conclusions you expected me to draw. Presumably you interpret the original press conference questions differently than I do.

I agree that he needs to go. I think he has been a too liberal influence and with Condi at State, his influence has been part of the problem before the rope a dope ended and Bush went to town on the war.

"How many of our troop fatalities do you think might have been avoided were we not bending over backwards to try to minimize collateral damage?"

If you look at some of her earlier questions below they would be the same questions if you left out the part in bold. Of course part of being there is that people on both sides are going to get killed. She is trying to put extra spin on her questions that is needlessly provocative.

    Q The President has publicly acknowledged that we went to war under false information, mistaken information. Why does he insist on staying there if we were there falsely, and continue to kill Iraqis?

    Q I want to know why we're still there killing people, when we went in by mistake.

Especially given her background, it seems a fair interpretation to say this is what she really means:

    Q The President has publicly acknowledged that we went to war under false information, mistaken information. Why does he insist on staying there if we were there falsely, and continue to murder innocent Iraqis?

    Q I want to know why we're still there murdering innocent people, when we went in by mistake.

that Andrew Card was reported as being principally responsible for the Harriet Miers nomination. If that's not an example of a political ear desperately in need of fine tuning, I don't know what is.

Besides, he's  a New England liberal Republican -- don't we have enough of those in the Senate? Do we need them staffing important WH positions, too?

Helen merely tells the truth and that makes you feel uncomfortable.  Sorry.  Americans are killing Iraqis simply because they had the misfortune of being born in Iraq during a time in American history when our government was controlled by a lunatic.

You haven't read the posting guidelines that apply to moonbats, have you?

Regurgitation of Known Facts™ is (correctly) frowned on here. You're supposed to check your tin foil cap at the door.

McClellan Sucks.

I know Jeff Gannon, not very well, but I have met him on several occasions.

Everyone makes mistakes in life.  Jeff made some very big ones.  Still, he had turned his life around and had a career.  What's so wrong about that?

Besides, Ann Coulter said it best, all the Gannon incident proves is that our gays are tougher than their straights.

I've met Gannon before as well. Seemed like a nice guy. That said ...

I believe what Ann Coulter meant to say specifically (because we all know that Ms. Coulter does not like to generalize and prefers to be as specific as possible) is that the GOP's gay male escort-reporters are tougher than the Dems' gay male escort-reporters.

And on those grounds, I think the Dems' would grudgingly concede.

Jeff Gannon: 1

Democratic gay male escort-reporters: 0

Advantage, Jeff Gannon