• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Was Helen Thomas being disrespectful?

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
source

(Q is mostly Helen Thomas except, I believe, for the Rumsfield joke at the end)
Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

Q Thank you, sir. Secretary Rumsfeld -- (laughter.)

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. (Laughter.) I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it. (Laughter.)
Click to expand...

The buzz on the conservative radio talk shows is that Thomas was being disrespectful. Well, here is a sampling from MediaMatters.org.

Was she being disrespectful?
 
Of course she was. She dared to question the infinite wisdom of our dear leader. That makes her not only disrespectful but a traitor to boot. Our leader should never be questioned, ever, and anyone who does is a terrorist lover who hates us for our freedoms.;)
 
I think the problem was that she was the only journalist in the room.
 
Helen Thomas is the queen of the loaded question. She likes to premise her question with a distortion or untruth to so that the person being asked either has to try counter the premise (dodge the question) or answer the question (but thereby imply the premise is true).

Here Helen starts by saying that every reason given for invading Iraq was untrue. However, this is in itself a lie. But this is nothing new, this is how the white house press corps works. As Mort Kondracke once said, they play a gotcha game daily with whomever represents the president that results in nothing substantive coming out.

So that part can't be disrespectful, its SOP. The oil and israel stuff is more looney than disrespectful. However, at least now the fringe loonies can he happy that someone finally asked the president about his imperialism and collaboration with the zionists.
 
Hmmm.... if that's disrespectful I hope USA politicians never have to face a Newsnight interview!

Actually what does it matter if she was "disrespectful" or not? A journalist's job is not to be respectful but to find out information, to reveal information, to investigate, to ask questions they think need answering.
 
Darat said:
Actually what does it matter if she was "disrespectful" or not? A journalist's job is not to be respectful but to find out information, to reveal information, to investigate, to ask questions they think need answering.
Click to expand...
Well, of course, it doesn't matter if she was disrespectful. I guess I am really asking if this criticism has any real merit or if it is just 100% political spin by the ..."conservative media elite", for lack of a better term.
 
Upchurch said:
Well, of course, it doesn't matter if she was disrespectful. I guess I am really asking if this criticism has any real merit or if it is just 100% political spin by the ..."conservative media elite", for lack of a better term.
Click to expand...
Spin. Duh.

These are the people who had no problem going after Clinton about whether Little Billy was getting polished in the Oval Office--since when do they give a damn about being "respectful" to the president?

(Since a Republican was in office. I know, I know.)
 
Upchurch said:
Well, of course, it doesn't matter if she was disrespectful. I guess I am really asking if this criticism has any real merit or if it is just 100% political spin by the ..."conservative media elite", for lack of a better term.
Click to expand...

Well it is not a valid criticism of a journalist doing their job so no it has no merit.

That's not to say she didn't load her opening question - but again that is a standard journalistic tool and I think quite a legitimate one to use in such a context.
 
I don't know whether it was a slip of the tongue, Freudian slip, intentional or what, but notice how he tied Iraq to 9/11.

He may be crazy like a fox. He just rambles and throws stuff out, John Edward like, knowing that the believers will grasp the true and discard the false. Helen's was wrong when she said "Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. ", but as we've seen, the believers will recognize the hits and ignore the misses.
 
DavidJames said:
I don't know whether it was a slip of the tongue, Freudian slip, intentional or what, but notice how he tied Iraq to 9/11.

He may be crazy like a fox. He just rambles and throws stuff out, John Edward like, knowing that the believers will grasp the true and discard the false. Helen's was wrong when she said "Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. ", but as we've seen, the believers will recognize the hits and ignore the misses.
Click to expand...

And it's effective, too. Large numbers of people think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 because they've heard "9/11 -> Afghanistan -> Iraq" so often. Eventually there will be a new link in the chain, and people will buy that one, too.
 
DavidJames said:
I don't know whether it was a slip of the tongue, Freudian slip, intentional or what, but notice how he tied Iraq to 9/11.

He may be crazy like a fox. He just rambles and throws stuff out, John Edward like, knowing that the believers will grasp the true and discard the false. Helen's was wrong when she said "Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. ", but as we've seen, the believers will recognize the hits and ignore the misses.
Click to expand...

It's not accidental. Every single time someone asks him about the reasons for invading Iraq, he starts off talking about 9/11 and al-Qaeda. He never directly says Iraq was involved, but he always groups the two together. It's actually a pretty nifty propaganda technique; he never directly associates them, rather, he mentions them in the same breath and lets people make the association for themselves. This way he can stand back and say "I never said Iraq was involved in 9/11," while still making the association every time he talks about it.
 
Disrespectful? Sure. She called him a liar to his face.

Loaded question (as per corplinx's first post)? Certainly.

Out of bounds? No. If a president doesn't want to take questions, he shouldn't have press conferences. And if he doesn't want to take tough, even unfairly loaded questions, he shouldn't call on reporters he knows are utterly hostile to him.

Frankly, I like the way the British House of Commons does things. Addressing the Prime Minister: "Will the government acknowledge that its abject failure to adopt a policy of shooting Welshmen has been a catastrophic and unalloyed failure from beginning to end, and that if this government had even the tiniest scintilla of integrity, it would resign, en masse, in disgrace?"
 
DavidJames said:
I don't know whether it was a slip of the tongue, Freudian slip, intentional or what, but notice how he tied Iraq to 9/11.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw that.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They [Iraq] did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --
Click to expand...
My note added. Maybe the emphasis or timing was different when you hear it spoken, but to read it, it sounds like no distinction is made between Iraq and the Taliban.

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Here is the connection Bush is drawing (intentionally or not): Iraq was a threat because Bush thought it had the potential to be like Afghanistan in terms of being a safe haven for al Qaeda. Which really has nothing to do with the WMD's the rest of his statement relates to, other than it would provide armament to those Iraq could be a safe haven to.

And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
Click to expand...
[irony]

Because Iraq is now not a haven for those who want to attack the US.

[/irony]
 
Upchurch said:
[irony]

Because Iraq is now not a haven for those who want to attack the US.

[/irony]
Click to expand...
ha·ven
  1. A harbor or anchorage; a port.
  2. A place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary.

Which of the definitions of "haven" above do you believe applies to "those who want to attack the US."?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom