Congrats to Helen Thomas

[jasonxctf]

for asking the tough questions. Wish there were more reporters like you.

 

 

BUSH TAKES ON PRESS AND HELEN THOMAS TOO

Tue Mar 21, 2006 13:34:11 2006

 

Helen Thomas, who in January grumbled that President Bush was a "coward" for not calling on her at a press conference, today was granted a question for the first time in several years. The doyenne of the White House press corps, who once called Bush the worst president in U.S. history, seized her chance with gusto, essentially debating Bush instead of questioning him. Here's the transcript:

 

THE PRESIDENT: Helen.Ê After that brilliant performance at the Grid Iron, I am -- (laughter.)

 

Q: You're going to be sorry.Ê (Laughter.)

 

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, let me take it back.Ê (Laughter.)

 

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.Ê Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true.Ê My question is, why did you really want to go to war?Ê 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?Ê You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else.Ê What was it?

 

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is thatÊÊ -- I didn't want war.Ê 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.Ê No President wants war.Ê Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true.Ê My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th.Ê We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people.Ê Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen.Ê You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy.Ê But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life.Ê And I'm never going to forget it.Ê 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.Ê 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.Ê Excuse me for a second.Ê They did.Ê The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda.Ê That's where al Qaeda trained --

 

Q: I'm talking about Iraq --

 

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

 

I also saw a threat in Iraq.Ê I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically.Ê That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed.Ê 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.Ê And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him.Ê And we did, and the world is safer for it.

 

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

 

Q: Thank you.

[YASNY]

I saw this exchange. This is good stuff. It's about time Bush stepped from behind his protective sheild and started answering the questions. He should have been doing this all along.

[kapkomet]

You know, Helen Thomas is parroting what (nearly) every Democrat out there thinks. Kudos. She stood up and spoke her true beliefs.

 

Kudos, though for Bush having a good answer back.

[YASNY]

You know, Helen Thomas is parroting what (nearly) every Democrat out there thinks.  Kudos.  She stood up and spoke her true beliefs.

 

Kudos, though for Bush having a good answer back.

 

I agree with you. I also believe Bush should have been doing this type of thing all along. The fact that he has 'been protected' at his public appearances has contributed to the distrust that many have for him now. A major strategic error, in my opinion.

[NorthSideSox72]

You know, Helen Thomas is parroting what (nearly) every Democrat out there thinks.  Kudos.  She stood up and spoke her true beliefs.

 

Kudos, though for Bush having a good answer back.

You thought his answer was good?

 

The key link he made between his sweeping statements about terror/9-11/Afghanistan/Taliban and the Iraq conflict was the statement "I saw a threat in Iraq". No mention of what threat that was. Seems pretty weak to me.

 

But I will give Bush some credit on something here - he has, lately, finally been allowing for more reality in his press appearances. He is letting people ask unscripted questions, which is a nice thing to see, as YASNY pointed out.

[kapkomet]

You thought his answer was good?

 

The key link he made between his sweeping statements about terror/9-11/Afghanistan/Taliban and the Iraq conflict was the statement "I saw a threat in Iraq".  No mention of what threat that was.  Seems pretty weak to me.

 

But I will give Bush some credit on something here - he has, lately, finally been allowing for more reality in his press appearances.  He is letting people ask unscripted questions, which is a nice thing to see, as YASNY pointed out.

You know what? Yes. I do. I also think that this was a lot bigger then "Saddam Hussein" and "WMD's"... but that's just me. This is way bigger then any of that, and most people don't want to look at this that way. I know that they look at it that way from the many statements they make that gets ignored because at that point GWB becomes "delusional". You see, I think it's hilarious when everyone that disagrees with GWB thinks he's an "idiot", and then at the same time, gets all pissed off when he "outsmarts" people by coming up with all this stuff. So which is it, is he an "idiot" or is he "that smart"?

 

I'll answer - I think it's a little of both.

[NorthSideSox72]

You know what?  Yes.  I do.  I also think that this was a lot bigger then "Saddam Hussein" and "WMD's"... but that's just me.  This is way bigger then any of that, and most people don't want to look at this that way.  I know that they look at it that way from the many statements they make that gets ignored because at that point GWB becomes "delusional".  You see, I think it's hilarious when everyone that disagrees with GWB thinks he's an "idiot", and then at the same time, gets all pissed off when he "outsmarts" people by coming up with all this stuff.  So which is it, is he an "idiot" or is he "that smart"?

 

I'll answer - I think it's a little of both.

Hm. Well, I certainly haven't been one to label Bush an idiot, or delusional. And I certainly accept, and agree, that the issue of Iraq is much broader than WMDs or the replacement of Saddam's regime. There is a whole plethora of stuff going on there - long term middle east stability, middle term middle east military strategy, logistics, US-related economics (not just oil), oil and resources, Iran (and a list of other countries), Russia and the middle east, etc. etc. Lots going on.

 

But I still think his answer, and his stance for the war, wasn't proper justification for what horrible events we have brought to that part of the world (talking Iraq here in this case, not Afghanistan).

[AbeFroman]

I don't like bush, or his answer. But I'm happy he's started step out of this protective shell many feel he has hidden behind for a long time.

[bmags]

i don't understand how its a good answer..

 

the essential question:

 

why did you want to go to war in Iraq.

 

the answer:

 

9/11 durrr the taliban is in afghanistan durrr durr durrr i thought iraq was a threat.

 

^joke...but seriously why did he bring up afghanistan? It had nothing to do with the question. He's just doing that diversionary must reference 9/11 in speaking of iraq war to drive home to people that some how subliminally they'll think that iraq and 9/11 are synonymous and stability in iraq is retribution for 9/11. It's just not true! I want bin ladens head on a stake. ANd stuck up in the middle of NYC and people can spit on his face as they walk by.

 

I just find it interesting what bush considers threats and what he doesn't.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I don't like bush, or his answer.  But I'm happy he's started step out of this protective shell many feel he has hidden behind for a long time.

When you make people sign loyalty oaths before they can come to one of your campaign events, perhaps he is behind a protective shell

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...at_rnc_rallies/

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2108852

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath -- see the 2004 Presidential campaign

 

It is difficult for Bush to deal with critics when he insulates himself from them.

[WCSox]

Hm.  Well, I certainly haven't been one to label Bush an idiot, or delusional.  And I certainly accept, and agree, that the issue of Iraq is much broader than WMDs or the replacement of Saddam's regime.  There is a whole plethora of stuff going on there - long term middle east stability, middle term middle east military strategy, logistics, US-related economics (not just oil), oil and resources, Iran (and a list of other countries), Russia and the middle east, etc. etc.  Lots going on.

 

Agreed that it was a mistake for Bush to focus on WMDs for so long. Sometimes I get the impression that his administration didn't want him to explain their motives in full because the American public wouldn't really understand and support it. I think that they underestimated our intelligence.

[kapkomet]

Agreed that it was a mistake for Bush to focus on WMDs for so long.  Sometimes I get the impression that his administration didn't want him to explain their motives in full because the American public wouldn't really understand and support it.  I think that they underestimated our intelligence.

The thing is, with the media hounding every time this guy takes a s***, it really does become more difficult to explain things to the "American People" as a whole. Most don't care enough because it's not "hurting them" unless their family is in Iraq, and therefore wouldn't care to do anything over there.

[BigSqwert]

The thing is, with the media hounding every time this guy takes a s***, it really does become more difficult to explain things to the "American People" as a whole. 

Well he is the President. Is the media supposed to sit at home and wait till he feels like talking?

 

And if he were more forthright in the beginning it wouldn't be such an ordeal whenever he had to talk to the press.

Edited March 21, 2006 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

The thing is, with the media hounding every time this guy takes a s***, it really does become more difficult to explain things to the "American People" as a whole.  Most don't care enough because it's not "hurting them" unless their family is in Iraq, and therefore wouldn't care to do anything over there.

This is very true. As I stated before, this Prez is by far the most naked in history. And the next guy/gal will be even more scrutinized at every turn. And further, people are less and less willing to look in depth at political issues. They are slaves to the soundbite. There is a whol discussion there about whether the media did that, or technology, or parenting or who knows what... but the end result is a President and other politicians hamstrung by the need to be concise to an extreme.

 

Of course, that all said, many people in this forum DO read more into things. We read speeches, see them on TV in their entirety, watch debates, research things... and in all that research, I still haven't seen Bush come out and illustrate the real reasons. He could have done that (in addition to the soundbite versions), but his administration has chosen to be (IMHO) condescending toward the American public, and stick to the simplified marketing ploys. That marketing, BTW, is I think a lot more of Rove and the GOP machine than it is Bush himself.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yeah, yeah, I agree it's refreshing that GWB has momentarily stepped at least partially out of the reality filtering buble and is actually responding to an unscreened/unscripted question here an there..

 

BUT, you cannot take him at face value when he says he didn't wantt to go to war in Iraq. You can't. All the facts clearly indicate this was NOT a last resort choice like he keeps trying to paint it.

 

Bush appears to be the only person left who believes his own myth that he went to war with Iraq as a last resort. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary:

 

ThinkProgress was nice enough to do the legwork, and this is just a smattering of all that has been documented that contradicts the official 'last resort' party line.:

 

British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003:

 

A memo of a two-hour meeting between [bush and Blair] at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. [Guardian, 2/3/06]

 

British Memo — Bush Had Made Up His In July 2002:

 

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. [Downing Street Minutes, 7/23/02]

 

Bush Suggested War Against Iraq Nine Days After 9/11:

 

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001. [The Observer, 4/4/04]

 

How is any of this indicative of a 'last resort' choice by a reluctant wartime President?? And why are you all giving him a pass on it?

 

And I agree with bmags that "9/11!! El Quaida!! Taliban!! Afghanistan!!. . . " is a complete Chewbacca Defense of the Iraq Invasion.

 

"Here, Look at the Monkey! Look at the Silly Monkey!!"

 

Edited March 21, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[WCSox]

The thing is, with the media hounding every time this guy takes a s***, it really does become more difficult to explain things to the "American People" as a whole.  Most don't care enough because it's not "hurting them" unless their family is in Iraq, and therefore wouldn't care to do anything over there.

 

Unfortunately, I agree with you about many (perhaps even most) Americans not giving a crap because it's not directly affecting them right this minute. I think that Bush could've made a stronger case to us if he would've more strongly-emphasized the "bigger picture." But, like you said, whether or not the American public would care is a another matter.

 

Franly, I'm happy that Bush has dismissed the I-don't-care-it's-not-affecting-me attitude that permeates our society. It's the President's job to do what is right, not what is popular. I'm sure that an American invasion of Afghanistan after the failed al Qaeda attack on the WTC in '93 or the U.S.S. Cole or Khobar Towers bombings wouldn't have gone over well with voters here under the previous administration. And look what happened when the Clinton administration decided that al Qaeda "wasn't our problem." I'll take the President who does what he honestly thinks is right over the one who is preoccupied with what the voters think.

[BigSqwert]

Unfortunately, I agree with you about many (perhaps even most) Americans not giving a crap because it's not directly affecting them right this minute.  I think that Bush could've made a stronger case to us if he would've more strongly-emphasized the "bigger picture."  But, like you said, whether or not the American public would care is a another matter.

 

Franly, I'm happy that Bush has dismissed the I-don't-care-it's-not-affecting-me attitude that permeates our society.  It's the President's job to do what is right, not what is popular.  I'm sure that an American invasion of Afghanistan after the failed al Qaeda attack on the WTC in '93 or the U.S.S. Cole or Khobar Towers bombings wouldn't have gone over well with voters here under the previous administration.  And look what happened when the Clinton administration decided that al Qaeda "wasn't our problem."  I'll take the President who does what he honestly thinks is right over the one who is preoccupied with what the voters think.

heh.. you make me laugh.

[Rex Kickass]

An attack on Afghanistan in 1993 would have been pointless given that Al-Qaeda wasn't there yet.

[mr_genius]

Helen Thomas is a crazy old lady that needs to retire.

[WCSox]

heh.. you make me laugh.

 

:sleep

[WCSox]

An attack on Afghanistan in 1993 would have been pointless given that Al-Qaeda wasn't there yet.

 

I never specifically advocated an attack on Afghanistan in 1993.

 

However, al Qaeda relocated to Afghanistan in 1996 and bombed several U.S. embassies in Africa that summer. Too bad that Clinton was more interested in Monica than bin Laden.

Edited March 21, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sure that an American invasion of Afghanistan after the failed al Qaeda attack on the WTC in '93... wouldn't have gone over well with voters here under the previous administration.

[WCSox]

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word "after."

[zach61]

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word "after."

I'm sure that an American invasion of Afghanistan after the failed al Qaeda attack on the WTC in '93... wouldn't have gone over well with voters here under the previous administration.

 

I don't follow either. How much "after" should we have invaded Afghanistan when al queda bombed the WTC in '93? Was al queda in Afghanistan at that time? Or did someone have a forwarding address for al queda and knew they were heading to Afghanistan? Please explain what you meant by after. Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster:

Function: adverb

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English æfter; akin to Old High German aftar after, and probably to Old English of of

: following in time or place : AFTERWARD, BEHIND, LATER

 

Function: preposition

1 a : behind in place b (1) : subsequent to in time or order (2) : subsequent to and in view of

2 -- used as a function word to indicate the object of a stated or implied action

3 : so as to resemble: as a : in accordance with b : with the name of or a name derived from that of c : in the characteristic manner of d : in imitation of

 

Function: conjunction

: subsequently to the time when

 

Function: adjective

1 : later in time

2 : located toward the rear and especially toward the stern of a ship or tail of an aircraft

 

Function: verbal auxiliary

chiefly Irish -- used with a present participle to indicate action completed and especially just completed

 

Function: noun

: AFTERNOON

[WCSox]

I don't follow either. How much "after" should we have invaded Afghanistan when al queda bombed the WTC in '93?

 

How about in 1996, when the Taliban took over and many of the major al Qaeda figures lived with them?