Scott McClellan Says Helen Thomas Opposes 'War on Terrorism'

From Editor & Publisher:

Really, I thought we moved past this. Have we gone really back to trying to cow journalists by accusing them of being unpatriotic?

As evidenced by Terry Morgan’s follow up, it looks like the press is no longer afeared of being again’ us.

It sure is entertaining watching the White House implode. These guys couldn’t organize a two float parade. Browbeating Helen Thomas isn’t going to win any friends.

I’m opposed to the war on terrorism, in as much as it appears to be overseen by a squad of psychotic howler monkeys.

It is the view of the administration that Iraq is part of “The War on Terror.”

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; it’s their terminology and they have a right to define thier own terms. They have repeatedly made it clear how they see the War in Iraq as addressing the issue of terrorism. Stomping one’s feet and screaming that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 simply shows that one fails to grasp the claim the other person is making.

“The broader war on terrorism” (note the modifier) includes Iraq; Helen Thomas opposes that, just as I oppose the “War on Drugs” as an asinine idea. I don’t worry that people will infer that I support giving children crack, and I don’t think she should worry that people will infer that she supports terrorism.

IOW they can keep lying all they want to and you won’t see anything wrong. The rest of us think being in the “reality based community” is actually important.

Bollocks. You went back to the Kool-Aid table for seconds, didn’t you?

No, she shouldn’t, but not because of a difference in terminology; she needn’t worry about it’s being believed because it’s such a pathetic lie.

Then the administration needs glasses.

I wager it has been some time since Helen Thomas stomped her feet and I rather doubt she did this time either. The White House says they believe Iraq is part of The War Against Terror. They can say that but it doesn’t make it true. Helen simply called them on a lie and he reacted like a second grader.

The White House has asserted that folks who question the war in Iraq are monkey fuckers. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; it’s their terminology and they have a right to define thier own terms.

Been following their advertising, have you, furt?

Helen Thomas opposes the Iraq war. It’s McClellan’s extrapolation that this means she opposes “the broader war on terrorism.” His job is not to tell anyone what she thinks; he’s just taking a shot at her because Thomas and this administration have never gotten along. I’m glad the other reporter noted that the remark was “odd.”

Kool Aid! Kool Aid! Tastes great!
Wish we had some! Can’t wait!

For a long time I didn’t understand why Helen Thomas was tolerated by the Bush administration. Why don’t they just refuse to answer her questions? Why not simply kick her out of the white house press pool and be done with her?

I’ve come to hold a theory on this. Having her ask questions of a Republican administration is akin to having Ann Coulter ask questions of a Democratic one. She’s outright hostile and rude towards them. They obviously know this, yet they keep her around. I think it’s because they feel she helps them. She spits out a question that’s obviously baited and filled with hatred that another more reasonable reporter might have asked in a more sensible way. No reasonable, moderate viewer would ever side with her. She makes her side look bad.

A reporter asking simliar questions with similar intent would actually be much more effective than her if he just behaved properly. It’s for this reason that I think they keep her around. Even in the transcript. She’s being rude and argumentative with her interuptions of McClellan, yet he remains polite and civil to her. Having her on the attack makes him look good. She adds value for the administration in the same way that Al Sharpton added value to Kerry’s run for the presidency.

Oh, and specifically regarding the OP: Thomas is against the war on terror and admits it in the article, so I hardly see what the fuss is to mention it.

I can’t get the link to work-- I get a “no data” message. Is there another link to the story?

Works fine here, John. Ah, well, the words in the press conference are all public domain (I assume), so here’s a cut’n’paste job:

debaser, where do you get that she’s opposed to the war on terror, not the war on Iraq? From the same cup of Kool-Aid?

A lie that no one has stated. Or did I miss it? What might the “it” in your statement refer to?

So, over the past few years we’ve moved from a lie being an an untruth spoken when it is known to be such, to an incorrect statement that is later proved to be false, and now, to a non statement that no one ever said.

Now I understand what they mean by a progressive agenda.

Lets posit that in the wake of a police-brutality case, there are massive race riots. The president creates a comprehensive race-relations plan and calls it “Healing America.” A major part of that plan involves expanding affirmative action as a means of addressing what they see as the root causes of the riots. Let us further posit that I oppose that plan, in large part because I say the race riots had nothing to do with minorities not getting jobs.

The president, IMO, would be entirely correct to say that I oppose “Healing America.”

Yes, there is a slight unfairness in the use of the language, in the way it makes it sound like I favor keeping America sick; but that’s politics. It’s the same as “pro-choice,” “pro-life” and all the rest. Or, for that matter, claiming that only those with a specific political affiliation are “reality-based.”

The admin has chosen to call their foreign policy a “War on Terror” – the term is often put in capitals or quotes – and Helen Thomas opposes it.

The thing that gets me - and why I was moved to post a Pit OP - is that I thought we were through with this whole “if you dare question us, then you’re with the terrorists” bullshit.

The inference is that one who is opposed to the “broader war on terrorism” indeed supports terrorism. This from an administration that says “you’re either on our side or the terrorists’ side.”

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

It’s funny that some of you guys still don’t get this.

It is NOW. But it was only, at most, marginally related to the WoT before we invaded. And I’m being very generous for saying “marginally”. I strong case could be made that it wasn’t the least bit a part of the WoT.

Bush needs to get rid of Scotty. That guy reminds me of the dumb guy we all had in class who was always trying to bullshit his way thru things. He just isn’t very bright, and it show.