# Scott McClellan Says Helen Thomas Opposes 'War on Terrorism' **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 14, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240 "2005-10-14T16:39:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/41 "2005-10-14T19:50:01Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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’s only a center of terrorism because we made it that way; by your logic, we should invade ourselves. > [@Debaser](#): > > It’s simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. No it’s not. Bush and friends have never treated the “War on Terror” as anything other than a political tool; they have not hesitated to ignore or sabotage it when politically convenient. They obviously aren’t seriously trying to stop terrorism. Given how they use it ( especially 9-11 ) as a political prop, I expect the Bushites are actually rooting for Al-Quaeda to manage another dramatic strike in America. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/42 "2005-10-14T19:52:59Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > I’m confused. When did they said that the war in Iraq doesn’t exist? We didn’t. But he’s on a roll. > [@](#): > > Anyone who questions that is accused of being unpatriotic or aiding the terrorists. And it sickens me. Including Helen Thomas, which is just laughable. She loves this country more than quite a few of the morons she interviews. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/43 "2005-10-14T19:56:39Z")
Oh, come on now. The White House spokesman said Helen Thomas is opposed to the **broader** war on terrorism. He didn’t say that she supports Osama bin Laden, he didn’t say she hates America, he didn’t say she’s a nutjob reporter far past her prime. Helen Thomas has been asking tough questions of the White House – there’s some questions that are probably more on the lines of harassment of a White House flak than of trying to pry news out of him – and good on her. But the idea that a spinmeister in Washington DC can’t ever lay gloves on a reporter in a little verbal repartee is pretty fucking stupid. As far as politics goes, this barb doesn’t even rate a bloody nose. In other news, various press secretaries in the White House have been openly making fun of nutjob journalist [Les Kinsolving](http://www.leskinsolving.com/whitehouse.html) for many years, and yet there’s no pit threads about that “unfair” treatment of another journalist. For the record, I view the war on terrorism as being the war on Al Qaeda. If the Administration wants to say that the “broader war on terrorism” includes things like the war in Iraq; unprovoked, preventive war; or interrogation techniques that cross the line into torture, then sign me up right below Helen Thomas on those that oppose the broader war on terrorism. It seems quite evident to me that the phrase “broader war on terrorism” as Scott McClellan used it encompasses all of these damned fool things that have nothing to do with actually making our country safer, and I’ll damned well be proud of wearing that opposition on my sleeve. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/44 "2005-10-14T19:58:05Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Even better if it manages to stop a few of our troops from dying for that lie. And what would that lie be? Please be specific. > [@Maureen](#): > > Thank you so much for [proving my point.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6682609&postcount=82) You know, I knew as I ws hitting the submit button that someone would cry “foul”. But there was a larger point being made. It was not about what Clinton _did_, but about the libs’ reaction to it. Surely, you can see the difference. Then again, probably not. :rolleyes: > [@Maureen](#): > > So tell me. Would you not agree that lying to Congress and getting 2,000 members of the U.S. military is a far more serious lie than whether or not you got blown in the office? And if so, when will we see your outraged letter to your congressman demanding Bush’s impeachment? Again, what would the lies be? Specifically. And not that it matters, I have complained to congressmern—and The White House—about Bush (who I am no fan of and never voted for). Just not about imaginary lies. You might want to read **furt’s** posts in this thread over again. He has it exactly right. It is completely possible to be against the war, hate Bush, and for his posts to be 100% correct. Can you not see that? Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/45 "2005-10-14T20:04:28Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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. So if we withdraw from Iraq, are we running from the terrorists? Does this mean that the majority of Americans want to run from the terrorists? Does this mean that the majority of Americans think it was a bad idea to fight the war on terror? Why do the majority of Americans hate America? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/46 "2005-10-14T20:06:12Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 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. “It is the view of SCO that Unix is part of Linux.” “It is the view of the Catholic Church that homosexual behavior is sinful” Do I smell cows? Is there a farm nearby? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/47 "2005-10-14T20:07:13Z")
You can’t even think of one lie? There are so many to choose from the hard part is starting. [Read ‘n’ learn](http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm). [A broader list](http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm). [Horse, meet water](http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm). [This is good, too](http://www.bushlies.com/), but [this is more succinct](http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/). This is all news to you? What planet have you been living on? [Get a brain, moran](http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=001020;p=1). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/48 "2005-10-14T20:11:14Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Bush and friends have never treated the “War on Terror” as anything other than a political tool; they have not hesitated to ignore or sabotage it when politically convenient. They obviously aren’t seriously trying to stop terrorism. Given how they use it ( especially 9-11 ) as a political prop, I expect the Bushites are actually rooting for Al-Quaeda to manage another dramatic strike in America. WOW! Cindy, you better step it up, you’ve got competition. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/49 "2005-10-14T20:14:01Z")
Oh, my. Where to start? Do you want them by term, alphabetically, or in order of importance? 1. We never had any proof that Saddam had WMD. That was a lie. The “yellow cake uranium letter” was a fabrication. Cheney lied to congress. Bush lied the country. 2. Saddam didn’t have WMD. No. He really, really didn’t. He wasn’t hiding them in milk factories, and to date we have found precisely 6 rusted shell casings that may, at one time, have contained biological weapons that we sold him. 3. Bush never gave a good god damn about OBL. No, really. He doesn’t. He even came out and said so after we were committed to that drain called Afghanistan. Christ, do you honestly think the Soviet Union couldn’t have spent all their money and time and resources there if they really wanted to? They just weren’t that stupid. 4. He lied to the country about nailling the assholes responsible for 9/11. He hasn’t run them to the ground, and I for one want them nailed. It was one of the few things I supported his silly ass on. 5. He lied when he said that he would fire anyone who would give up a government operative in the field. 6. He lied about his service record. …really, how long have you got? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/50 "2005-10-14T20:16:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Oh, come on now. The White House spokesman said Helen Thomas is opposed to the **broader** war on terrorism. I answered this, but if you disagree, it ought to be easy to resolve. Tell me this: what does “the broader war on terrorism” mean, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/51 "2005-10-14T20:18:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I answered this, but if you disagree, it ought to be easy to resolve. Tell me this: what does “the broader war on terrorism” mean, exactly? Anything Bush wants it to mean, even if it contradicts what he said yesterday or last week. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/52 "2005-10-14T20:32:47Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Anything Bush wants it to mean, even if it contradicts what he said yesterday or last week. That’s the crux of the problem, and the crux of why we’re _losing this fight_. We need to set realistic goals for success. Saying “We will prevail in this war on terror” is not realistic by a long shot, and by saying this, they’re giving people false expectations that this indeed will happen. The war on terror is some vague bullshit term, and _we’re only fooling ourselves_ in assigning such an ambigous phrase to such an important mission. Call it what it is, the war against Al Qaeda. At least defeating them is tangible. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/53 "2005-10-14T20:34:00Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ve come to hold a theory on this. A theory? Is that what they’re calling that stuff that comes out of your ass now? > [@Debaser](#): > > 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. If you seriously believe that Helen Thomas’s level of credibility places her on a level with Ann Coulter, you must be on crack or something. Sure, she is opposed to many of the actions of this administration, but at least her opposition is based on some basic knowledge, evidence, and analysis. Excuse me, i’m going to the bathroom to take a “theory.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/54 "2005-10-14T20:42:39Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Oh, my. Where to start? Do you want them by term, alphabetically, or in order of importance? How about the one you mentioned alluded to here: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Maureen > Even better if it manages to stop a few of our troops from dying for that lie. Surely, this hijack will change no one’s mind. But I’ll just address these few. > [@](#): > > 1. We never had any proof that Saddam had WMD. That was a lie. The “yellow cake uranium letter” was a fabrication. Cheney lied to congress. Bush lied the country. > > 2. Saddam didn’t have WMD. No. He really, really didn’t. He wasn’t hiding them in milk factories, and to date we have found precisely 6 rusted shell casings that may, at one time, have contained biological weapons that we sold him. Oh, I see. Intelligence that turns out to be wrong = lie. Okay. > [@](#): > > 1. Bush never gave a good god damn about OBL. Not sure what the “lie” is. But it must be nice to be able to read minds. > [@](#): > > 1. He lied to the country about nailling the assholes responsible for 9/11. He hasn’t run them to the ground, and I for one want them nailed. It was one of the few things I supported his silly ass on. I can only assume you are referring to his claim that he was going to do that. In which case I guess you are referring top OBL specifically. Well, he’s one person. You might think it is wise to devote the entire military of the U.S., or some great part of it, to achieve this one goal, a few military strategists might disagree. Do you deny that the vast majority of his organization has been pummeled and blown to shit? > [@](#): > > 1. He lied when he said that he would fire anyone who would give up a government operative in the field. You do know that there is an investigation going on, right? You do know that no one knows all the facts yet, right? Or do the facts and the whole innocent until proven guilty thing not matter when it comes to those you dislike? > [@](#): > > 1. He lied about his service record. Nice decalration from you. But you haven’t told me what this lie is. Look, this will be a fruitless effort for both you and I. Basically we disagree on what the word “lie” means. There have been other threads on this. You are, of course free to start another one, but let’s keep this thread on topic. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/55 "2005-10-14T20:45:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, I see. Intelligence that turns out to be wrong = lie. Okay. No. Stating an un-truth as truth is a lie. Stating that untruth to congress when asking for a declaration of war is a contemptible lie that gets people killed. Twist it as many different ways as you’d like. It’s still a lie. Thanks for playing jingo with us, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/56 "2005-10-14T20:49:43Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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? Yeah, let’s stop pretending that the administration believes in a free press. (Yep, really making them look good here **Debaser** ) > [@](#): > > 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. Let us see who is reasonable here: [http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/4930647/detail.html](http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/4930647/detail.html) > [@](#): > > THOMAS What does the President mean by “total victory” – that we will never leave Iraq until we have “total victory”? What does that mean? > > McCLELLAN: Free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, because a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions – > > THOMAS If they ask us to leave, then we’ll leave? > > MR. McCLELLAN: I’m trying to respond. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the broader Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions of al Qaeda and their terrorist associates. They want to establish or impose their rule over the broader Middle East – we saw that in the Zawahiri letter that was released earlier this week by the intelligence community. I have ignored Al-qaeda’s cries that the letter is a forgery, but I remember seeing an analysis on the greetings that puts in doubt that Zarwahiri made the letter (IIRC the religious greetings were wrong for the kind of fellow Zarwahiri is), knowing the location, we should not forget that convenient letters appeared before that then supported what Bush said regarding the close relationship with Saddam and Al-qaeda, only for the letters to turn to be fakes later… Yes, after all that, I don’t thrust the intelligence that gave us this letter. > [@](#): > > THOMAS They also know we invaded Iraq. > > McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, the President recognizes that we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And when you’re engaged in a war, it’s not always pleasant, and it’s certainly a last resort. But when you engage in a war, you take the fight to the enemy, you go on the offense. And that’s exactly what we are doing. We are fighting them there so that we don’t have to fight them here. September 11th taught us – > > THOMAS It has nothing to do with – Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. > > McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I’m sure you’re opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter. > [@Debaser](#): > > She makes her side look bad. After years of seeing the evidence, it is your side that is unreasonable. After years of ignoring the evidence, one can indeed say that it is now a big lie to continue equivocating the Iraq war with the war against terror. > [@](#): > > 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. I learned from \*\*december \*\* that being polite while polishing a turd, does not mean you will make it shine. > [@](#): > > 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. Yep, the Kool aid is very tasty. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@Shakespeare](#): > > [Your] brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage. Here is Thomas on what she really is against: [http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/4930647/detail.html](http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/4930647/detail.html) > [@Hellen thomas](#): > > After the U.S. triumph in Afghanistan, Bush should have devoted his attention to hunting down bin Laden and bolstering U.S. security at home. Instead, he and his neo-conservative advisers saw bigger game in attacking Iraq. He once boasted that he wanted to be known as a “war president.” THE WHOLE WORLD does see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, it was reported recently that French troops got close to catching Osama in Afghanistan. The only conclusion I get from this exchange in the white house, is that this administration still expects that pea brains (a minority now in the USA) will continue to support the equivocation of Afghanistan=Iraq on the war against terror, can your simple brain don’t see the difference when even last month soldiers from Spain continued to die in Afghanistan because they do see the difference? And they and the French continue fighting the war against terror; Only Bush (and the shrinking coalition of the willing) continues the dishonorable deception regarding Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/57 "2005-10-14T20:52:07Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > No. Stating an un-truth as truth is a lie. No. Stating an un-truth as a truth is to be mistaken. Stating _what you know to be_ an untruth as a truth is a lie. Now, when you made the statement to me that I just quoted, were you lying, or simply mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/58 "2005-10-14T20:56:43Z")
And when did you stop beating YOUR wife? An untruth is a lie. Does it make it more true just because you believe it to be? I know plenty of people would very dearly like to believe that’s the case. It isn’t, though. A lie is a lie is a lie. Or, as my father the cop was so fond of saying “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Dubya’s ignorance of that lie is no excuse for all the people who’ve wound up dead because of it. And how much worse for them that they died for a lie. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/59 "2005-10-14T20:57:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, I see. Intelligence that turns out to be wrong = lie. Okay. Well if what had happened was that you had these 4 reports all saying “he’s got WMD” and **only** that, _then_ found out that it wasn’t true, then you’d have a point. However, the sequence wasn’t nearly that. There were many disclaimers, many questions, many, many refutations (yellow cake anyone?) that suggested that the report making the claim wasn’t necessarily true. And yet, it (and only that) was presented _as the truth_ - I believe some words like “Slam dunk” were used. Props were used Colin Powell w/satelitte photos “We know these things are here, here and here”. No, they didn’t “know” stuff was here, here and here. As a matter of fact since their attack plan _failed to include any fucking attempt to protect/guard/safeguard those sites during their march to Bagdad_, I’d say that was evidence that they “knew” it was **false**. If they “knew” the stuff was there (and even if they only really, really strongly suspected it), it was criminally stupid to not plan to safeguard those sites. They did, in fact, fail to safeguard those sites. So, either they **knew** the claim was untrue, or they simply didn’t give a shit about the potential for the WMD stuff to fall into enemy hands. (which of course was one of the original claims to justify the invasion). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/60 "2005-10-14T21:00:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > After years of ignoring the evidence, one can indeed say that it is now a big lie to continue equivocating the Iraq war with the war against terror. I don’t get what you’re saying. Are you saying that there is no (broader) war on terror? Or that Iraq is not part of that effort? Maybe it would help to define some terms. How would you define: 1. The Iraq War (well, that one is self-explanatory) 2. The War on Terror 3. The broader War on Terror Do you see a distinction between 2 and 3? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240.md?page=4)