# 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:** 5
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/81 "2005-10-14T22:09:44Z")
Couple more links: [Iraqi war not justified says UN Inspector Blix](http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/) > [@](#): > > Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as “shaky,” and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. > > " **I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.** [USA Today- “Iraq had no WMD after 1994”](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm) > [@](#): > > But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings: > > Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was dormant. > > No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/82 "2005-10-14T22:12:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? 1. The Iraq war can only be defined on where the timeline is: Before the war: it is clear now that saying that Al-queda was an ally of Saddam was a lie, (the best that could be said was that one Al-qeada leader had a terror camp in Iraq, but it was on a territory Saddam had little control of, and there is evidence that Bush did not blow up the camp because it would weaken the reason to go to war. On light of the Plame affair, the WMD ruse was a lie. There was evidence published in the New Yorker that torture was one of the bits of eventually discredited evidence that took us into Iraq too. What it means is this: before the war, the Iraq war was not part of the war against terror. It was sold to us based on lies (some of them obtained via torture). After the war: the only relation to the war against terror I see is that we opened an unnecessary second front, With Saddam gone\*, Iran and Al-qaeda got in. and with our presence we are allowing Iraq to become a worse and bigger terror training camp. What Bush is doing in Iraq is to follow the example of El Salvador, so I do have personal experience on what the total victory standard is for Iraq: a cleptocracy. Just sowing the seeds for more injustice and unrest in the future. 2: The war on terror I prefer TWAT, thank you. 🙂 The war against terror was indeed in Afghanistan, we indeed took the war to the perpetrators of 9/11… and Bush failed to capture the leaders. Capturing or killing the leaders was indeed, regardless of what the idiot in the White House said, also a police matter. 3: The broader war on terror needs to be a Carrot and stick endeavor, this administration is just the stick. I do think the war in Iraq is draining resources that should be used to control and find the terrorist elsewhere. The current situation is creating more terrorists than before. \*Here it has to be mentioned that we could still have pulled out a Haiti maneuver and got Saddam out of the picture, we then could have controlled the nation with the current power structure, (we could still have eventually arrested the perpetrators of crimes against humanity). But then again, we could not have secured the oil ministry then, invasion was necessary. :dubious: ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/83 "2005-10-14T22:21:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you honestly think that they didn’t listen to counter arguments? That they were unaware of them? That they didn’t weigh them? Sure, they listened. But based on ALL the information they had they gave more credence to some parts of it than others. Now you might say that you don’t agree with their assessment and final decision, but that is hardly “not listening”. And please keep in mind regarding the WMDs, the vast majority of the intelligence world believed them to be there. Even the U.N., Germany, France, Great Britain, Hans Blix, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and many, many more. IIRC the Germans and French wanted to give another 60-90 days for inspections. And many many more? You make it seem like it was unanimous, which is total bullshit. How about admitting that The UN (which we don’t need anymore right?) and “old Europe” were right in dragging their feet. I’ve also yet to see anyone say that those who claimed SH had no WMD prewar were right. Want to be the first? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/84 "2005-10-14T22:22:28Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Yes, I honestly think they did not listen to counter arguments. Bush had decided to invade Iraq even before the 2000 election. Bush is the last person on earth to listen to others’ opinions. This is the man that screened his crowds at every campaign rally to make sure that each person in the crowd loved him. Hans Blix and Bill Clinton may have believed the WMDs to be there, but they didn’t invade. Blix would have found them not to be there if he had time to finish the inspections, but Bushie Boy couldn’t wait. He had to avenge Daddy, facts be damned. Blix already found them not to be there by inspecting the places where US intelligence (read, the Iraqi exiles ripping us off) said they were. Whether anyone ever told Bush they weren’t found is up in the air. After all, the guy who didn’t know people were dying in New Orleans without an aide making a special DVD might believe anything. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/85 "2005-10-14T22:25:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you honestly think that they didn’t listen to counter arguments? That they were unaware of them? That they didn’t weigh them? Sure, they listened. But based on ALL the information they had they gave more credence to some parts of it than others. Now you might say that you don’t agree with their assessment and final decision, but that is hardly “not listening”. [Ahem](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6687131) > [@](#): > > A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq. > > Policymakers worried more about making the case for the war, particularly the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than planning for the aftermath, the report says. The report was written by a team of four former CIA analysts led by former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr. > > “In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right,” they write. It certainly sounds like they already had their minds made up. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/86 "2005-10-14T22:27:18Z")
I remember a right-wing friend telling me withen a week of Sept.11 that Iraq might be invovled. No doubt he got the idea in his head because of [this](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/87 "2005-10-15T00:51:54Z")
> [@Maus Magill](#): > > 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. It has been that way, and it will continue to be that way. It’s part of being a good Amurrican now. Makes ya sick, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/88 "2005-10-15T00:59:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Me too, and no apologies either. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/89 "2005-10-15T01:07:33Z")
Part of the problem is with the malapropism created when “war” in “War on Terror” is apparently taken to mean something comparable to a literal declaration of war, for instance as it was declared by the U.S. on Germany and Japan in 1941. But, yeah, _now_ terrorists and their organizations have infested Iraq, so _now_ it must be considered part of the mission of the U.S. in opposing terrorists and terrorist organizations. I think **John Mace** hit the nail on the head. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/90 "2005-10-15T01:14:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? So you’ve resorted to basing your main argument on vocabular semantics? Amazing! That’s the same thing the administration is doing! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/91 "2005-10-15T01:36:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > It is the view of the administration that Iraq is part of “The War on Terror.” > . At least that is what the administration keeps feeding us and is trying desperatly to sell. I doubt that is actually their view at all. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/92 "2005-10-15T01:47:22Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > 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. Bush is still peddling the same stories and alibis and evasions, even now that the facts (at least for the reality based people) are in. So, it is NOT ignorance at this point, it is a deliberate bunch of lies. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/93 "2005-10-15T01:57:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The Valerie Plame affair of “let us discredit the guys who are telling us we are wrong on the yellow cake” points to a conspiracy to control that intelligence to then justify going to war. > > It was worse than a lie, it was criminal IMO. That is why Libby and Rove keep getting “invites” to the grand jury. Even if it turns out they legally skated around the law without breaking it, it’s still despicable. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/94 "2005-10-15T02:24:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by 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. Let’s forget how or why we went there. If this administration knows the efforts in Iraq are not working today and are ineffective in fighting the war on terror and are still promoting it to save face and to line the pockets of their buddies getting rich over there, {see Vietnam} then it definately is **NOT** part of their war on terror simply because they continue to lie about it. Telling a lie and knowing that you’re lieing is \*\*NOT \*\* defining your own terms …It’s **Lying** Perhaps you are one of the rapidly dwindling species who believes this administration. Fine, no hard feelings. Please don’t call other people loons for not being as gullible as you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/95 "2005-10-15T02:24:20Z")
This semantic stuff gets kinda difficult, since the vocabulary is flexible. Which is necessary, I suppose, since the histories they are supposed to explain are fluid. Like the “WMD” semantic shift. First it was “nuke” this, and “nuke” that. Saddam’s gonna nuke yo mamma! Got 'em right now! Or he will tomorrow morning, same difference. As this became increasingly implausible, nukes were lumped into “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. The _broader_ category, the class of weapons that included the set of nuclear weapons, but not limited to. Pretty soon, they forgot they ever even mentioned “nuke”. We were at war with WMD. We’ve always been at war with WMD. A “broader” war, if you will. The War on Terror was about killing and/or neutralizing the terrorist _that attacked us_. Now its about killing and/or neutralizing the insurg…terrorists in Iraq, who are attacking us because we are in Iraq. Killing the terrorists who are attacking us. In Iraq. The “broader” War on Terror. Semantic shifts, very tricky. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/96 "2005-10-15T02:47:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. So, **John** , what’s it like being an America Hater? Are you yet feeling the urge for sodomy and flag burning? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/97 "2005-10-15T04:52:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? I see no distinction between 2 and 3, unless 1 and 2 are the same (not “#1 is part of #2,” “1 = 2.”). Seems to me that McClellan was trying to say she is opposed to the non-Iraq part of the War on Terror based on her opposition to the Iraq part of it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/98 "2005-10-15T05:46:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you honestly think that they didn’t listen to counter arguments? That they were unaware of them? That they didn’t weigh them? Sure, they listened. But based on ALL the information they had they gave more credence to some parts of it than others. Now you might say that you don’t agree with their assessment and final decision, but that is hardly “not listening”. And please keep in mind regarding the WMDs, the vast majority of the intelligence world believed them to be there. Even the U.N., Germany, France, Great Britain, Hans Blix, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and many, many more. The Bushg administration created the ““intelligence” that supported their views. The Office of Special Projects was created in the Department of Defense (so as to avoid oversight by the CIA, the NSA, and other professional intelligence outfits) while being held separate from the actual military intelligence community (thus allowing direct supervision by Wolfowitz without interference from the actual military intelligence community) for the express purpose of finding “facts” to condemn Iraq. Any time there was conflicting information, the OSP always claimed that Iraq was “guilty” even/especially when the CIA or other groups raised objections. This ersatz “intelligence” corps simply provided the administration with “plausible deniabilty” when the OSP provided the lies needed to make it look as though there was actual “intelligence” incriminating Iraq. Creating a phony intelligence” group to provide the desired answers constitutes a lie in my book. As to the other people and nations who thought that Iraq might have had WMD, it is pertinent to note that the expressions of belief from those people and organizations all occurred in the 1990s when Hussein was actively stonewalling the inspectionm process. Once the UIN investigation teams went back in (after removing the U.S. spies from their rolls), they discovered less and less evidence of any WMDs and before Bush began beating the war drum they had nearly all recognized that Hussein had puilled a major bluff. By the time of our contrived invasion, no serious student of the region believed that Hussein had any actual WMD or delivery systems. The invasion was based on lies used to cover legitimate intelligence, not on faulty intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/99 "2005-10-15T07:40:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > This semantic stuff gets kinda difficult, since the vocabulary is flexible. Which is necessary, I suppose, since the histories they are supposed to explain are fluid. > > Like the “WMD” semantic shift. First it was “nuke” this, and “nuke” that. Saddam’s gonna nuke yo mamma! Got 'em right now! Or he will tomorrow morning, same difference. > > As this became increasingly implausible, nukes were lumped into “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. The _broader_ category, the class of weapons that included the set of nuclear weapons, but not limited to. Pretty soon, they forgot they ever even mentioned “nuke”. We were at war with WMD. We’ve always been at war with WMD. > > A “broader” war, if you will. > > The War on Terror was about killing and/or neutralizing the terrorist _that attacked us_. Now its about killing and/or neutralizing the insurg…terrorists in Iraq, who are attacking us because we are in Iraq. Killing the terrorists who are attacking us. In Iraq. > > The “broader” War on Terror. Semantic shifts, very tricky. Ah, I see: the US didn’t invade Iraq in order to fight terrorists, it has to fight terrorists because it invaded Iraq. The way this is bent into a justification for the U.S. presence in Iraq would make M.C. Escher take a Dramamine and have a nice liedown. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240/100 "2005-10-15T07:57:23Z")
> [@](#): > > **CIA Report, as quoted by ArchiveGuy** : : …the policy community…apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right. I remember cultural experts commenting on this great oversight _while it was first happening_ and I think it relates to Tom’s comment in that they illustrate a sort of choreography and set design in intelligence matters: > [@](#): > > **Tomndebb** : By the time of our contrived invasion, no serious student of the region believed that Hussein had any actual WMD or delivery systems. Meanwhile, in three years we’ve gone from “The War in Iraq” to “The Broader War on Terror” and even this one that makes me shudder: “a global war against terrorism”: > [@](#): > > **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. Is this terminology being used by the Bush Administration now? Is the President admitting that he has taken us into a world war? Or is he _implying_ it for some reason? Whiskey. Tango. Oh Fuck. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-mcclellan-says-helen-thomas-opposes-war-on-terrorism/326240.md?page=6)