Helen Thomas asks tough questions.
Q (Helen Thomas): At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.
Q: My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends —
Q: They’re not attacking you.
MR. FLEISCHER: — from a country —
Q: Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?
MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein’s aggression then.
Q: Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?
Hoorah for Helen! Go git ‘im!
Did you hear about this in traditional, mainstream media? CNN? Fox? Anyone? It’s sad that the bubbly fluff that gets spit out of the tube and into print is never this interesting. And is poor old Helen Thomas the only one in the White House press corps trying to light a fire under the President’s ass?
(found via EastWest, Cursor and Bloggy — I need to get Trackback up and running)
I think you’re missing the point. Helen Thomas is supposed to be an objective journalist. Instead she’s debating policy in a public forum.
Secondly, she’s making a fool of herself. Does anyone actually believe the Bush Administration’s aim is to maximize the number Iraqi citizens killed? Does that really make sense to anyone? This sort of superficial thinking is what discredits the entire anti-war movement if there is such a thing.
Iraq is a tough call. Everyone wants peace . . . but at what cost? Do you have to tolerate an aggressive police state that murders opponants and rapes the wives of dissidents (videotapes are conveniently made available to next of kin). Do you wait for such a regime to acquire the power to deter international opposition they way North Korea has? And then what . . . wait some more?
If peace, justice, tolerance, and human rights are important . . . when are they worth fighting for?
Thanks for the comments, Murphy. First, I have to admit that this was a bit of a flippant post. You’ve brought up some good points in response.
Thomas’ comments weren’t the most objective, but I appreciate that someone — however clumsily — is trying to point out the shortcomings and inconsistencies of not only the Bush administration’s policies, but of the President’s bully rhetoric. If only clearer and more aggressive heads were to be found in the White House press corps pushing for better answers. (The objectivity of modern journalism is an issue worthy of many an extended discussion.)
While I don’t seriously believe the Bush administration wants to see Iraqi civilian casualties, there seems to be a double-standard present in terms of worth given to different civilian populations. It was disturbing to see Ari Fleischer parse the President’s comments deploring the death of innocents to only apply to Israelis.
As to when civilized values are worth fighting for, it’s a difficult question, of course. Both Iraq and North Korea pose serious dangers and challenges to the world. But the Bush administration so far has been something of a bull in a china shop in terms of dealing with these dangers. We’re starting to see some of the drawbacks to Bush’s swaggering foreign policy in the current dust-up with North Korea.
Going to war with Iraq is something of a big gamble. If it goes well, the world could be a better place. If it doesn’t go well, we could be worse off than we are now. The Bush administration has decided war is worth the risks. Other Americans, myself included, are not convinced this is the right move at this time. Plus, there’s this question: If we’re going to save the Iraqis, when are we going to do the same for the rest of the oppressed and tortured citizens of the world? If we’re going to frame this as a moral argument, don’t we have a responsibility to act wherever peace, justice, tolerance and human rights are abused? I don’t think the Bush administration has much interest in using force as a means of liberating people in other parts of the world. Time could prove me wrong, of course. In the meantime, it’s best for all Americans to be asking whether our leaders are leading us in the right direction.
You may not like the tactics Bush has used but look at the results so far:
1) US pressure has basically shamed the UN into forcing Iraq to respect its resulutions and readmit weapons inspectors.
2) The violations of the Agreed Framework with North Korea have been exposed and the DPRK has admitted it had subverted the Agreement from its earliest days.
3) The loose confederation of Islomafacist terror organizations that flourished for the past decade has been exposed and routed.
4) One of the worst human rights abusing regimes, The Taliban, has been overthrown and replaced with a more democractic government.
This was all accomplished without unleashing random and indiscriminate military force. Indeed, the US Defense Department must surely be the only military power in history to devote so much of its resources to developing weapons that hit their targets and spare innocents.
Bush’s reputation as a shoot from the hip cowboy is hardly supported by events. But that’s OK. The reason he’s been so successful diplomatically is that that people (like Saddam) and organizations (like the UN and EU) believe the image rather than the reality. He’s close to achieving his goals without firing a shot . . . and I’m all in favor of that.
Why doesn’t Bush seek peace and justice everywhere rather just in Iraq and North Korea . . . priorities I would guess. Of course, if you’re saying the US should not act unless it acts consistently and simultaneously all over the world then that is simply a cop out. It’s a lot easier to talk about human rights than it is to do something about them.
As for Israel all I can say is that Hamas deliberately targets civilians, the IDF does not. A rather significant difference.
\bravo to Helen Thomas. You are absolutely right. GW is a disgrace and his stolen presidency a disaster. I fear for our country. GW may think he is right up there with God but I believe God is up there shaking His head in total disbelief! I pray for our country. It is in chaos now with a looming War and a totally failing economy. Keep telling it like it is, Helen. God bless you.