God Bless Helen Thomas!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 08:46 AM
link   
The White House Press Corps only holder of a set of balls just happens to be a woman! Here is an exchange between Helen, who writes for the Hearst papers, and that scum-O-the-Earth Minister of Propaganda, Ari Fleisher:


MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon and happy New Year to everybody. The President began his day with an intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. Then he had a series of policy briefings. And this afternoon, the President will look forward to a Cabinet meeting where the President will discuss with members of his Cabinet his agenda for the year. The President is going to focus on economic growth, making America a more compassionate country, and providing for the security of our nation abroad and on the homefront.

And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions. Helen.

Q 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?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.

Q Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.

Q And he thinks they are a threat to us?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Q The Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --

Q So they will be vulnerable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --

Q That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown.

Q I think many countries don't have -- people don't have the decision -- including us.

www.whitehouse.gov...




posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The truth is no one is "innocent" to these people in government ....they want one thing...complete domination. First of all, why did they hold of killing Saddam? The stupid excuses just go to prove that there some underlying truths to their lies. This is just like Roswell...conspiracy followed by a big fat lie. Our government has not only been waging war (killing innocent people) in Iraq for 11 yrs but what of Afghanistan, palestine, pakistan, etcc..... if they dont have a special interest, too bad, those people are not considered to be innocent.
--Orion



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Orion Sirus YOU get the moron award actually....We held off from taking saddam in the first war because of a little thing called the UN and we still respect that little thing which is why we haven't gone in now.

There is no lie.

This damned article is no different than any liberally biased bullhunkey.

That stupid Helen is twisting the words of any good meaning people to make it seem like they are bad.

This is outrageous.....look at Afghanistan, the same liberal fags said we were going in out of Imperialism and what did we do? We gave them freedom and peace and nothing more.

We don't own anything, we haven't taken any land, it is all theirs in a new found second most democratic middle eastern nation there is...though technically they really aren't the middle east, but as far as Islam goes they are the only democracy, and as far as Israel goes israel still is more democratic.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 9-1-2003 by FreeMason]



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Wow! Talk about being a flaming reactionary! Mason, that's no article, it's copied from the WhitHouse official transcript....how in blue blazes is that a 'liberal bias'!?!?!

In Afganistan: we cleared for the pipeline and secured ONLY the capital city of Kabul; everything else has reverted to Warlord tribal warfare, the VP got snuffed, the President almost got snuffed and oh yeah, they don't use the soccer stadium as an execution stadium anymore.
You think the West is actually going to plant a flag and CLAIM a new territory!?!

Why should they? The interests will be served by the corporate proxies very well, thank you.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
This is outrageous.....look at Afghanistan, the same liberal fags said we were going in out of Imperialism and what did we do? We gave them freedom and peace and nothing more.


"Liberal Fags?"

Sir, your credibility (if there was any) is certainly in serious doubt.

How can anyone engage in intelligent discussion with one who uses such terminology.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The questioner of this statement deserves nothing less than being called names! Look at how she twists the words of a person TRYING TO GIVE HER INFORMATION.

Stop yelling at me because I'm the one to come and call her what she is.

Helen is an evil person, whom blocks us from the Truth.

And no B-T that "Only in Kabul" is a load of sh!t and I don't know where you people hear that. Yes there are warlords, but there aren't wars being fought continuously over there anymore.

And in the years Kabul's stability will spread as it is already spreading.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I am shocked to learn that the White House's own web site is actually a "liberal fag" magazine.

Bout Time covered everything else I was going to say.. Thank you Bout Time



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:09 PM
link   
First off, our targets have always been those of military importance. Unfortunately, this regime shields such targets with civilians, so yes, there will be civilian casualties. As far as what the President said, I'm sure he was referring to the DELIBERATE targetting of civilians for the SOLE purpose of spreading terror. While we do have respect for innocent lives, we will also not just buckle down because he (SH) is using human shields. If we were, then anyone with any agenda would adopt such tactics, and the use of such would be more widespread.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Observer you are as stupid as B-T, the article is not liberal fag biased, Helen is.

Thank you and here's your moron award.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:37 PM
link   
So nice to know that a newbie is without protection from your slings and arrows. It seems to me that if anyone on this board wants to debate anything in any meaningful way they can't because just about everyone here demeans the debate by using emotional and personal slanders. This is counterproductive and silly. You seem to hate, not dislike, any notion of someone calling anything the Bush administration does. Are you not for Democracy? The ability to not think the government line is what makes us free. Just becasue you don't appreciate different points of does not (I do not think) the right to call names (unless that is your only defense). I fear that you are a big proponent of Pres John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Acts. I hope you are the only one.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Thank you for your comments but you are blind, possibly because of the way I called you, but my information is NONE THE LESS important for you to understand.

Helen should go to hell, she purposely twisted the words of the other lady, and cut her off asking other questions, that would benifit her ideals.

She is a spin artist, someone that should be exposed, not blessed.

Sorry if my anger towards you for buying into her is so predominant, but I've been having a bad week it seems


So now if you'll kindly re-read her words, and see how she twists them around, I'd be most obliged.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I can't say I really agree totally w/ Helen - but damn, wouldn't it be a hoot to sit there and bust Ari's balls! God that would be fun.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Freemason,
I agree that Helen twisted the bejezzes (sp?) out of Ari's words but she (I think) is also making a point. My point was I am baffled by how quickly we all stop debating and fall into calling each other "nazi's and liberal fags". This seems to be a very intelligent community (a wickedly intolerant one but an intelligent one nonetheless). I have haunted this site FOREVER (3 years now) but I have posted all of about 15 times because I like to debate not throw names. I am not a big fan, however, of being labeled and harassed. I personally agree with some of Lupe_101's and Bout Time's ideas, I ALSO agree with some of Thomas Crowne's. I try not to get into the fray however due to the name calling.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Look observe this falling in doesn't concern you and I'm sorry for being rash against you....just a little problem that's spilled over from another idiot thread.

Anyways...I'm glad you see she is twisting, although to serve a somewhat decent point, the bombing of innocent civilians.

But I agree fully with blasting Iraq out of the water, even if it means killing the entire population, better to save them by killing them then to leave them the way they are....and I don't mean that litterally, just passionately.

I think our military is perfectly capable to keep the civilian casualties down even if Saddam puts them in the way of all military targets.

Saddam must be removed, if only because he has been brutalizing his own nation.

As I said, when does being "evil" actually get credit? When it effects us only? His people see him as a satan of oppression and he kills his people freely and cruely, this doesn't mean he has done ANYTHING to the rest of the world, but to the person he does kill, he's done enough.

The difference between those who oppose war, and those who are for it, is that those who oppose it don't see saddam as effecting us, while those who are fore it realize that it isn't about us, it is about those whom are effected.

I think Helen's twisting of the "truth" is a horrible crime, because she is propgating the selfish "It doesn't concern us" thought, versus the "Think of the Iraqis whom are tortured and killed" thought.

Most unjust.

Back to other things...I don't like name calling either, but a lot of things posted by others here recently seem by far more stupid and more meritting of a "Moron Award" than I, and this is making me more than angery.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I could not agree more with the idea the Saddam needs to be relinquished of his stranglehold on Iraq. I just hope that we frame it correctly and that we hold firm. This war is about getting rid of a madman who, for all intensive purposes, holds his people hostage. He is also in possesion of rather large oil reserves that help churn the wheels of industry all over the planet. Saddam is also, whether extreme leftists want to admit it or not, pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, which, though would not be a DIRECT threat to us, would enable him to extend his sphere of influence over the whole of the Middle East. If that happens industry would slowly grind to a halt and the economy would collapse.
When I said I hope we frame this properly and hold firm this is what I meant:
This is a war for oil.. ultimately.. and that is OK for the reasons I said above. But we need to have other policies in place here at home that don't make us look so damn indulgent (i.e. we drive around gas guzzling cars and trucks). If we had solid conservation measures at the same time we wage a war for oil we look like people who want the best for us AND the rest of the world (which we are but alot of others don't see it). If we don't try to implement conservation policies we look like we are going in for purely indulgent reasons (You can't tell ME what to drive!).
We also have to be willing to pour the years, manpower and money into the country to stabilaze it and make it a democratic place. Unfortunately, I fear that as a short sighted and impatient peoples (we Americans that is) that that won't happen and we might end up with something even WORSE that Saddam in place in ten years.

That's it.
Thanks,
Observer



posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Amazing: a reporter, whose job it is in a free society is to question and find the root reason behind every action that our government makes and gives only an opaque and unsatisfying reason to, should "Burn in Hell" by Free Masons account. That Ari Fleisher has been a complete spin doctor who has not given a single straight answer regarding our governments policies, which is his job by the way, and has controlled the press corp looking for answers and admonished/threatened us all to 'watch what we say', is a need to put him up for Sainthood in Mason's eyes.
What kind of American are you that doesn't want free speech, who doesn't want our government to tell the truth on matters that will kill us or our loved ones, that thinks we should all blindly support our president right or wrong, and jumps to conclusions of other peoples standpoints because they're not the party line our 'leader' is preaching?
This democracy thing is clearly above your asperations.

Oh, and could you help me to understand this one:

"I agree fully with blasting Iraq out of the water, even if it means killing the entire population, better to save them by killing them then to leave them the way they are....and I don't mean that litterally, just passionately."

That whole genocide in order to save them from the wrong political system thingy is lost on me, please enlighten.



posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Helen has practiced spin and twist for so many years that I doubt anyone but the most left-leaning of nutbags take her seriously. I have enjoyed a couple time when the interviewed person slammed her to the canvass, but most times she is suffered with patience for whatever reason. I suppose it is out of gentlemanly respect. I, in turn, can respect that. I still find her to be an annoying liberal twist-pro and would rather not hear her.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 09:02 AM
link   
You'd rather that the Press Secretary of the United States be given full reign to lie as he sees fit?



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 11:14 AM
link   
We'd rather not have Bush's administration be critiqued by lies.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Does everyone here think that the UN while have no choice but to declare war on Saddam? I think so! It's been brewing for years and if there going to act; then its going to be soon!





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join