It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama and Helen Thomas

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Anybody else notice during tonight's Q & A with Obama that his response to Helen Thomas' question of whether any countries in the Middle East have nuclear weapons was totally obfuscated?

Pity...he was doing really good up to then.

Donno if this is posted in the right place, but it sure looked like deflection to me.




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
He said he didn't want to speculate.

And he shouldn't be talking about that in public. He probably knows something, but speculating in public about it "shows our hand" and would be irresponsible.

I kept trying to catch him not answering questions, but he was pretty thorough.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He said he didn't want to speculate.

And he shouldn't be talking about that in public. He probably knows something, but speculating in public about it "shows our hand" and would be irresponsible.

I kept trying to catch him not answering questions, but he was pretty thorough.


Sorry, I have to call shenanigans on this answer. Israel has nuclear arms. It is no secret. He refused to answer that direct question, and quite frankly, I was very disappointed.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I have to agree. Failure to be honest is not confidence building. Obama has many people to answer to...about 305 million. But I let him slide a little on his first one, but only a little.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
As I said in one of the other threads, he answered Helen fully on both parts of her questions.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
As I said in one of the other threads, he answered Helen fully on both parts of her questions. www.youtube.com...



A United States Defense Intelligence Agency report (leaked and published in the book Rumsfeld's War: The Untold Story of America's Anti-Terrorist Commander by journalist Rowan Scarborough in 2004) estimates the number of weapons at 82. U.S. intelligence sources in the late 1990s estimated 75–130 weapons; Federation of American Scientists believes that Israel "could have produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons".[26] The difference might lie in the amount of material Israel has on store versus assembled weapons, and estimates as to how much material the weapons actually use (which depends on their sophistication).

en.wikipedia.org...

Obama was asked a direct question, and he fudged the answer. Note the information above. Now if I know that, and he doesn't...does that mean I'm wearing my clever pants and he isn't? Or is he simply disinclined to be frank about the subject. Helen Thomas isn't stupid, either, and with that one simple question, she was able to showcase Obama's Middle East colours right out front.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
my initial reaction to the hesitancy and obfuscation? he doesn't want to be pinned down about israel because that's a whole big kettle of snakes when it comes to discussing nukes and the middle east, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Yeah, I kinda got that old feeling from when Bush answered her questions.. I mean, it wasn't as wtf as Bush's, but it def. didn't settle the question IMO



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Obama was asked a direct question, and he fudged the answer.


Well, if that's the case, it's the first time that's ever happened.




Note the information above.


Those are estimates and speculation. Obama said he didn't want to speculate. That's an answer. Maybe not the one you would like, but it was the smart and responsible thing to say. The world is watching.



Now if I know that


But you don't. You may think you know, and say you know, but you don't. It is not confirmed.


...does that mean I'm wearing my clever pants and he isn't?


No, It means that you're speculating and he isn't. At least not publicly. It would be HIGHLY irresponsible for him to stand up and tick off on his fingers the names of the countries who have or are suspected to have nuclear weapons. Come on! You've got to understand that.

At least he pronounces it right.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


That is what I thought too. I thought he spent a lot of time in answering the questions instead of giving quick replies. I thought it was a good Q & A session.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticIt would be HIGHLY irresponsible for him to stand up and tick off on his fingers the names of the countries who have or are suspected to have nuclear weapons. Come on! You've got to understand that.


I don't drink the koolaid. I don't have to, so I can observe fairly objectivly, even from my perch as a Liberal-type. No reason Obama can't tick off (as in count) the nuclear countries. Bush had no problem using that tactic to scare people. May as well be blunt.

And I don't care if Obama comes out and says the US will back Israel to the N-th degree, come hell or high water. That's America's decision, and it was no mystery when he was elected, either. That's not the point. The point is he effectively lied, according to the information available to me. And don't tell me that it then becomes mere speculation because I have not personally witnessed the bombs laid out in front of me. If that's the criterium, then I have no proof that I am not addressing this note to a joint session of the CIA/NSA, either.

I remarked to my wife as we were watching the Q&A that I was rather impressed with this guy, because I did not find myself calling bravo sierra on what he was saying...something that doesn't happen a lot since most politicians seem to believe they can pee in your face and tell you it's raining out.

Til that one question. Now BH, I know you support the guy, and I'm pretty much in agreement with your thoughts there. But...don't let the stars dazzle you. That's how you get fooled. Remember, even your Republican neighbours didn't elect Bush so the country could tank. It happened when they weren't looking.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I don't drink Koolaid either, and I think that has little to do with this subject. I have a rational mind and I can think objectively, too. Thanks for the confidence...

As far as Bush using that tactic, if Obama is doing something differently than Bush, then it's almost got to be a good thing. And from my perspective as a regular citizen, I'm aware that it's highly probable that the President knows a whole lot more about the Middle East than I do. And it's very possibly he knows a lot more than Bush knew.


Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
The point is he effectively lied,


He didn't lie. He said, "I don't want to speculate". In other words, I'm not going to answer that. That's his right AND his responsibility, IMO.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

And I don't care if Obama comes out and says the US will back Israel to the N-th degree, come hell or high water. That's America's decision, and it was no mystery when he was elected, either. That's not the point. The point is he effectively lied, according to the information available to me.


spec·u·late Listen to the pronunciation of speculate
Pronunciation:
\ˈspe-kyə-ˌlāt\
Function:
verb
intransitive verb1 a: to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain ; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations transitive verb

Aside from it's not "Americas" choice; the people NEED to get a vote on whether we help Israel or let them burn if they decide to be stupid. Personally; I'd vote to let them go at it on their own and have fun, they'll either nuke or get eaten.

He doesn't want to Assume, therefore making an ass out of you and me. Of course he knows that we know that Israel is nuclear armed; but even IAEA can't get in there due to the NPT, so it's a moot point until that can get signed. I would hope he begins putting more pressure on Israel and has them sign the NPT, it doesn't even make sense that they are exempt, they are just as expendable as everyone and as accountable.

Besides; it's foreign policy, don't reveal your cards in fears of destabilizing the region - that's been the bloody policy since, even though everyone knows already anyway. Stupid people, creating policy when smart people are watching.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Riviera]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riviera

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
And I don't care if Obama comes out and says the US will back Israel to the N-th degree, come hell or high water. That's America's decision, and it was no mystery when he was elected, either. That's not the point. The point is he effectively lied, according to the information available to me.


spec·u·late Listen to the pronunciation of speculate


Thanks for the English lesson...now go look up 'lie'.


Aside from it's not "Americas" choice; the people NEED to get a vote on whether we help Israel or let them burn if they decide to be stupid.


Well, the way I see it, Obama was quite clear on his support for Israel during the election. He was subsequently elected, ergo, America already voted on the subject. But what do I know...American being my second language, and all.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Obama is pretty sure of his support.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join