Why Did Obama Diss Helen Thomas?
I love Helen Thomas. During the past eight years she was the only reporter who stood up to Bush, took on this rotten war, and, in general, acted like a journalist. Last night, the great hall looked like it was populated by a president, a reporter, and 11th graders from local high school newspapers. I think I saw a cub reporter from the Dillon, Texas high school paper. (sadly, not Lilah Garrity).
Ms. Thomas' moment came when she asked the president about nuclear proliferation. Her question ended with the query: does he know of any Middle Eastern state with nukes?
Why did she ask that? She asked it to see if Obama would refuse to respond as previous presidents have. The answer is Israel, of course. And everyone knows it. In fact, the State Department has published reams of material about JFK's concern about the Israeli bomb. Israeli politicians talk about it. Every Arab in the world knows about it. And Israel's nukes are its number one deterrent against attack by Iran -- and everyone knows that too.
But Israel has a policy of not talking about its nukes in any official capacity because acknowledging them might lead to Israel having to sign the NPT and opening itself up to nuclear inspection.
So Israeli Prime Ministers try (not always successfully) not to acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal while ensuring that everyone knows it does.
That may be a sensible policy...for Israel.
But why is it our policy? Why is the American president forbidden from being honest on such a critical subject. Answer: there is no reason, unless we are to believe that Israeli policy guidelines, by definition, apply here as well.
So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the media would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know nothing about the Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel's perspective.
Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his "blunder" the story of the night.
He cannot afford that because, frankly, we have more important things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.
So I don't fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she should ask how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza. As the father of those two precious girls, we all know how he felt. But it would help America in the eyes of the world if he'd just say it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have no problem with Obama not answering the question. It is in our interest too to not publically say that Israel has nukes and let its opponents be certain that they do. No one has anything to worry about from Israel nukes as long as they respect Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and don't try to push her into the sea. I was more concerned about the "so called terrorists" remark. It wasn't Iraq she was talking about, but the Al Qada still in that region since before 9-11 that we're fighting there in addition to the ones who did go to Iraq. Does Thomas really doubt that Osama was responsible for 9-11?
Why should anybody respect Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, or Iran's right to exist as an Islamic state? To exist is one thing, but to exist as an exclusivist, discriminatory state, based on sectarian exceptionalism, is at least open to honest opposition. If people are safe from Israeli nukes only if they respect Israel's exclusivist, discriminatory nature, that is the greatest nuclear extortion the world has ever faced since WWII. Soon, we will have two states in the Middle East with both sectarian exclusivism and nuclear deterrence.
In what way is Israel "exclusivist" and discriminatory?
It's easy to talk in generalities, but give specifics.
Helen Thomas is such an interesting character, a lone brave voice in the usually vanilla press corps. And kudos to her for raising the big question. Again.
As for Obama's refusal to answer the question: he is following in the footsteps of all other American Presidents thus far who have "had" to dodge the legitimate question.
It's an absolute disgrace that the only nuclear power in the region even dares to bark (with impunity) at its neighbors about aspiring nuclear capabilities, when it doesn't even have the decency to fess up to its own arsenal. An arsenal fueled, funded and sanctioned by my great nation, the good ole USA.
When will this madness and hypocrisy end? Will we EVER see some balance in the way the US handles this mother of all Middle Eastern problems?? I have great hopes for Obama, but history has a cruel way of repeating itself. No one (except for some brave Jewish voices) DARES to mention our grossly biased view of the region.
Wake up, America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stand up to mega-wealthy, all-powerful lobbying groups.
Yes, but he was going to be different or was I just dreaming that????
For me, he is starting to wear thin; and I am into him with all the contributions that the law permits!
Paul Krrugman says it all!!!!!!
Am I the only person who heard her question and comment? No diss but you missed her comment on the "so called terrorists". Bless her heart, Helen just can't face the fact that America has so called enemies! We still have a perilous situation other than the economy to stimulate...our own memory. People vowed to destroy the little evil-Israel and the big evil-America, could be considered a terrorist or at least a problem! Study up on Iran waiting for the 12th Imam to return and settle the score with Israel and America. Helen might actually leave her front row seat and head for the nearest bunker!
Here's the Youtube link for this, in case anyone didn't already see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVGWdLsAoBA
There wasn't any "dissing" going on here, but Obama sure ducked this question! Can't say I blame him; even though this issue is important, maybe this isn't the time to get into it.
That question was a "can of worms" that Obama didn't want to open at that time. He'll deal with Israel in due time. Nothing would have been accomplished by changing the focus of the news conference to the Middle East. I don't think he dissed her and I'm sure she doesn't either. She got to ask her question and then another one on top of that.
A democratic country with a free news media does not confer emperor's-new-clothes status to any diplomatic topic. Thomas honored our First Amendment principles by asking the question and rebutting Obama's evasion. The worst practitioners of Pravda-style airbrush journalism, however, were major media like the NY Times and NPR, which censored Thomas's question out of their extensive coverage of Obama's historic press conference. Apparently, their columnists are also embedded on this matter. How can it serve the interests of peace and weapons control to follow this ineffective and cowardly policy of treating Israel's nukes as unmentionable objects?
Who--in our now "transparent" administration--is following such a policy? How is obedience to it enforced? The main consequences of such one-sided government policy and complicit media practices will be to increase the desire for states threatened by the U.S. and Israel to acquire nukes of their own. They, too, have a right to self-defense.
What are you talking about? He didn't diss nobody?!
What a ridiculous misleading headline...She was the only one that got a follow up question and had he allowed her to continue she would have gone on forever. Like the woman and I'm sure he'll give her more time....
Make your point...but lose the hyperbole....
I think that while the President may have liked to keep the conference focussed on his stimulus package that doesn't mean a room full of reporters has to hew to the subject alone.
Israel just had an election. Israel firsters have been calling for a war against Iran on the specious argument that it might one day have nukes. An American president should, and if he doesn't, the Fourth Estate must ask whether it should acknowledged that the state of hypocritical denial of Israeli nukes helps the cause of peace, or even more so, the economy if God forbid, there should be another war in the M.E.
However I don't see that he 'dissed' Helen Thomas. The one thing I like about him the most is his old school manners.
Please tell Mr Obama that Israel is the 6th most powerful nuclear weapons state in the world! Who benefits from such an extraordinary concentration of unsupervised and unaccountable nuclear war-heads hidden in a secret underground nuclear weapons facility in the Negev desert? Does it pose no danger to the rest of the world? What is it for? Who controls the firing of its nuclear missiles? Where would they be aimed? What is their range? How extensive would be the radiation from its nuclear cloud if or when it decides to use these weapons of mass destruction to destroy its enemies? How many others would be destroyed by collateral damage? Would such a nuclear conflict be confined to the Middle East or would it reach Europe and Asia and eventually the United States? If such a huge nuclear weapons facility is such a potential danger to the entire world, who gave the money and the equipment to build it? Why is Israel not a signatory to the Non-proliferation Treaty? Why does Israel, of all the US-supported states in the world, refuse to allow the IAEA of the UN to inspect its nuclear weapons? If Iran allows inspection by the IAEA of its nuclear energy installation then why does Israel refuse to allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear weapons installation?
Good points and a great post. Be careful or you might be labeled as anti-semetic for such common sense.
Who benefits? Israel, obviously, as a deterrent.
Does it pose a danger? Yes, but no more than any other nuclear arsenal.
Who controls them? The countries leaders, as is the case with all nuclear powers.
What is it for? Deterrence.
What would happen if they are used? Lots of damage. As is the case if any nuclear arms are used. See Hiroshima.
Who paid/how did Israel get them? Israel's reactor was built jointly with France and some British help. The bombs are entirely an Israeli product.
Why doesn't Isreal sign the NPT? For the same reason Pakistan and India won't. Because it's used by the big powers (China, Russia, the US) to control who has them.
Why no inspections? Israel doesn't want their enemies knowing their exact capabilities, part of deterrence. Keep 'em guessing.
Hope this helps.
I like Helen Thomas and my goodness what an inspiration she is to all of us but she knew she was asking a trick question and I have had enough of these reporters asking non-sensical questions that are designed to embarress the President. It is not necessary. Just come right out and ask what you want and he will do his best to answer it but why on earth do they think that they are doing the public a service by asking these gottcha questions. Just grow up a little bit reporters.
I think that President Obama has his priorities and his agenda, but I also can’t ignore what American former Representative/Congressman Mr. Paul Findley wrote a long time ago in his book “They dare to speak out”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Dare_to_Speak_Out
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/books.html
That’s what Ms. Thomas had in mind, so that she can calibre her questions in the forthcoming press conferences. The longest White House correspondent status gives her the needed insight and experience on how to “handle” press conferences and get “ the new rules of the game” as soon as the President’s first press conference.
He didn't answer because... as George W. Bush and Co. used to say ..
'It would send a Message'
Yeah, that he's stupid enough to fall into an obvious political "gotcha" trap, or stick his foot in his mouth for the sake of giving the idealist radicals on the Left a wet-dream moment.
Helen Thomas was probably the only person in the room that personally witnessed JFK's staunch anti-proliferation efforts, which, btw, Obama says he shares. President JFK continuously pressured Israel to stop them from developing and weaponizing nukes, and insisted on transparency through inspections at Dimona. We all know how that ended. GWU has great archive with primary documents from the 1950 and 60's including Nixon BlindEye policy on Israeli nukes.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/findings.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/hebrew/index.html
The UK and the US created the terrorist state of Israel and support the actions of the Right Wing Likud to keep the mideast unstable. The Likud stays in power because it is the direct conduit of the US aid that has proped up Israel.
When Iran began modernizing and educating its citizens, it elected a secular gov't that nationalized its oil resources. We staged a coup that put a tyrant in power. The elites fear is that the world oil market would have to deal with democracies vs the tyrants, and family sheikdoms we have helped keep in power. Dictators are cheap but exploiting free citizens gets expensive.
Our actions support Israels land grabs, as they support Saudi Arabia's support for Muslim militias that are murdering Christians and Animist in the millions anywhere in Africa there is oil.
Pres. Obama can no more defy the ruling elite in this nation than any other President. The Industrial Military Complex that Pres. Eisenhower warned of is their terrorist arm, just as al queada is the terrorist arm of the Taliban.
Obama has suggested we reduce our own nuclear stockpile, and his SECDEF Gates is fighting him publicly to instead spend hundreds of billions to modernize it. That and the plan to place nukes in Poland is meant to restart the cold war so the American Public doesn't start thinking it can actually run the country.
Thomas Jefferson stated that every generation needs a new revolution. We are about twenty generations overdue.
Excellent comment!
Obama should not have kept Gates in place and should dump him as soon as possible and control his pro-Militarist ideas strictly while he is allowed to stay as SECDEF. We cannot afford the expansion of the nuclear arsenal. We should be spending that money on civilian programs and goals, not more mititary hardware and dead-end spending. Hopefully Obama will begin to decrease tension and war spending through the diplomacy and dialogue he has claimed as the goal of his administration.
It takes more that a bloated military and an enemies list to make a strong nation!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
