The White House Press Secretary went on the offensive yesterday against reporter Helen Thomas. Unwilling to answer the reporter's questions about the war in Iraq, Scott McClellan tried to change the subject by asserting that Thomas does not support the "broader war on terrorism."
Reporter Terry Moran thought it odd that McClellan would presume authority to interpret Thomas' opinions for her instead of explaining the position of the administration.
Thomas then explained her own position in no uncertain terms saying, "I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war."
Thank-you Helen Thomas for speaking the truth to power.
True patriotism is not mindlessly supporting your country whether it is right or wrong. It is examining the issues conscientiously and making whatever sacrifice is necessary to oppose wrong policies and support the right ones.
6 comments:
Wow. I think this is a BIG mistake. If anyone in the press corp has the moral credibility to challenge White House policy, it's Helen Thomas.
I wouldn't be surprised if McClellan get fired over this.
kgp
McClellan's breakdown is symptomatic of the bigger breakdown that is going on in the Bush Whitehouse. Yesterday's fiasco with Bushes rehearsed, yet spontaneous call to the troops in Iraq is another example.
sepherim said: "Yesterday's fiasco with Bushes rehearsed, yet spontaneous call to the troops in Iraq is another example."
Oh really? I missed this one. Can you fill me in?
Isn't Helen Thomas one of the most respected of the press corp?
I just saw on TV that Rove was in talking about the white house leak again. They say the white house is anixous to tell there side. Can they possibly think of an excuse.
Don't be discouraged about the negative posts, they are just afraid of the truth.
Why are we letting Karl Rove run this country. He gives leaks and now he is pushing supreme court judges. Am I the only one that is scared to death of this guy and his power?
Chuckle, I would disagree with you that "fundamentalists" (by which I think you mean evangelicals) "never condemn their own who err." I think the Pat Robertson fiasco is one examples of how many evangelicals came out against one who could be called "their own". And if you keep up with theological controversies as I do, you would see that much more vigor in debating is set forth in those type of situations. Evangelicals, contrary to popular opinion, are very rational and skilled in debate. They are not scared to fight any time controversy arises. Now there are evangelicals who have sold-out to the Republican party who do what you say, but to paint them with as broad of a brush as you have is a misrepresentation.
One of the problems with using the term "fundamentalist" is that there is not widely accepted definition. Obviously the historical definition as one who subscribed to the five fundamentals is no longer valid. When I was doing research on fundamentalism in the 70s and 80s it was used more to describe one's attitude rather than one's belief system. In this day of the ascendancy of self-proclaimed fundamentalists to positions of political power, no one is sure what it means. I agree with chuckle that they seldom criticize those they consider to be within the fold, but they are quick to kick someone out if they stray very far from their accepted standard of orthodoxy.
Post a Comment