Feeling Bad for Obama: Why Did He Diss Helen Thomas?
The President was great last night. He did everything he had to do and more.
He was a little weak on A-rod. It was just as well that he didn't have to answer an equally critical question about Sean Penn's chances of winning an Oscar for "Milk."
But here is what I didn't like.
The great Helen Thomas (great, and unequaled by anyone in the White House press corps since FDR's day) 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.
Isn't it his job to dodge inept questions?
Does everyone know that Israel has the bomb in the same way that everyone knew that Saddam had WMD?
February 10, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly.
There've been some prosecutions of US personnel for espionage over the last 5 years, and reports of some product from Savannah River disappearing from inventory a long time ago.
It's not like we have the receipts and EUCs for chemicals as we did for Iraq, but we also spent a lot of time and energy making sure UNSCOM could inspect any suspect Iraqi facility to follow up on those.
To my knowledge, UN or any other non-proliferation based organization has never had an opportunity to inspect facilities in Israel.
It could very well be a well executed bluff, but anyone who questions whether the technical expertise and determination exist to acquire the weapons in question needs their head examined.
February 10, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should read "over the last 50 years"
sigh.
February 10, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluff it likely is, determination etc. or not.
You meant
"To my knowledge, [no] UN " :-)
February 10, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the purpose of asking the question if everyone already knows the answer? I like Helen Thomas and respect her, but it doesn't seem to me there was any good reason to ask that except to stir things up. I don't know how that would have been productive or positive.
February 10, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love Helen Thomas, and think of her as a national treasure.
However, my recollection of that moment from last night is that Ms. Thomas made it relatively easy for Obama to dodge the nukes question. She asked some kind of a compound or multi-part question, which allowed Obama to easily focus on the other part of her question, and sidestep the nukes issue.
Had she wanted to really put him on the spot, she could have made her question shorter and more direct. (And we all know she has the chops to do that, if she really wants to.)
So I feel like she gave Obama an out. (The format didn't allow for any follow-up.) It's almost like the point was to let him dodge the question.
-- ARG
February 10, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with ARG--whatever her intent, the cute way the question was worded allowed Obama to wiggle out of answering it.
Rather than the nuke question, though, I would have preferred her to ask whether he thinks Israel was morally justified in killing hundreds of civilians in Gaza and whether he agrees with various human rights organizations that Israel committed war crimes there.
February 10, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You already know what his answer would be:
That the death of civilians on both sides is tragic and all must be done to avoid civilian deaths but Israel is an independent nation that has a right to defend itself against the firing of rockets into its towns.
He would then dodge the war crimes part knowing that answering it would put him in an uncomfortable position with respect to the actions of his own US army in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. At most he would say something vague like: if war crimes were committed he expects the Army and Israeli government to investigate and take the necessary actions.
Do you think he would say something different? If yes, what do you think he would say? and if you dont think hed say something different, does that reduce your support for Obama in any way?
February 11, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
The US has a law which prohibits the funding of countries with nuclear weapons. Thus Israel pretends not to have nuclear weapons, and the US pretends not to know Israel has nuclear weapons. Obama is trying to revive the global nuclear non-proliferation effort. If he publicly acknowledges Israeli nukes, he will have publicly acknowledged that aid to Israel runs counter to existing US law. He will then only have three options: (i) call on Israel to eliminate its arsenal, (ii) move to cancel our massive military aid to Israel, or (iii) recommend a change in US law, thus undermining the integrity of his non-proliferation effort and the standing of the US government to push its non-proliferation agenda with Russia, Iran, India and Pakistan
February 10, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
We do?
We give aid to Pakistan, and it is a nuclear country.
I believe we did, or about to do, a deal with India, and they are a nuclear country.
We used to give a lot of grain to Russia, and they are a nuclear country.
What law are you referring to?
February 10, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US has a law which prohibits the funding of countries with nuclear weapons.
This presumably excludes the UK which leases the Trident missiles containing its entire nuclear arsenal. I believe there's a surcharge if its Trident submarines go more than 12,000 miles a year.
February 10, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Reporters either know nothing about the Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel's perspective."
Good perspective, thanks for that. I guess that is reason why the populace is so empty-headed about it as well.
I hear what you are saying more broady, though personally, at this crack-of-doom juncture, I'm not sure we needed to hear any distractions either about Gaza, or the smart-alecky "weapons-weapons-who's-got-the-weapons". So I'm glad he didn't munch down on Helen Thomas's poisoned knish.
February 10, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The President said that steroids "tarnished an era." Why is that weak? It sounded strong to me, unless you are an apologist for 'roid users. Of course, if George Mitchell hadn't incompetantly screwed up his report, this issue might have been "cleaned up" a while ago.
February 10, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What he should have said was that he is President of the United States, not the Commissioner of Baseball, and that steroid use is a matter for Major League Baseball to deal with.
I find it appalling that some reporter thought it was more important to ask about ARod than the Obama administration’s supporting the Bush administration’s position on "state secrets" with reference to the extraordinary rendition case now before the Ninth U.S. District Court.
February 10, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't the Emperor's new clothes lovely? Such fine fabric! Look at the workmanship!
re: Obama's not wanting "to speculate" on whether or not any nation in the Middle East has nukes.
February 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Les Elephant Bizarre
There is a big elephant in the room. No one talks about that elephant. Everyone in the room talks about the imaginary elephant in another room.
The elephant is trashing the room but the talk is about controlling the imaginary elephant in the other room.
February 10, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By asking the question, Ms. Thomas was trying in my opinion to dispell the ancient myth that Israel is very vunerable and needs protection against Iran and other neighboring countries. When in fact it is exactly the opposite as pointed out in Chomsky's "Failed States"... and if PBO had answered the question truthfully, it would have put a real damper on the saber-rattling against the Iranian (peaceful) nuclear ambitions.
February 10, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. Don't forget the Iranians also want OPEC to stop pricing oil in dollars. Now that hits us where it hurts.
February 10, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then again, Ms. Thomas may have been simply testing the longstanding status quo of politicians answering questions with a significant amount of b.s. And I think POB did a terrific job in carrying on this tradition!
February 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink