Helen Thomas


Longtime White House Press Corps reporter Helen Thomas discusses the culture of “softball” political journalism, Obama’s continuance of the US “nuclear ambiguity” policy regarding Israel and John Brennan’s ridiculous response to the question, “Why do the terrorists attack us?”

MP3 here. (13:29)

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, member of the White House Press Corps and author of Listen Up, Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do and Watchdogs of Democracy?: The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public.

13 thoughts on “Helen Thomas”

  1. Back in January 2009, when Israel was attacking defenseless Gaza and Obama was awaiting his inauguration, Helen Thomas was on Democracy Now and had this to say:

    "I think that Obama, during the campaign, made many promises, as every president, potential president does to Israel, that they seem somehow bounded by their promises, promises to uphold all Israeli goals."

    I wrote a piece where I analyzed Amy Goodman's response to Helen Thomas's assertions regarding Israel. Amy seemed to want to change the subject whenever Israel was brought up. I called that piece "Asking the tough questions about Gaza". Now Helen is asking the tough questions about the "shoe bomber". We need more people like her.

      1. Thanks for the link. I've actually seen that before, but a refresher from time to time is always helpful. The article is mostly about her support of the official line on 9/11.

        What I find more disturbing are her views expressed regarding some of the "liberal" orthodoxy. Can't I be a liberal or progressive and still be opposed to the Global Warming agenda, or the radical Gay agenda, or the radical Feminist agenda? Is there no pro-Life point of view that is tolerable to the "liberal" high priests? Is one not allowed to advocate a one-state solution for Israel-Palestine without being cast off as an anti-Semite?

        By totally condemning some of these points of view the "liberal" gate-keepers maintain in force the phony left-right divide. They totally put a stop to any sort of meaningful political coalition that could stop the wars of aggression, for example.

        Instead of getting limits on the power of the banksters, we get gay marriage. And the right-wing war mongers like Sarah Palin have one more point on which to attack the "liberals" by pointing out that they are out of step with traditional core American beliefs.

        There has to be some priority on the "liberal" agenda that emphasizes real meaningful institutional change. There has to be some attempt to build a broad coalition that will confront the powerful corporations that profit from war, instead of continuing to divide us with fringe issues that only reinforce the old left-right split.

  2. Why would anyone attack America ? The US (and the World) is on a suicide course because the Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability as outlined by former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge in his books and on http://www.plrc.org That leads directly to Launch On Warning and Nuclear War/Suicide by mistake BECAUSE OF THE BLOODY PENTAGON. Do they believe in the possibility of Nuclear Winter in the Pentagon ? It doesn´t seem so. We can´t all move to the Andes.

  3. Rather than agonize over the moral aspects of the policy – the present hegemonic military effort, it might be more productive to simply state what the policy is. This is obvious from actions, not from words.

    Then, given a hard-boiled dialectical statement of the policy – the grand strategy – one can posit logical questions.

    For some people, a logical question might be "can the policy succeed?" Another might be "what weaknesses exist in this policy?" Yet another might be "why this policy and not some other?"

    For myself, it seems to me that the policy can be defeated. In practical terms this means that, given the cost to the subject-opponents of failure, it will be defeated.

    Why? How? It's obvious to people who understand strategy and conflict – I'll leave it to the reader to arrive at these answers.

  4. Helen Thomas is the tigress of the White House press corps. The rest of ’em are toothless pussycats.

    John Brennan is a torture-supporting horse’s ass. That lamebrain reply of his sounds like he’s reading it from a script. Hey, Brennan, don’t you think that maybe–just maybe–America’s invasions, its colossal meddling and interference in the Muslim world is a big factor in “why they hate us”? Don’t forget that gracious comment by Madeleine Albright that half a million dead Iraqi children are “worth it.”

    Last but not least, America props up the criminal Zionist regime in Tel Aviv. Any thoughts about that, Brennan?

  5. Given Helen Thomas's professional history as the doyenne of the White House arm of the Establishment press corps, the sole function of which is to regurgitate for the masses the nonsense spewed from the fellatio cavities of White House press spokescreatures, her public lobbing of a non-scripted, hardball, common-sense question is nothing short of miraculous. While few seem to acknowledge or realize it, this was a red-letter event in the history of Establishment journalism, one that might actually signal the onset of some serious cracks and fissures in the journalistic facade that is the MSM. Alternatively, Helen's move might cost her in the near term, with her employer suddenly deciding that it's time for her to "retire." We can't have a prominent member of the propaganda spin machine questioning the established order, can we?

  6. Hi my friend! I want to say that this post is awesome, nice written and come with approximately all important infos. I’d like to look more posts like this .

  7. Attractive section of content. I simply stumbled upon your website and in accession capital to claim that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your augment or even I fulfillment you get right of entry to consistently quickly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.