Friday, June 29, 2007

More Helen Thomas

Why is it that this frail, ancient old woman is the only journalist in Washington with the hutzpah to ask the important questions? The woman has guts, and her peers should be ashamed of their noodling. From her most recent interview with Salon's Glenn Greenwald, Thomas shows she is not discouraged in her fight to restore the accountability and integrity of journalists, and America as a whole.

I think the American people, like people all over the world, know that under international law, you only go to war if you're attacked or you have a treaty with another country to go to war if they're attacked.

An unprovoked war, based on every rationale that turns out to be untrue, certainly has caused our esteem in the world -- we are despised -- not because we gave them something and took it back. It's because we were on a pedestal. We had a halo. Everything we represented, people all over the world aspired to.

And what we did was absolutely betray those great values and principles.


  1. What do you want the US to do about Darfur? (I notice your banner displayed on the left of the post.) If military action is part of your plan, how do you square that with Thomas's comment given that they are not attacking us nor in a treaty with us?

  2. Bradley, I realize that you directed your question to Jason, and I don't presume to speak on his behalf, but as a contributor to The Sidetrack I'll share my opinion for what it's worth.

    As you might already know, the U.S. has already imposed sanctions preventing 3 individuals and 31 companies from doing business in the U.S. or with U.S. companies (CNN -

    Secretary Rice on Monday also suggested that the world must be ready to impose additional sanctions against the Sudan if additional UN peacekeepers are not permitted into the region. While I personally don't believe that military action is the prudent thing to do at this time, given the number of our troops already deployed--very unfortunately--in Iraq. However, I strongly feel that a U.S. military presence--such as the force of about 20,000 troops ordered to Bosnia by President Clinton in 1996--would be a good step in helping to end the atrocities occurring in Darfur.

    To be clear, the military force deployed to Bosnia was in addition to NATO peacekeeping forces. I believe the U.S. must stand up with more than sanctions; but our military is already taxed because of the quaqmire in Iraq. If the Congress and Senate leaders would follow the voices of the American people and begin pulling out of Iraq, we would likely be capable of helping end this tragedy with more than petitions and community events.

  3. Jeff, thanks for your thoughtful reply. If I read you correctly, you see that there is an appropriate amount of military action we can use, even if we haven't been attacked or don't have a treaty obligation.

    If that is your position, I concur. We don't have the military strength to fight every bad guy out there, but we do have the strength to fight some of them. And I believe we have the moral obligation to help our brothers and sisters across the globe where we are able.