Scott McClellan vs. Helen Thomas -- grrrrrrrr!

[grasswire]

Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration's position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States -- first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That's what our view is.

Q But, so -- but isn't it true that this White House --

Q They think they're is an --

Q Excuse me, Helen -- that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering --

Q Why won't you spell out what your position is?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.

Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn't that money, per a judge's order, available to these victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through --

Q -- you don't think they should get money?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served --

Q That's not the issue --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- who heroically served our nation.

Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.

Q No, but it hasn't been addressed. They're entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was --

Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there's simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein --

Q So no money.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's my answer.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-5.html

[grasswire]

1. more

Q So far, the President has pushed democracy through the sword by war, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is that going to be his modus operandi in the future?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think you've heard the President say numerous times that --

Q Is that the way he promotes democracy?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you've heard him say numerous times that that is always a last resort. The President is -- but the President recognizes in the day and age that we live in, where there is dangerous new threats that we face, that we must confront those threats, and the President is --

Q What was the threat from Iraq --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. The President is confronting the dangerous threats that we face. He is confronting the threats that we face from North Korea, from Iran. We are seeking peaceful solution to resolve those issues. The multilateral approaches are working in those instances. It's also important that we follow through on our word. The international community passed some 17 resolutions over 12 years to bring Saddam Hussein into compliance. He continued --

Q And Israel has 60 resolutions --

MR. McCLELLAN: He continued to defy the international community. The world is a safer and better place with Saddam Hussein removed from power --

Q So we are pushing democracy through war, are we not?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the President seeks peace. The President seeks to advance freedom and democracy. That's what we are doing.

Dana, go ahead. I'll come to you.

Q Were you able to find out from either the President or anybody else who might know if he, in fact, knew about any last-minute efforts by Iraq to back-channel a deal before the war started?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, remember what I said earlier, that we exhausted every legitimate and credible opportunity to resolve the world's differences with Saddam Hussein in a peaceful way. If there were a credible and legitimate opportunity to resolve it peacefully, we would have pursued it. But keep in mind that the bottom line here, Saddam Hussein's unwillingness and his failure to comply, after 12 years and some 17 Security Council resolutions from the United Nations, including one final opportunity was the reason that the coalition was forced to act and bring Iraq into compliance.

Q Did the President know about this --

MR. McCLELLAN: I see -- I understand your interest. We're focused on what matters. I see no reason to bring it up there. You saw the news reports, I saw the news reports. I think you had response from those that knew something about this, saying something to the effect that they didn't view it --

Q Everybody is asking the --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that they didn't view it as a credible --as a credible opportunity or credible communication.

Q So basically, it was -- the decision was made that it wasn't credible enough to bring it to the President?

MR. McCLELLAN: You need to talk -- see, now you're asking specific questions about those agencies and what they may have known. I think you should direct those questions to those agencies.

Q She's asking about the President.

MR. McCLELLAN: I see no reason to bring it up.

Q By what you're saying you're inferring that the President didn't know about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: What I said is I see no reason to bring it up, because we exhausted every legitimate and credible opportunity to avert military action and to achieve a peaceful solution to this.

Q We're asking you to bring it up.

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: I see no reason to.

Q Who exhausted it, though? The President of the United States exhausted it?

MR. McCLELLAN: The United States exhausted every --

Q So, therefore, he should have known about some of these back-channel --

MR. McCLELLAN: The United States exhausted every legitimate and credible opportunity. Again, you saw the responses from some of those that had knowledge of this communication.

Q And our understanding of those responses is that it didn't reach a level --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right.

Q -- is that correct -- it didn't reach a level that the President would have been concerned about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein had any number of channels available to him through which he could have communicated with the United States or members of the coalition. He was given more than enough opportunity to avert the use of military force. He was given opportunity to leave the country. He chose to continue his defiance. He chose to continue to defy the international community, despite all these opportunities.

[Faygo Kid]

2. McClellan has impossible job

He is well compensated for it, though, and will be enormously wealthy when he leaves. He can't defend the administration - it can't be done. Another Bush puke. Disgusting responses. Thanks for posting.

[Spazito]

3. Helen Thomas is the absolute best!

She is the only one left with integrity and a knowledge of her responsibility to the people of the US as a member of the press.

[nostamj]

4. that's not dancing!

that's Wile E. Coyote going over the cliff!

[greekspeak]

5. Grilled the guy like he was a CHEESEBURGER

GOD how GREAT it is to watch someone from this Repuke nightmare administration wilt under REAL questions from a REAL reporter!

[alfredo]

6. Geive em hell Helen.

I just sent this out to my mailing list.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. I love that woman.

She still has spunk and I think it sucks that she has been relegated to the back of the room for the press conferences. :( Give 'em hell Helen!

[rads]

8. Nice logic

So, to paraphrase:

These people have suffered so much that no money could possibly help them.

Therefore, we'll give them no money.