People just mistake the gas escaping from her mouth as horrible questions.
itsspideyman
· 2 years ago
LOL. Maybe her copse is there, and they come along and refresh the makeup every once in a while.
Oldcrow
· 2 years ago
It mystifies me why the Old fossil Helen and that idiot Gregory have not been moved to the back of the room and ignored.
coldwarrior415
· 2 years ago
I'd have to guess that when Helen Thomas donated her Olivetti Lettera 32 portable typewriter to the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn several years ago she musta left her common sense and journalistic abilities in the carrying case. She really needs to be shown the door.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Hey -- I have an Olivetti Lettera! It never did work right, and now I know why.
hunter_123
· 2 years ago
That the journalists place Thomas in the front row shows more about how much those journalists agree with her. That a free press time after time aligns itself with tyrants abroad and those who support tyranny here - like Helen Thomas or Sheehan, or etc., have no respect for their own freedom or ours.
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
What an evil old harridan she is! Helen Thomas is on the short list of people (with Jimmy Carter) whose demise I will celebrate. I'll play "Ding, Dong, The Witch Is Dead," hoist a glass and wish Satan good luck with his next press conference, because ol' Helen will be in the front row for the rest of eternity.
AnonymousDrivel
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas - the representative facade of the MSM, inside and out.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
The full clip is even more interesting. Here's a press conference highlighting the fight against AIDS, and, not content with ex Gen. Keith's question to the Republican debatees, they try the same question against Ms. Perino. Then comes Helen's little show, after which the conversation goes back to AIDS.
terrye
· 2 years ago
Back in the 80's I actually saw this woman in DC at some function. And she was old then. This remark was intended to insult the military, she should be ashamed.
itsspideyman
· 2 years ago
To bad John Belushi is gone. I could see him playing her in a SNL skit. However, even in his most drugged position he would still be too rational. :)
tacodawn
· 2 years ago
lol
Xango Annie
· 2 years ago
I'll tell you one thing..if you email the old bat of your..displeasure....she'll email you back..she's just as vile in them as she is in the Press Room . Rofl!!!
Mistercalm
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas: what a maroon!
mistercalm
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas: what a maroon!
LeaningRt.
· 2 years ago
Wow, when were journalists given the green light to start lecturing? The sad part is that we'll see very little backlash from this outside of blogs like the Captain's.
DaveInPA
· 2 years ago
Age only buys so much gracious patience. When it's used as a shield for unpatriotic vulgarity like Helen Thomas continually exhibits, I say it's time to revoke her White House Press credentials. If the rest of the Lefty press room pretends to not like it and try to make points, so what! They already hate and lie about Bush and the Republicans anyway, so what else can they do?
Bill_M
· 2 years ago
"Age only buys so much gracious patience. When it's used as a shield for unpatriotic vulgarity like Helen Thomas continually exhibits, I say it's time to revoke her White House Press credentials."
I could almost agree, but it's useful to have her sitting there, making an idiot out of herself. Nothing highlights the idiocy and bias of the MSM better than a Helen Thomas diatribe. For years she hid behind the transparent film of "non-biased reporting." But now, she's out front for all to see. All in all, the MSM probably does conservatives a favor by honoring her with the seat in the front row. It this is what the MSM "honor", then think of how much else is biased against conservatives and the country. The people watching will slowly draw the correct conclusions.
JonPrichard
· 2 years ago
Yeah, I think she's the 'Doyenne of Record' and we should appreciate that as Republicans.
LeaningRt.
· 2 years ago
Amen Bill....you just wrote what I wish I was thinking. The key IS to let these idiots froth at the mouth.
I may be too young to remember (probably only 19-22), but did republicans speak so poorly of our troop's efforts when Clinton placed us in Bosnia or in Mogadishu? Is there any record of Helen Thomas' reporting on Sadam's murderous policies towards his own countrymen? I still have extreme difficulty dealing with the plight of the the lambs exacerbated by BDS.
Russ
· 2 years ago
The problem is that it only gets highlighted on blogs like this one. I haven't seen this on any of the news networks or in any newspaper. The MSM has scrupulously avoided showing her lunacy when she gets out of hand. And, due to that, most Americans still probably view her as a kindly old reporter.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
What a despicable old bat.
That being said, I'm sure glasses are being raised to her all over Moonbatia.
oldirishpig
· 2 years ago
Oh, the vaunted neutrality of our ever-shrinking press!
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Yes, because every single one of the 1.2 million civilians in Iraq that have died was killed by a US soldier at the behest of HalliBushitler! [/sarc]
The number's not correct, either.
gene
· 2 years ago
Why they give this woman a press seat I cannot understand. She is no longer a reporter but a left wing advocate that is delusional as most left wingers are.
Corsair
· 2 years ago
Thats exactly why they do it. She says what the other press is afraid to say but wish they could. They count on Republicans to be nice to old women.
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
SHe's also Lebanese, and so speaks for the Arabs, sorta/kinda. She's frequently quoted with warm approval in the Middle East newspapers.
stackja1945
· 2 years ago
MSM continues its downward spiral.
PokerPlayer
· 2 years ago
Good. And past time. She should have been ignored, not asked/or allowed to ask, a question for the past 10 years.
Gerry N.
· 2 years ago
My daughter asked me why Democrats don't get asked questions like that by Conservative reporters. I told her both Conservative reporters were neither vicious nor senile.
Corsair
· 2 years ago
There are conservative reporters? Where? Oh, I see him over there behind bigfoot.
muffler
· 2 years ago
Way to teach your children. Brush stroke bigotry started so young.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Wow. Perino does indeed deserve a raise.
TerryGain
· 2 years ago
She is incoherent and wrong headed AND representative of her profession.
dhunter
· 2 years ago
Spoken like a true Democrat. Murtha is saying the same thing in different words . The surge is working but we must get out . Will the American people see and understand the insanity or are they too dumbed down by the NEA and public indoctrination -(schools)
Bennett
· 2 years ago
Perino gave the completely wrong answer. She should have said, yes absolutely we are going to kill as many terrorists, insurgents, vicious murderers as we possibly can. We are hoping for a banner December. Our men and women are locked and loaded. Get your popcorn and sit back and watch. Let's all hope we make this December the best ever when it comes to taking out the enemy. Right, everybody? Come on, put your hands together...clap clap clap.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
You're behind the curve. Sadr (the Shi'ite) is now our pal, and we are paying 75,000 Sunnis. All those vicious murderers are now temping for us, probably just long enough for us to pull out.
Bennett
· 2 years ago
Ah, well you know...Buford, hope for the best and all that. Maybe if you get lucky, our new allies will change their minds and start killing American soldiers once more.
It's amazing, really. You'd rather have American soldiers dead in the streets of Iraq than any effort on our part to co-opt the insurgency and turn their rifles at other targets. Amazing.
And what do you care what happens once we're gone? Once we're gone, then you'll be all over Iraq, eh? All wrapped up in the fate of the ordinary Iraqis? Not now, of course, just once we're gone.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Look, we cut a deal with Saddam (remember the photo of him shaking hands with Rummy?) and he shot at us. And Reagan cut a deal with the Ayatolla (Iran Contra). Now W cut a deal with the Bathists and Sadr (formerly "public enemy #1). They'll get back to menacing us soon enough. While W's fans like to compare him to Lincoln and Churchhill and Alexander and Jesus and Bhudda yadda yadda yadda, I think we are seeming him doing his Truman at Pottsdam imitation.
Bennett
· 2 years ago
Who's going to be menacing us? You're not making any sense. The Iraqis? But I thought they weren't our enemies until we invaded?
Party on Buford. The world is a nasty place and not worthy of you. So party on.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
>You'd rather have American soldiers dead in the streets >of Iraq than any effort on our part to co-opt the insurgency >and turn their rifles at other targets.
And your penis is tiny
Bennett
· 2 years ago
It would be if I had one. You sexist you.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
His point is that your insult, like his, is based on an effort to demonize the opponent rather than engage him/her.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
It had occurred to me that maybe you didn't.
hunter_123
· 2 years ago
It is always illuminating when a lefty shows their true (lack of) capability.
mistercalm
· 2 years ago
I didn't realize Helen Thomas is your grandmother.
red
· 2 years ago
Is that you, Helen?
mike d
· 2 years ago
Cap'n - i blame the WH press shop for the allowing the partisan idiocy of Ms. Thomas to go un-dealt with. Until and unless they pull her credential and explain why in detail, or at a minimum stop putting her in the front row and giving her the chance to lead off the questioning, then they deserve whatever fastballs she deigns to throw at the heads of WH press people.
CaptainAmerica
· 2 years ago
Excellent Post Capt!
Otter
· 2 years ago
I thought Marvel killed you off in their latest Leftist screed?
AH_C
· 2 years ago
Pull her creditials and let her wail all she wants. It'll only attract attention of the kind the MSM can't afford. But I reckon we're too spineless for that
Gahrie
· 2 years ago
Helen thomas typifies the real problem with lefty moonbats. It's not the failed ideology, rabid partizianship, constant hypocrisy or ever present ad hom attacks.
It is the complete and utter lack of shame.
flenser
· 2 years ago
I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues..
Actually, her position is bestowed on her by the White House. They could kick the silly old bat out any time they wanted to.
N. O'Brain
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas.
A trolls Troll,
flenser
· 2 years ago
I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues..
Of course, her position is bestowed on her by the White House itself. They could kick the silly old bat out any time they wanted to.
Carl
· 2 years ago
I see that some believe it's a good thing to have Helen Thomas make an ass of herself in the pressroom. That's true to a point and that point has long ago been reached. I have to side with the people wishing her White House pressroom pass be revoked.
Carl
· 2 years ago
I just read someone else's comment that had a great idea of which I concur: don't revoke her press pass, but relegate her to the back row and then ignore her. If she disrupts from back there or tries to horn in on the front row, have her forceably removed. Do it as many times as it takes. It will REALLY show Thomas as a moonbat.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Sadly, the press corps themselves determine their seating via a vote.
mistercalm
· 2 years ago
I agree with Carl: this isn't about the old bat making a dissenting comment; it's about her inability to string together coherent thoughts. I think the troll should be showboating from the back row, if allowed in the room at all! Freakin' "journalists" always want to be taken seriously, yet they admire senile old fools like Helen Thomas, Dan Rather & Walter Cronkite. If liberal blowhards are the gold standard for journalism, then I'm glad I'm a designer!
njcommuter
· 2 years ago
The world is divided into those who see in Helen Thomas a model and those who see in her a caricature. The longer she goes on, the more who will move from the former group to the latter.
Eventually, she may achieve the status of an Emperor Norton. But not this week.
Tom_Shipley
· 2 years ago
Thomas is exactly right in asking that question. We all pretend (and by 'we all' I mean 'you all') that the invasion was some sort of gift bestowed upon the iraqi people by the united states. it was nothing of the sort. we dispatched of saddam because we wanted him gone. many iraqis wanted him gone, but the price of that action has been much greater for the iraqis than the US. remember that. They had zero say in the matter.
terrye
· 2 years ago
Tom:
What I like about the left is their complete relativism. There is no truth. Ergo, we are bad for ever supporting Saddam and bad for taking him out. We are bad for standing by and watching murder and mayhem, we are bad if we intervene. In truth taking Saddam out was a gift to the Iraqi people. They did not call the man the Butcher of Baghdad for no good reason.
AnonymousDrivel
· 2 years ago
re: relativism and "There is no truth. Ergo, we are bad for ever supporting Saddam and bad for taking him out. We are bad for standing by and watching murder and mayhem, we are bad if we intervene."
Exactly.
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
What's even funnier is all of the folks on Helen and Shipley's side of the aisle were saying Saddam was bad and had WMDs many years ago. And it was Clinon's own Justice Dept. that claimed in 1998 that bin Laden and Saddam were in bed together.
Would Helen be asking the same questions had a Democart President taken out Saddam?
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Thomas meant nothing of the sort. And just because we wanted Saddam gone doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing for the Iraqis, too.
Otter
· 2 years ago
Then we would be exactly right to ask how many innocent Christians clintoon killed in Kosovo.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Tom Shipley,
So, what exactly are you saying? That we should regret the lives of innocent Iraqis who've been lost in this war? I think we all do. Our is not and never has been with them.
Or are you saying that our military is a bunch of killers who are deliberately slaughtering innocent Iraqis for no good reason?
Perhaps somebody should ask ol' Helen, "Do you support the troops?" I think we'd get an honest answer out of her, actually...
mistercalm
· 2 years ago
Uh, Tom... war is the pursuit of the object AFTER the war. Innocent people being killed is not the object... GUILTY people being killed is the means to achieving the object AFTER the war. No, it's not a "present" to the Iraqis: it is the ultimate exercise of politcal will. Geez. I guess we should've air-lifted kites and more Oil-for-Food loot to Saddam.
Russ
· 2 years ago
Tom,
The Russians didn't exactly have altruistic intentions when they liberated Aushwitz either, but the Jews who were no longer subject to the gas chambers didn't really care who the liberator was.
Glad to know you think people should suffer unless there is purity of intent.
navyman
· 2 years ago
Why don"t you ask KURDS about the price they payed, before we removed him from power. You fail to mention all those mass graves that were found. And your Great leader Clinton signed a resolutin making regeme chage a foreign policy goail. But of course as we all know Clinton would have waited un til Saddam died of old age.
anonymously
· 2 years ago
In all decency Helen should have been taken from the press in the WH some years ago.
She is old and deserves to be somewhere where she is not made fun on and used by the democrats.
I think if nothing else, she should be honored and retired. At one time she knew what was going on, but now she is simply there to give the conservatives something to laugh about. How sad is that?
Her employer should simply retire her and give a dinner in her honor BEFORE she dies or is not able to understand what is happening. Leaving it as it is, demeans her and her employer.
Leave the poor women some sense of pride, she has worked many years and even if she is disliked her, she has worked hard all her life, and feels pride in that.
SwabJockey05
· 2 years ago
It's all about "Troof to Power"
MichaelSmith
· 2 years ago
The discouraging thing is that our leftist-dominated educational system has turned out millions of Americans who share Helen Thomas' world view, including her view that America is fundamentally evil and responsible for virtually all the world's problems. This is a group which, like Helen Thomas, is completely dominated by their emotions and incapable of independent, rational, critical thinking. They were not taught to THINK-- they were taught to FOLLOW -- and as a result all they know how to do is regurgitate on cue the leftist talking-points that make up their mantra -- even when those talking points are blatantly contradicted by the obvious facts at hand.
keemo
· 2 years ago
Yes, Yes, Yes... Helen takes me down memory lane.
I was 15 years old; I believe the year was 1969. I was traveling to an "away" game with my Babe Ruth baseball team at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. We were forced to stop and wait for a large disturbance to clear; seems a large group of Liberals had placed a hang-mans rope around a tree branch and had hung a dummy dressed up as an American soldier. On the ground, just below the hanging fake soldier, they were burning an American flag. Lots of signs stating things such as "baby killers" and that sort of stuff. I remember being confused and sad that these people would do such a thing, as I had several family members fighting the fight over in Vietnam.
Some 38 years later; same shit with some of the same idiots. Helen is a disgrace; Liberals must either stand up and shout "Helen doesn't represent us", or they will continue to be seen in the same light as Helen and her ilk.
bilgi yarışması
· 2 years ago
Sadly, the press corps themselves determine their seating via a vote.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately, judging from the commentary over at Crooks & Liars, Helen does represent liberals online. The ones I know at school (most of 'em) aren't crazy; where are they?
FedUp
· 2 years ago
She's another example of why there should be planned parenthood. What a disgrace to what was once a grand profession... What brand of Kool-Aid d'ya think is her favorite??? Jes wondering....
bilgi yarışması
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas: what a maroon
GarandFan
· 2 years ago
A better response would have been: "Helen, Jack's dead, and Teddy's over the hill. Come to think of it, so are you. Please, just because you can't get laid, don't take it out on the President.......or me." :o)
htom
· 2 years ago
(Registration test.)
Senility does indeed seem to explain a lot of the behavior.
SF Conservative
· 2 years ago
At a speech last week Ann Coulter was asked if there was anything she had not yet done but would like to do. She answered that she would like to be President Bush's press secretary for the rest of his term.
What a lovely thought...
Ms Fran
· 2 years ago
HELEN Thomas is a disgrace to the the USA if she hates the military the Commnders the US so much....i suggest......dont let the door hit your F A!!
AMERICA go way out of the way NOT TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE in war, they always have. THIS may be WHY so many American soldiers lose their life.
Ms Fran
· 2 years ago
THANK YOU MS PERINO. Finally someone with a backbone to address Helen and her anti USA buddies!
Neo
· 2 years ago
So how did she get a seat up front ?
She lost that seat when her employer UPI was bought by the Unification Church and she, in an act of tolerance, fled to become a columnist. Columnist don't get front row seats.
Bubba
· 2 years ago
HELEN HERE IS A NEW WORD FOR YOU RETIRE
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Slightly revised opinion upon looking slightly further in: Bad questions, answered badly. Great.
Thomas: Why should it be? Why don't the American people have a say?
The PROPER response is: Because decisions on military allocation during wartime aren't made by the civilian population, they're made by the military chain of command. The President is elected by the American people, but he also has a military job as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he is not obliged to listen to the people in making logistical decisions about war.
Thomas: Do you think that [what?] was the vote from the American people?
The correct response is: What are you referring to: the decision to bring 5700 troops home, the election of President Bush, or listening to what his commanders on the ground are telling him? [if Thomas clarifies] On the first: The American people don't get a vote on that; On the second: That was the American vote, yes; On the third: As the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President's military duty is not to make military decisions based on what the civilian population is voting for, but rather to make decisions based on what his commanders on the ground are telling him, which is what he is doing.
Thomas: Why should we depend on him [Gen. Petraeus]? Answered correctly.
Thomas: You mean how many more people we kill?
Correct answer: Yes, Helen, how many more INSURGENTS and TERRORISTS we kill - Gen. Petraeus is in charge of that. Nearly all of the killing of innocents is done by insurgents and terrorists, and of those that the US has killed most have been from collateral damage, which we have tried to minimize but cannot entirely eliminate.
Thomas: Do you know how many [innocent people] we have [killed] since the start of the war?
Correct answer: Nobody knows the exact number, only that we're constantly trying to keep that number as small as possible.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
I went over to Crooks & Liars, and they're all agog over Thomas. You know, defender of the free world, only journalist with any courage and all that. So, I decided to post. The first:
"You have to admit, though, to suggest that our only job in Iraq is killing people is kinda offensive…or at least simplistic…"
This based on the "you mean how many people we kill?" question.
After I got some replies, I decided to respond with a really long one. Since I suspect it will get deleted, I'm leaving it here because it highlights some of the fundamental misunderstandings about the Iraq War among 70% of our population. Here goes:
shano: “That was NOT the suggestion. Helen asked how many Iraqis have been killed. It deserved an answer.
Guess what? We ARE killing innocent people in Iraq. How many people have we killed was the question. To say that it is a absurd question simply evades the reality on the ground for the past 6 years. feh”
Look at what she was responding to: Dana Perino: Because he is the commander on the ground, Helen. He’s the one who is making sure that the situation is moving —
Helen Thomas: You mean how many more people we kill?
In other words, the “situation” that is “moving” in Iraq is “how many more people we kill.” Because obviously that’s the only reason we’re in Iraq. [/sarc]
WC: “We are killing innocent people. And not just those that accidentally happen to be in the way when we go after the real enemy.
Take the 14 year old Iraqi girl that was raped and killed by, what, 4 of our troops? And for what? And then she was shot and killed and her body was burned. But it didn’t stop there. Her family was killed, too.”
*apologizes beforehand for arguing numbers when deaths are involved* because I hate to do so. However…
Take any measure of the people that are dying in Iraq, from icasualties’ 40,000ish (way too low, though at least they acknowledge it) and the 1.2 million estimate (come on, that’s as many as were killed in the worst bombing of the entire war, multiplied over every single day since the invasion). Of those, most were killed by insurgents, whether they be Baathists angry about their loss of status, AQ members stirring up trouble, the Mahdi Army engaging in sectarian violence, or whatever else. Here’s a conservative estimate - however many civilian casualties there have been, 90% of them came from the various insurgent groups.
Now, one might ask whether we want to abandon Iraq to these people, but I’ll pass over that for now. Let’s say the remaining 10% were killed by US troops in one way or another. How many were victims of collateral damage? Shall we be extremely conservative and say 3/4? So we’re left with, at most, 2.5% of total casualties that were killed by the US. How many soldiers do you think that would take? Even for the 1.2 million estimate, that’s about 30,000 Iraqis dead. A US troop nuts enough to kill an innocent Iraqi can kill a lot of them, since he’s armed and armored far better - shall we say 1 Iraqi-murdering US soldier for every 5 Iraqis deliberately killed by US troops? Even for the highest casualty count, that’s about 6,000 US troops off their rockers or just plain evil. 6,000 of the 170,000ish troops in Iraq now, plus all the ones that came before. Certainly less than 3% of all the troops that have been in Iraq. And we’re talking worst-case-scenario here.
Now, do you think it perfectly reasonable for Helen Thomas to obsess about 2.5% of the casualties in Iraq, inflicted by 3% of the Armed Forces, to cast that as the only movement in the “situation” in Iraq, when the other 97% are trying to prevent the deaths of many more?
“You want to talk about being offensive and simplistic? It is offensive and simplistic to suggest that the American people have made their choice when they elected Bush and that they should just shut up about the war.”
Let’s assume the American people have the right to call off a war if feeling against it is strong enough. It hasn’t been true in any war except Vietnam (and Somalia?), but we’ll go there anyway. That still doesn’t mean “the American people” “have a say” (to quote Thomas’ question) in how Bush fights the war in Iraq, and especially not in what he plans to do with the 5700 troops he’s moving around.
Leaving aside all the “did Bush win Florida by 200 votes or lose it by 200″ debate, he IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He’s not obligated to discuss every little troop allocation he makes with the civilian population. Questions like “Should we pull out of Iraq?”, sure. Questions like “Should he put 5,000 troops in Basra or Okinawa?”, no.
“Fuck you, Dana Perino. You are the one that is offensive. And for those rightwingers who read this and say “Oh, look at those liberals. They are so full of hate!”, I say “Bite me.” You all gave us 8 years of Clinton hatred, so just STFU.
You ignorant people elected this sorry excuse for a president, and re-elected him again.”
Nope, can’t say I did any of that. I’m 16, and only recently started thinking about politics. But this does seem like a classic example of “The other side does it too!” finger-pointing to excuse your hate.
SpellBound: “You kinda have to admit, Perino spun the question for her own administrations self-serving purpose as Helen asked no such thing as has been suggested by either Perino or yourself. You’re spinning too.”
Yes, Dana did spin the question. I did say both questioner and answerer were handling the situation poorly.
However, I am NOT spinning the question. By cutting off Perino at “making sure that the situation is moving–” and asking “you mean how many more people we kill?” Helen is saying that the “situation”, i.e. Iraq, is only us killing people. Context is a terrible, wonderful thing, and it backs up my interpretation of the facts here.
MCMetal: “More offensive than the bogus search for non-existent WMD’s ? Is there any type of explanation for an illegal invasion and occupation of another nation ? And you’re attempting to suggest that a reporter’s question is somehow offensive….or at least simplistic ?”
I thought it’d been agreed on that the search was genuine, but the WMDs weren’t there. Bush and Congress were fooled by poor intelligence sources like agent “Curveball”, just like the Clinton administration. In other words, we went forward with the information we had. Even though the information turned out to be wrong, that doesn’t mean the decision we made earlier was wrong…unless you prefer the 20/20 hindsight vision of a poor historian (the good ones put on period glasses).
Illegal invasion and occupation? Saddam’s decade+ defiance of UN 1441, the condition for cease-fire in 1991, was the only LEGAL justification we needed to go into Iraq (i.e. resuming the First Gulf War) - by violating the resolution, he was essentially declaring war in a bluff we finally called.
And yes, I am suggesting that it is offensive and simplistic to characterize the situation in Iraq as simply us killing Iraqis. Is it not simplistic to ignore such complicated distinctions as who’s killing most of the people and who most of the victims are? Is it not offensive to ignore the efforts to stabilize Iraq in the interest of casting the situation in the worst possible light (as that question does)?
sneeches
· 2 years ago
How sad for you! I'm sure you haven't checked the freepers and hot air for THEIR brilliant commentary on the hostage incident yesterday at a Clinton campaign office. (I see that Malkin is busily deleting the comments as fast as her little fingers are able)
docjim505
· 2 years ago
You're only 16???? You must not go to government schools!
A well-written post. As one who relies heavily (too heavily, perhaps) on sarcasm, snark, and outright contempt, I appreciate your efforts to engage in thoughtful debate.
Ledger1
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas has grossly misused her press credentials and her age (87?) during the Bush Administration. She is disgustingly rude and openly partisan.
The fact that she has Lebanese parents is no excuse for her outrageously belligerent behavior.
I must conclude that she is suffering from dementia or she has not been taking her medication regularly.
inmypajamas
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas is the only reporter who challenges the evil empire. That has got to be parody, right? LOL - as if anyone on the Left in our country has any idea what it really is to live under an evil empire. What a perfect comment to complement Helen's angry, rude and childish behavior. She is completely unprofessional. Her comments are only edgy and "truthy" to people whose idea of adult conversation is "Oh yeah, well, it takes one to know one."
If Clinton gets elected, just watch how Helen will simper, giggle and slobber all over her spokesperson. Get the barf bags ready.
muffler
· 2 years ago
I find the lack of accounting for the entire impact of the war as completely unprofessional. Helen has every right to ask these questions and I find it strange that no one else does.
For Ms. Perino to patronize Helen and make it look like being in the White House Press Room is an honor provided by the Emperor is narcissistic. The White House Press Room is a requirement by the people of the United States and the President serves at the pleasure of the people.
Let's get our priorities straight. Bush is Commander and Chief of the Armed forces (ONLY! as defined by the Constitution), but he is completely the servant of the people!. Ms. Perino therefore has her job because the people require answers to our Governments actions and the press is our first line of inquiry, All questions are important. Especially the ones they don't want to answer.
Muffler
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Yes, Dana was an idiot. Helen was an idiot too, for implying that all we do in Iraq is kill people and wondering why the American people doesn't have a vote in the movement of 5700 troops. Some questions are important in a "why are these bad questions?" sort of way, but that doesn't make them viable in the press room.
chaking
· 2 years ago
The comments here are so much more tasteful than her's. You guys definitely are on the moral high ground.
Kimberly
· 2 years ago
Helen Thomas is the only reporter who challenges the evil empire. To suggest that this dignified woman is anything but professional when confronting known liars is to be completely out of sync with reality. Yes, I'm looking at YOU Gerry N. AND your daughter. I suggest both you and your family get a clue and finally realize that this reporter is not vicious, she is merely trying to get a shred of truth out an increasingly corrupt administration.
Ignorance is not bliss and lies can't be allowed to continue unchallenged - even when they are up with a perky blonde at the podium.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
It's only an empire in your mind...and Helen's questions displayed a complete ignorance of the basics of government matched only by Perino's incompetence at answering those questions - and the incompetence will lead to more charges of lying like your own.
sneeches
· 2 years ago
So where do you get your daily dose of "reality"? Certainly not outside the rightwing bubble, obviously, or you'd have a clue about what REALLY goes on in our name. Then again, torture probably suits you - and I'm figuring that you've bought into the lie that 9/11 was tied to Saddam.
Really Math, it's time to start thinking for a change.
According to the MSM, Gitmo is practically just another POW camp now, and we haven't waterboarded anybody since 2003. I can be angry about the torture (though the people who were tortured would normally be shot out of hand) without seeing it as a reason to call off the war, impeach the President, and so on and so on. And as I point out in my lengthy post below, both Helen and Dana displayed massive incompetence in this session - Helen for implying that the US' only job in Iraq is killing people, and Dana for misrepresenting Helen's questions and not slapping her down properly.
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
"Lies can't be allowed to continue unchallenged." You got that part right, sweetheart. Merle Haggard's got something for you:
I hear people talkin' bad, About the way we have to live here in this country, Harpin' on the wars we fight, An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be. An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides, An' standin' up for things they believe in. When they're runnin' down my country, man, They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me. Runnin' down the way of life, Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep. If you don't love it, leave it: Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'. If you're runnin' down my country, man, You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
I read about some squirrely guy, Who claims, he just don't believe in fightin'. An' I wonder just how long, The rest of us can count on bein' free. They love our milk an' honey, But they preach about some other way of livin'. When they're runnin' down my country, hoss, They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me. Runnin' down the way of life, Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep. If you don't love it, leave it: Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'. If you're runnin' down my country, man, You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
sneeches
· 2 years ago
Merle Haggard - Hah! Funny.
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
Not half so funny as those like you that just don't get it. He was singing that song during the Vietnam era, but the sentiments remain valid today. For those delusional idiots who really think that America is an "evil empire," and that we are the cause of all of the world's trouble, the door swings out: There are no border guards keeping you in this country against your will. You're free to leave and head for Canada or France or some other country you like better. Don't let it hit you in the butt on the way out.
Russ
· 2 years ago
Kimberly,
Please enlighten me on these "known liars" and what the lies they told have been.
BTW, nice comment on the "evil empire." I won't question your patriotism, b/c you have none.
You nicely highlight the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives see liberals as a little stupid and naive, while liberals see conservatives as evil, not someone to be debated against in the arena of ideas, but monsters to be destroyed by hatred. You have my pity for harboring such venom in your soul.
sneeches
· 2 years ago
Known liars? Where have you been, Russ? We've been lied to by the Bushies about the reasons for going into the Iraq War (WMD, 9/11/Saddam ties), about the outing of Plame (Niger lies, and 2 words: Scott McClellan), about what they knew in the lead up to 9/11, foiled terror plots, TORTURE (remember "we don't torture"???), domestic spying, Hurricane Katrina disaster, and the levees, Prescription drug bill costs, deleting findings in Global warming, Enron and "Kenny boy"......the list goes on and on and on and on.
But don't take my word for it, go to the link provided below and see for yourself. Then please, by all means, debunk what you can with facts and documentation. I will check back to see your thoughts :-) http://www.bushlies.net/
Russ
· 2 years ago
I agree that the intel was bad on Iraq, but where was the lie? Or was it a lie when Bill Clinton had the same intel. We made a mistake, but that wasn't a lie. I can say that I'm going to drive to my parents' house, but if my car breaks down and I don't make it, I didn't lie.
Plame was outed by Armitage. You know...a democrat. And go back and actually look at what McClellan said. Surprisingly, that's not being covered, just a sound bite that was VERY obviously taken out of context.
9/11 stuff? Wow, never knew you were such a conspiracy nut. Let me ask you - if we are really THAT devious, why didn't we at least try to plant some WMDs in Iraq? No one conceivably thought about plots like 9/11 on 9/10.
Katrina - um, what lies? A bad response at every level - including state and local levels controlled by DEMOCRATS - but I don't know where they said something like, "We'll be able to stop Katrina from hitting New Orleans, and if it does, we'll have it cleaned up in a month."
Oh, I see - when someone disagrees with you, they lied.
Having been to Iraq myself, I know what we have done is noble. But when I go back next year, I'll be sure to tell the folks in Sadr City I spoke to that you think having their daughters raped by Saddam's sons was not all that bad. I'll tell the Marsh Arabs I helped rebuild that their ecological devastation wasn't worth us expending effort. I'll be sure to tell the parents of the boy whose decapitated body I found in Tikrit that you believe that waterboarding known terrorists, like the ones who killed their son, is equivilant to what AQI has done.
Thanks for showing what side of the moral spectrum you are on. It helps frmaes the despicable attitude of your debate.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
WMDs was a mistake, not a lie. Saddam had ties with AQ, though he probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11 specifically. He had been defying UN 1441 for a decade+ - that's all the legal justification we need, according to that very resolution. Plame's so twisted up that you can believe whatever you want about that incident, though I find it telling that the basis for most of the theory is that someone put Plame's real name in a memo. In the lead-up to 9/11, we knew something was up - that's why there were 70 FBI investigations on suspected AQ activity. We knew Hurricane Katrina was going to strike past the levees, partially because corruption at the state and local level meant that the levees were way weaker than they should have been. That's why Bush asked Blanco and Nagin to start evacuating. They refused. Then their first responders screwed up, while the Coast Guard and other national agencies went beyond the call of duty. I'll skip the rest for now.
Otter
· 2 years ago
She challenged the evil empire? When did she get to Russia?
As to you, we can tell from your anger that ignorance is not bliss.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Helen, although born in Kentucky, had Lebanese parents, so she has crazy ideas about her parents being like real human beings and stuff
Swede
· 2 years ago
Gosh...that's so....so touching.
I didn't realize that Helen's parents were killed by U.S. Soldiers.
Now it all makes sense.
Pelosi delende est
· 2 years ago
Are you saying her parents are still alive? I am surprised that Chimpy McBushitlerHalliburton hasn't wiped all of the oppostion out yet. "Living" during the Bush Reich period has been tough on us all.
hunter_123
· 2 years ago
So we have been occupying Lebanon all this time? Or is Kentucky part of the Arab world?
mistercalm
· 2 years ago
Maybe she's from Lebanon, Kentucky?
Otter
· 2 years ago
So you do Not consider Lebanese real humans? Good to know.
All Comments
People just mistake the gas escaping from her mouth as horrible questions.
I could almost agree, but it's useful to have her sitting there, making an idiot out of herself. Nothing highlights the idiocy and bias of the MSM better than a Helen Thomas diatribe. For years she hid behind the transparent film of "non-biased reporting." But now, she's out front for all to see. All in all, the MSM probably does conservatives a favor by honoring her with the seat in the front row. It this is what the MSM "honor", then think of how much else is biased against conservatives and the country. The people watching will slowly draw the correct conclusions.
I may be too young to remember (probably only 19-22), but did republicans speak so poorly of our troop's efforts when Clinton placed us in Bosnia or in Mogadishu? Is there any record of Helen Thomas' reporting on Sadam's murderous policies towards his own countrymen? I still have extreme difficulty dealing with the plight of the the lambs exacerbated by BDS.
That being said, I'm sure glasses are being raised to her all over Moonbatia.
The number's not correct, either.
It's amazing, really. You'd rather have American soldiers dead in the streets of Iraq than any effort on our part to co-opt the insurgency and turn their rifles at other targets. Amazing.
And what do you care what happens once we're gone? Once we're gone, then you'll be all over Iraq, eh? All wrapped up in the fate of the ordinary Iraqis? Not now, of course, just once we're gone.
Party on Buford. The world is a nasty place and not worthy of you. So party on.
>of Iraq than any effort on our part to co-opt the insurgency
>and turn their rifles at other targets.
And your penis is tiny
go un-dealt with. Until and unless they pull her credential and explain why in detail, or at a minimum stop putting her in the front row and giving her the chance to lead off the questioning, then they deserve whatever fastballs she deigns to throw at the heads of WH press people.
It is the complete and utter lack of shame.
Actually, her position is bestowed on her by the White House. They could kick the silly old bat out any time they wanted to.
A trolls Troll,
Of course, her position is bestowed on her by the White House itself. They could kick the silly old bat out any time they wanted to.
Eventually, she may achieve the status of an Emperor Norton. But not this week.
What I like about the left is their complete relativism. There is no truth. Ergo, we are bad for ever supporting Saddam and bad for taking him out. We are bad for standing by and watching murder and mayhem, we are bad if we intervene. In truth taking Saddam out was a gift to the Iraqi people. They did not call the man the Butcher of Baghdad for no good reason.
Exactly.
Would Helen be asking the same questions had a Democart President taken out Saddam?
So, what exactly are you saying? That we should regret the lives of innocent Iraqis who've been lost in this war? I think we all do. Our is not and never has been with them.
Or are you saying that our military is a bunch of killers who are deliberately slaughtering innocent Iraqis for no good reason?
Perhaps somebody should ask ol' Helen, "Do you support the troops?" I think we'd get an honest answer out of her, actually...
The Russians didn't exactly have altruistic intentions when they liberated Aushwitz either, but the Jews who were no longer subject to the gas chambers didn't really care who the liberator was.
Glad to know you think people should suffer unless there is purity of intent.
She is old and deserves to be somewhere where she is not made fun on and used by
the democrats.
I think if nothing else, she should be honored and retired. At one time she knew what
was going on, but now she is simply there to give the conservatives something to laugh
about. How sad is that?
Her employer should simply retire her and give a dinner in her honor BEFORE she
dies or is not able to understand what is happening. Leaving it as it is, demeans her
and her employer.
Leave the poor women some sense of pride, she has worked many years and even if she is
disliked her, she has worked hard all her life, and feels pride in that.
I was 15 years old; I believe the year was 1969. I was traveling to an "away" game with my Babe Ruth baseball team at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. We were forced to stop and wait for a large disturbance to clear; seems a large group of Liberals had placed a hang-mans rope around a tree branch and had hung a dummy dressed up as an American soldier. On the ground, just below the hanging fake soldier, they were burning an American flag. Lots of signs stating things such as "baby killers" and that sort of stuff. I remember being confused and sad that these people would do such a thing, as I had several family members fighting the fight over in Vietnam.
Some 38 years later; same shit with some of the same idiots. Helen is a disgrace; Liberals must either stand up and shout "Helen doesn't represent us", or they will continue to be seen in the same light as Helen and her ilk.
"Helen, Jack's dead, and Teddy's over the hill. Come to think of it, so are you. Please, just because you can't get laid, don't take it out on the President.......or me." :o)
Senility does indeed seem to explain a lot of the behavior.
What a lovely thought...
AMERICA go way out of the way NOT TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE in war, they always have. THIS may be WHY so many American soldiers lose their life.
She lost that seat when her employer UPI was bought by the Unification Church and she, in an act of tolerance, fled to become a columnist. Columnist don't get front row seats.
Thomas: Why should it be? Why don't the American people have a say?
The PROPER response is: Because decisions on military allocation during wartime aren't made by the civilian population, they're made by the military chain of command. The President is elected by the American people, but he also has a military job as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he is not obliged to listen to the people in making logistical decisions about war.
Thomas: Do you think that [what?] was the vote from the American people?
The correct response is: What are you referring to: the decision to bring 5700 troops home, the election of President Bush, or listening to what his commanders on the ground are telling him? [if Thomas clarifies] On the first: The American people don't get a vote on that; On the second: That was the American vote, yes; On the third: As the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President's military duty is not to make military decisions based on what the civilian population is voting for, but rather to make decisions based on what his commanders on the ground are telling him, which is what he is doing.
Thomas: Why should we depend on him [Gen. Petraeus]?
Answered correctly.
Thomas: You mean how many more people we kill?
Correct answer: Yes, Helen, how many more INSURGENTS and TERRORISTS we kill - Gen. Petraeus is in charge of that. Nearly all of the killing of innocents is done by insurgents and terrorists, and of those that the US has killed most have been from collateral damage, which we have tried to minimize but cannot entirely eliminate.
Thomas: Do you know how many [innocent people] we have [killed] since the start of the war?
Correct answer: Nobody knows the exact number, only that we're constantly trying to keep that number as small as possible.
"You have to admit, though, to suggest that our only job in Iraq is killing people is kinda offensive…or at least simplistic…"
This based on the "you mean how many people we kill?" question.
After I got some replies, I decided to respond with a really long one. Since I suspect it will get deleted, I'm leaving it here because it highlights some of the fundamental misunderstandings about the Iraq War among 70% of our population. Here goes:
shano:
“That was NOT the suggestion. Helen asked how many Iraqis have been killed. It deserved an answer.
Guess what? We ARE killing innocent people in Iraq. How many people have we killed was the question. To say that it is a absurd question simply evades the reality on the ground for the past 6 years. feh”
Look at what she was responding to:
Dana Perino: Because he is the commander on the ground, Helen. He’s the one who is making sure that the situation is moving —
Helen Thomas: You mean how many more people we kill?
In other words, the “situation” that is “moving” in Iraq is “how many more people we kill.” Because obviously that’s the only reason we’re in Iraq. [/sarc]
WC:
“We are killing innocent people. And not just those that accidentally happen to be in the way when we go after the real enemy.
Take the 14 year old Iraqi girl that was raped and killed by, what, 4 of our troops? And for what? And then she was shot and killed and her body was burned. But it didn’t stop there. Her family was killed, too.”
*apologizes beforehand for arguing numbers when deaths are involved* because I hate to do so. However…
Take any measure of the people that are dying in Iraq, from icasualties’ 40,000ish (way too low, though at least they acknowledge it) and the 1.2 million estimate (come on, that’s as many as were killed in the worst bombing of the entire war, multiplied over every single day since the invasion). Of those, most were killed by insurgents, whether they be Baathists angry about their loss of status, AQ members stirring up trouble, the Mahdi Army engaging in sectarian violence, or whatever else. Here’s a conservative estimate - however many civilian casualties there have been, 90% of them came from the various insurgent groups.
Now, one might ask whether we want to abandon Iraq to these people, but I’ll pass over that for now. Let’s say the remaining 10% were killed by US troops in one way or another. How many were victims of collateral damage? Shall we be extremely conservative and say 3/4? So we’re left with, at most, 2.5% of total casualties that were killed by the US. How many soldiers do you think that would take? Even for the 1.2 million estimate, that’s about 30,000 Iraqis dead. A US troop nuts enough to kill an innocent Iraqi can kill a lot of them, since he’s armed and armored far better - shall we say 1 Iraqi-murdering US soldier for every 5 Iraqis deliberately killed by US troops? Even for the highest casualty count, that’s about 6,000 US troops off their rockers or just plain evil. 6,000 of the 170,000ish troops in Iraq now, plus all the ones that came before. Certainly less than 3% of all the troops that have been in Iraq. And we’re talking worst-case-scenario here.
Now, do you think it perfectly reasonable for Helen Thomas to obsess about 2.5% of the casualties in Iraq, inflicted by 3% of the Armed Forces, to cast that as the only movement in the “situation” in Iraq, when the other 97% are trying to prevent the deaths of many more?
“You want to talk about being offensive and simplistic? It is offensive and simplistic to suggest that the American people have made their choice when they elected Bush and that they should just shut up about the war.”
Let’s assume the American people have the right to call off a war if feeling against it is strong enough. It hasn’t been true in any war except Vietnam (and Somalia?), but we’ll go there anyway. That still doesn’t mean “the American people” “have a say” (to quote Thomas’ question) in how Bush fights the war in Iraq, and especially not in what he plans to do with the 5700 troops he’s moving around.
Leaving aside all the “did Bush win Florida by 200 votes or lose it by 200″ debate, he IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He’s not obligated to discuss every little troop allocation he makes with the civilian population. Questions like “Should we pull out of Iraq?”, sure. Questions like “Should he put 5,000 troops in Basra or Okinawa?”, no.
“Fuck you, Dana Perino. You are the one that is offensive. And for those rightwingers who read this and say “Oh, look at those liberals. They are so full of hate!”, I say “Bite me.” You all gave us 8 years of Clinton hatred, so just STFU.
You ignorant people elected this sorry excuse for a president, and re-elected him again.”
Nope, can’t say I did any of that. I’m 16, and only recently started thinking about politics. But this does seem like a classic example of “The other side does it too!” finger-pointing to excuse your hate.
SpellBound:
“You kinda have to admit, Perino spun the question for her own administrations self-serving purpose as Helen asked no such thing as has been suggested by either Perino or yourself. You’re spinning too.”
Yes, Dana did spin the question. I did say both questioner and answerer were handling the situation poorly.
However, I am NOT spinning the question. By cutting off Perino at “making sure that the situation is moving–” and asking “you mean how many more people we kill?” Helen is saying that the “situation”, i.e. Iraq, is only us killing people. Context is a terrible, wonderful thing, and it backs up my interpretation of the facts here.
MCMetal:
“More offensive than the bogus search for non-existent WMD’s ?
Is there any type of explanation for an illegal invasion and occupation of another nation ?
And you’re attempting to suggest that a reporter’s question is somehow offensive….or at least simplistic ?”
I thought it’d been agreed on that the search was genuine, but the WMDs weren’t there. Bush and Congress were fooled by poor intelligence sources like agent “Curveball”, just like the Clinton administration. In other words, we went forward with the information we had. Even though the information turned out to be wrong, that doesn’t mean the decision we made earlier was wrong…unless you prefer the 20/20 hindsight vision of a poor historian (the good ones put on period glasses).
Illegal invasion and occupation? Saddam’s decade+ defiance of UN 1441, the condition for cease-fire in 1991, was the only LEGAL justification we needed to go into Iraq (i.e. resuming the First Gulf War) - by violating the resolution, he was essentially declaring war in a bluff we finally called.
And yes, I am suggesting that it is offensive and simplistic to characterize the situation in Iraq as simply us killing Iraqis. Is it not simplistic to ignore such complicated distinctions as who’s killing most of the people and who most of the victims are? Is it not offensive to ignore the efforts to stabilize Iraq in the interest of casting the situation in the worst possible light (as that question does)?
A well-written post. As one who relies heavily (too heavily, perhaps) on sarcasm, snark, and outright contempt, I appreciate your efforts to engage in thoughtful debate.
The fact that she has Lebanese parents is no excuse for her outrageously belligerent behavior.
I must conclude that she is suffering from dementia or she has not been taking her medication regularly.
If Clinton gets elected, just watch how Helen will simper, giggle and slobber all over her spokesperson. Get the barf bags ready.
For Ms. Perino to patronize Helen and make it look like being in the White House Press Room is an honor provided by the Emperor is narcissistic. The White House Press Room is a requirement by the people of the United States and the President serves at the pleasure of the people.
Let's get our priorities straight. Bush is Commander and Chief of the Armed forces (ONLY! as defined by the Constitution), but he is completely the servant of the people!. Ms. Perino therefore has her job because the people require answers to our Governments actions and the press is our first line of inquiry, All questions are important. Especially the ones they don't want to answer.
Muffler
Ignorance is not bliss and lies can't be allowed to continue unchallenged - even when they are up with a perky blonde at the podium.
Really Math, it's time to start thinking for a change.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/173867...
According to the MSM, Gitmo is practically just another POW camp now, and we haven't waterboarded anybody since 2003. I can be angry about the torture (though the people who were tortured would normally be shot out of hand) without seeing it as a reason to call off the war, impeach the President, and so on and so on. And as I point out in my lengthy post below, both Helen and Dana displayed massive incompetence in this session - Helen for implying that the US' only job in Iraq is killing people, and Dana for misrepresenting Helen's questions and not slapping her down properly.
I hear people talkin' bad,
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harpin' on the wars we fight,
An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides,
An' standin' up for things they believe in.
When they're runnin' down my country, man,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
I read about some squirrely guy,
Who claims, he just don't believe in fightin'.
An' I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on bein' free.
They love our milk an' honey,
But they preach about some other way of livin'.
When they're runnin' down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Please enlighten me on these "known liars" and what the lies they told have been.
BTW, nice comment on the "evil empire." I won't question your patriotism, b/c you have none.
You nicely highlight the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives see liberals as a little stupid and naive, while liberals see conservatives as evil, not someone to be debated against in the arena of ideas, but monsters to be destroyed by hatred. You have my pity for harboring such venom in your soul.
But don't take my word for it, go to the link provided below and see for yourself. Then please, by all means, debunk what you can with facts and documentation. I will check back to see your thoughts :-)
http://www.bushlies.net/
Plame was outed by Armitage. You know...a democrat. And go back and actually look at what McClellan said. Surprisingly, that's not being covered, just a sound bite that was VERY obviously taken out of context.
9/11 stuff? Wow, never knew you were such a conspiracy nut. Let me ask you - if we are really THAT devious, why didn't we at least try to plant some WMDs in Iraq? No one conceivably thought about plots like 9/11 on 9/10.
Katrina - um, what lies? A bad response at every level - including state and local levels controlled by DEMOCRATS - but I don't know where they said something like, "We'll be able to stop Katrina from hitting New Orleans, and if it does, we'll have it cleaned up in a month."
Oh, I see - when someone disagrees with you, they lied.
Having been to Iraq myself, I know what we have done is noble. But when I go back next year, I'll be sure to tell the folks in Sadr City I spoke to that you think having their daughters raped by Saddam's sons was not all that bad. I'll tell the Marsh Arabs I helped rebuild that their ecological devastation wasn't worth us expending effort. I'll be sure to tell the parents of the boy whose decapitated body I found in Tikrit that you believe that waterboarding known terrorists, like the ones who killed their son, is equivilant to what AQI has done.
Thanks for showing what side of the moral spectrum you are on. It helps frmaes the despicable attitude of your debate.
As to you, we can tell from your anger that ignorance is not bliss.
I didn't realize that Helen's parents were killed by U.S. Soldiers.
Now it all makes sense.