Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Lethologica — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:46:55 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

muffler — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:35:27 -0000

Way to teach your children. Brush stroke bigotry started so young.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

muffler — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:33:42 -0000

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

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

inmypajamas — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:56:50 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Ledger1 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:06:12 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Lethologica — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:30:34 -0000

No, but Saddam was tied to AQ:
http://www.freerepublic.com...

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Lethologica — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:23:06 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

ClydeS — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:11:04 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Russ — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:13:17 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

herddog505 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:40:22 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

sneeches — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:33:02 -0000

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)

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

sneeches — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:30:14 -0000

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/

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

sneeches — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:18:13 -0000

Merle Haggard - Hah! Funny.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

sneeches — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:16:36 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Lethologica — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:00:23 -0000

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)?

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Otter — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:51:00 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Russ — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:43:32 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

ClydeS — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:51:16 -0000

"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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Lethologica — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:27:44 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Kimberly — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:41:48 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Lethologica — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:53:06 -0000

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?

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Lethologica — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:51:23 -0000

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.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

itsdeplorablespideyman — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:04:51 -0000

LOL. Maybe her copse is there, and they come along and refresh the makeup every once in a while.

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

Bubba — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:01:29 -0000

HELEN HERE IS A NEW WORD FOR YOU RETIRE

Re: The Ever-Despicable Helen Thomas

navyman — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:46:23 -0000

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.