Alarming News

November 30, 2007

Helen Thomas is an embarrassment to her field

But you knew that already.

Posted by Karol at 07:03 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I don’t think she is an embarrassment to her profession. She is typical of everyone who works for the MSM.

Posted by: Jake at November 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I think you have it wrong Karol, unfortunately she is not an embarrassment to her profession, but she is an example of the typical behavior of her peers.
She is however an embarrassment to sane people everywhere.

Posted by: Joe at November 30, 2007 at 11:16 pm

What, because you didn’t like the question, or because you couldn’t face the answer?

Posted by: hashfanatic at December 1, 2007 at 7:50 am

because you couldn’t face the answer?
How many people died in Rwanda because the international community refused to take sides or fight? How many people died in the Sudan, in Cambodia, in Sierra Leone?
How many people would have died and how many cultures would have been destroyed if we refused to fight in WWII? (or if we listened to the conspiracy theorists who claimed the Roosevelt instigated the Pearl Harbor attacks?)
You can’t bring back a life.

Posted by: mary at December 1, 2007 at 11:10 am

hash, your momma drank lots of lead paint while carrying you eh?

Posted by: Radical Redneck at December 1, 2007 at 12:15 pm

No, regret won’t bring back those innocents killed by Saddam Hussein. But we’ve done all we can on this earthly plane to bring about justice for those crimes.

Posted by: Shawn at December 1, 2007 at 2:43 pm

wow…she’s still alive? they were making “she’s so old” jokes about her wen i was a kid.

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at December 1, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Ah! Denial, obfuscation, and the usual lower-echelon invective.
Neocons never fail to disappoint when their own common racist motives override their own baseless hatreds.
Thanks for the lesson. Never do I tire of relearning it.

Posted by: hashfanatic at December 1, 2007 at 4:58 pm

The lower echelon invective is courtesy of our resident liberal, actually.

Posted by: Karol at December 1, 2007 at 5:33 pm

TADS doesn’t wear labels.

Posted by: The Amazing Dawn Summers at December 1, 2007 at 6:02 pm

wow…she’s still alive?
It’s an open question.
Personally, I think she resides among the walking undead.

Posted by: Gerard at December 1, 2007 at 6:35 pm

I think hash just assumes anyone he disagrees with is a neocon.
and therefore, he can conveniently create a reason why he dislikes neocons – he always disagrees with them!
yeah. it doesn’t make sense to me either.
p.s. not a neocon.

Posted by: E5 at December 1, 2007 at 6:39 pm

You mean like calling someone an embarrassment to their field, simply because they actually did their job?

Posted by: hashfanatic at December 1, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Karol,
You’re kidding, right?
You consider that witless automaton at the podium to be anything other than a disgrace to our democracy? Watching her, one is affronted by the violence she does to honest communication. It’s nice to know what a privilege it is to talk to our own government.
I like to kid, so here’s my little joke. Remember that enthusiastic spokesman Hussein had in the last days? The Bush administration’s spokesmen make him look like a paragon of sincerity.
Seriously though, how many innocent Iraqis are now dead because of this disastrous war? I’d love a hard number on it. Multiply that number by ten and you would get an equivalence to this happening in the USA.
Thomas hits the nail on the head. Our government doesn’t have a firm idea of how many Iraqis, innocent and guilty, that we have slaughtered. The best we can manage is “regret”. It’s a disgrace.
Congrats to the numbskulls who lampoon that an old lady isn’t as sharp as she used to be. Helen Thomas might dodder at times. At her worst, she’s still got enough common sense to put most of us to shame.
The bottom line is that the spokeswoman is an ass and Thomas gets exasperated by the corporate doublespeak that is now neutering our public discourse.
“Regrets”, indeed.
Cheers,
ME

Posted by: ME at December 1, 2007 at 7:38 pm

At her worst, she’s still got enough common sense to put most of us to shame.

Only you. And to be perfectly frank, that’s not much of an accomplishment.

BTW, “not as sharp as she used to be?”

That would imply that she ever was “sharp.”

Sorry to disabuse you of this fantasy, but she wasn’t.

She’s as dull now as she was for the past four centuries she’s been a part of the D.C. press pool.

Posted by: Gerard at December 1, 2007 at 9:17 pm

With one who signs off with “Cheers” and the other who says things like, “Never I do tire of…,” I’d say Karol’s resident Leftists are both 13 years old and packing six-sided dice.

Posted by: Gandalf at December 1, 2007 at 9:32 pm

“With one who signs off with “Cheers” and the other who says things like, “Never I do tire of…,” I’d say Karol’s resident Leftists are both 13 years old and packing six-sided dice.”
I’m sorry, but, not being one to spend my evenings falling down drunk off a barstool or hanging around the craps tables in Atlantic City, I’m not really qualified to judge.
Please, carry on in your alternative universe…

Posted by: hashfanatic at December 1, 2007 at 11:28 pm

“ME” wrote,
“Seriously though, how many innocent Iraqis are now dead because of this disastrous war?”
——–

The answer is not anywhere close to the number that died in WW2—so do you wish to make the argument that WW2 was not worth fighting ?
There will always be collateral damage in war.
Of course, you fail to mention that many of the “innocent Iraqis who are dead” are dead as a result of Islamic terrorists.
They’re the ones setting of car bombs and blowing up markets.
And by the way, we’re killing mostly bad guys—not “innocent” Iraqis.
Additionally, many of the terrorists we’re fighting in Iraq are from other countries. They travelled to Iraq to fight us there.

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at December 2, 2007 at 1:04 am

BBIAS,
I won’t make the argument that WWII was not worth fighting. I’ll certainly make the point that Vietnam was not worth fighting.
“Collateral damage” is a euphemism for the brutal deaths of innocents. That there is always such slaughter in war is not an argument that we should discount the tragedy of these deaths, but that we should despise war and its attendant horrors.
You are right that many if not most of the deaths (I don’t have any hard numbers, perhaps you do) are caused by the enemy, and that many of these fighters are from outside Iraq. We have turned Iraq into a perpetual battlefield. We should not expect Iraqis to thank us for that.
But let’s get back on topic: What is the death count in Iraq? Can anybody give me a straight answer on that?

Posted by: ME at December 2, 2007 at 9:41 am

That there is always such slaughter in war is not an argument that we should discount the tragedy of these deaths, but that we should despise war and its attendant horrors.
There was genocidal slaughter in Rwanda, in the Sudan and in Cambodia. Those deaths weren’t the result of military action, they were the result of military inaction.
When mindless, faith-based pacifism demands that we “despise war and its attendant horrors” the result will usually be more death. Not that this matters to them.
When comparing deaths due to American military involvement to the millions dead as a result of pacifist-induced genocide, (or the 100 million dead as a result of Communism) the pacifist response usually echoes Stalin’s favorite quote, “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
So how many “innocents” died in Iraq? Probably about 1/100th of the number that would die if our troops left Iraq, as Thomas demands. Not that this matters to her.

Posted by: mary at December 2, 2007 at 10:32 am

To ensure peace, war is sometimes necessary.

Posted by: Shawn at December 2, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Post a comment