Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Helen, Helen, Helen 36

Journal by pudge

Longtime White House reporter Helen Thomas was "snubbed" by Bush this morning, taking questions from everyone in the front row except her.

Calling him a coward, she said the two questions she wanted to ask were, "You said you didn't go in for oil or for Israel or for WMDs. so why did you go in?," and "You keep saying [FISA]'s a 1978 law, but the Constitution 200 years old. Is that out of date, too?"

I think those stupid questions speak for themselves. I'd snub her, too. She's not worth wasting the President's or people's time with.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Helen, Helen, Helen More

Helen, Helen, Helen

Comments Filter:
  • Merely because they are hard for this President to answer? I guess that would count for most of the questions on his finals at Harvard and Yale too- given his grades at those institutions.
    • Merely because they are hard for this President to answer?

      The first question has been answered many, many times, and is actually lying about what Bush said: he said we did go in for WMDs. It turns out we didn't find any, but that is one of the big reasons we went in. Bush never, ever, said we did not go in because of WMDs. And the other big reason we went in was simply to get rid of a nasty guy so we can help transform the region into one more favorable to our interests (esp. one that is pro-democracy an
      • At Yale, where he got better grades than Kerry, you mean? And I've never seen indication he got poor grades at Harvard.

        They were both C students- Bush at both institutions. Which just lowers my opinion of those institutions, actually, since it's obvious that Kerry is just an idiot who swallowed a dictionary- and Bush is just an idiot. If either had gone to OIT they would have been thrown out on academic suspension in their freshman years (I knew several who had similar viewpoints to both men who were).
        • Minimum academic standard for undergrads at Harvard is a 1.75/4.0 grade point, equivalent to three C's and a D with a normal four-course load. Or at least it was when I was there (late 70s). Failure to meet that gets you one semester of probation; a subsequent failure and you are required to withdraw (rich father or not). The standard for grad schools is higher, but I don't remember offhand. A C is considered failing, though. I'm not sure if the Business School has the same standards as the Faculty of
        • If either had gone to OIT they would have been thrown out on academic suspension in their freshman years (I knew several who had similar viewpoints to both men who were).

          Right, because point of view is a sign of lack of intelligence. Which explains why I think you, with your Communist ideology, is not too bright.
      • The first question has been answered many, many times, and is actually lying about what Bush said: he said we did go in for WMDs. It turns out we didn't find any, but that is one of the big reasons we went in. Bush never, ever, said we did not go in because of WMDs. And the other big reason we went in was simply to get rid of a nasty guy so we can help transform the region into one more favorable to our interests (esp. one that is pro-democracy and anti-terror).

        BS, Pudge. The war was not sold as a nation/a
        • The war was not sold as a nation/ally building exercise! It is a lie to say that it was.

          First, I never said (in what you were quoting) that. I said this was why we went in, not how it was sold. Again, you're attacking me for things I did not say. Chill!

          Second, you're wrong. Providing peace to the region through regime change was in fact a significant -- but not nearly the most significant -- part of the stated rationale for war. It was in the war resolution passed by Congress, and it was the main point

        • If it was the American people wouldn't have gone for it.

          Malarkey. Those who oppose the war do so primarily because they oppose Bush, (and that primarily because they bill him as incompetent and/or imperialist) and they would have done so no matter what.

          First of all, you're conflating "those who oppose the war" with "the American people." It should be obvious from all the whiners on slashdot who gripe about how the American people rubber-stamp everything Bush does that the public does not, on the wh

          • Malarkey. Those who oppose the war do so primarily because they oppose Bush, (and that primarily because they bill him as incompetent and/or imperialist) and they would have done so no matter what.

            Malarkey. I could just as easily say:

            Those who support the war do so primarily because the support Bush, (and that primarily because the bill him as a Chistian Conservative with similar values to their own) and they would have done so no matter what.

            Of course I would be wrong.

            Some people oppose the war be

            • I have discovered that I misread your previous post. When you said:

              The war was not sold as a nation/ally building exercise! It is a lie to say that it was. If it was the American people wouldn't have gone for it.

              ... I read you as saying

              The war was not sold as a nation/ally building exercise! It is a lie to say that it was. If it was the American people would have gone for it.

              I found that to be completely untenable and ludicrous, and I'm sure you do, too.

              Nevertheless, it prompted more interest

              • "The war was not sold as a nation/ally building exercise! It is a lie to say that it was. If it was the American people would have gone for it."

                I found that to be completely untenable and ludicrous, and I'm sure you do, too.

                I don't. Indeed, both before the war and since, when I expressed my reasons for supporting the war, which fall into that category, the response -- especially from people who opposed the war -- was far more positive. Granted, some of that may have been because they disbelieved in WMD, a

                • Well, to clarify, I was also assuming he was conflating "the American people" with "us liberal whiners who oppose the war." Such folks tend to assume they represent a much greater percentage of the public than they do. So I was reacting to the thought that the same people who opposed the war in Afghanistan then claimed to have supported it in order to try to bolster their credibility as they opposed the war in Iraq, and the same people who seized upon recent news about North Korea and claimed they'd been

            • Estimated through news accounts to rest between 28224 and 31826.

              I take it this is from the Iraqi Body Count project? It's a huge underestimation. Firstly, it only records deaths which have two independent attributable reports. Also, it has no translators - it relies entirely on english speaking sources and a few middle eastern sources like Al Jazeera which translate across into english. By its very nature, it relies entirely on reported deaths. There is no reason to believe the number of deaths in Iraq
              • Yes. I know. I just use it as short hand, as reported deaths from two sources gives an inkling or the carnage. 31000 in three years is unbelievable in itself... 6 times that figure is unspeakable.

                Like I said, war is a meat grinder.
          • And back then you did have liberal talkers considering the effects of the Iraq war in terms of tryig to clean up the region, and they continually insisted it would not work. And they still do. All you hear is handwringing about how this will create more bin Ladens because it will create so much enmity in the region. No way in the world would that crowd ever have supported the war if it was billed as a democracy-building exercise. Not the people who still can't say "liberated" with a straight face. No way. T
            • When Bush was posturing about WMD, Hans blix ordered Iraq to to begin destroying ts Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1 as their range limit was illegal. Guess what? On March 1st, Iraq began to destroy its Al Samoud missiles. On March 7th, Blix reported that the Iraqi's were in an accelerated mode of compliance, but needed more time. Bush wanted to proceed anyway citing, along with his other mouth pieces (Powell, Condi, Rumsfeld, Cheney) an imminent threat.

              The threat posed had nothing directly to do with those
              • ... and, despite Iraq taking on Blix's recommendations, Bush did not want to wait any longer because of an artificial deadline that he created for urgency. When Blix and the World asked to let the inspector's do their job, Bush and company trotted out words like "imminent" "urgent" etc.
                • ... and, despite Iraq taking on Blix's recommendations, Bush did not want to wait any longer because of an artificial deadline that he created for urgency.

                  It wasn't any more artificial than any deadline. You're making up the notion that it was "created for urgency." I've looked at all the evidence and testimony and have seen no evidence for that.

                  But yes, he didn't have to go in, he could have waited longer. However, Hussein was not in compliance, and this was his M.O. for the last 12 years: as the heat c
                  • we thought he probably did, and we knew he had them in the past, had used them in the past, that he was convicted of it and he was only allowed to remain free and in power if he would agree to certain things, all of which he violated. We cornered him, and he still would not come clean. We still had some serious evidence showing he had these things and we knew he said he might use them.

                    Correction, YOU thought he did, but there was evidence at the time that he DID NOT have WMD anymore. I love how the side

                    • Correction, YOU thought he did

                      Actually, no, that is even less accurate than what I wrote. I was speaking for the nation, not for myself. Personally, I thought he PROBABLY had them (as I said), but I wasn't at all sure. But the nation as a whole, especially our leaders, thought he most likely had them, and that is what I meant, and I stand by it.

                      but there was evidence at the time that he DID NOT have WMD anymore.

                      Not really, no. Since the inspections were not allowed to proceed -- as 1441 said -- immediat
                    • Oops, didn't finish.

                      To which you have said, specifically of Ritter, "I don't believe him."

                      I don't recall specifically, but that sounds about right.

                      But you CHOSE to believe evidence, such as that of Powell, that was later shown to be completely false.

                      Why do you keep making things up I never said? Seriously. I never, ever, believed Powell's UN presentation showing the evidence for Iraq's WMD. I was skeptical from the moment I heard it.

                      Ritter, who stated there wasn't going to be any WMD found, is still beyo
                    • Actually, NONE of it has been shown to be outright fabrication

                      So the source from Italy, that was show to be a complete fabrication (the names weren't even correct) has now been shown to not be a fabrication. Hmmm.... missed that one. Last I heard, we knew that it was a fabrication, we just didn't know who fabricated it and whether or not they had US ties.

                    • A stake in the ground that has begun to improve the fate of all peoples of the Middle East, making the coming conflagration much less likely.

                      "You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

                      So Egypt's sham elections, after the war, mean they are better off? More assissinations in Syria, after the war, mean they are better off?. Iran is ramping up its nuclear program and thumbing their noses at us because they are pretty sure that we are to busy with TWO EXTENDED LAND WARS t

                    • So the source from Italy, that was show to be a complete fabrication (the names weren't even correct) has now been shown to not be a fabrication.

                      The Uranium forgery? No, what I meant is not that nothing was fabricated, but that nothing used by our government to publicly support the case for war was fabricated. The forgery was not used as any part of that justification for war.

                      Many people point to the 2003 State of the Union, but the "16 words" Bush had there were based on completely separate intel from th
                    • "You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

                      You're wrong.

                      So Egypt's sham elections, after the war, mean they are better off? More assissinations in Syria, after the war, mean they are better off?. Iran is ramping up its nuclear program and thumbing their noses at us because they are pretty sure that we are to busy with TWO EXTENDED LAND WARS to do anything about it and they're better off? Hamas just swept elections in Palestine and they're better off?

                      I never said they were, a
                    • Heh. Same comment with proper HTML tags. :/

                      "You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

                      You're wrong.

                      So Egypt's sham elections, after the war, mean they are better off? More assissinations in Syria, after the war, mean they are better off?. Iran is ramping up its nuclear program and thumbing their noses at us because they are pretty sure that we are to busy with TWO EXTENDED LAND WARS to do anything about it and they're better off? Hamas just swept elections in Palestine and
          • Oh, and don't go making any unfounded conclusions about my war stance. I'm a pacifist. I just hate to be lumped in with the anti-war crowd because they are so irrational, and because I don't believe we've ever agreed on a single issue.

            I am a pacifist as well. I just don't think there is a unified anti-war crowd. When I talk to people about their opposition to the war, their answers run the gamut and they don't necessarily align themselves with any "movement." Many have a personal reason for not support

    • When their respective marks were finally published didn't it turn out that Bush got better marks than Kerry?
  • I think reporters should be able to give him snarky questions. If Bush improves, then so will their questions.
  • The Doyenne has often, openly, called Bush and idiot and "The Worst President Ever."

    Who is shocked he snubs her? I say next time he stand up there and tell her to go Cheney herself when she raises her hand.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern

Close