The lying Helen Thomas and her Lies

Helen, as always you're living in a parallel universe. Your recent op-ed Democrats need a new scriptcontains so many Goebbels-ish lies, I don't know where to start. The old saw that Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war has been dispelled over and over - using it belies your credibility as a journalist and rightly paints you as a propagandist. Read my lips: Clinton (your hero), most of Europe, the much admired Mosad and our own intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had WMDs - even Saddam thought he had WMDs. Where's the lie there?

As far as Republicans "cutting and running" from Vietnam, as you claim - the war was lost in the US before Ford brought the troops home. You conveniently forget that Democrats Kennedy and Johnson started, fought and lost the Vietnam war. Ford just mopped up the mess.

And talk about a war with no US interests, aye that was Vietnam - no oil, no terrorist threat, no reason. PS: Your use of Murtha's slur that VP Cheney sits in his office on his big rear end is shameful. Johnson set on his big rear end in his office during Vietnam, Kennedy sat in his rocking chair. And your point is?

As far as Bush threatening Bill of Rights; you gloss over any qualification that NSA monitored only international calls with suspected terrorist and you ignore the overwhelming assertion that third party financial monitoring is legal. If Democrats believe these programs violate the constitution, why don't they propose cutting off funding?

You bash Bush for fighting terrorist in every way he can, but I guess, in your universe, terrorists have the right to communicate and finance their war while the US must play by your rules.

Your contention that the administration also has detained hundreds of suspected terrorists in limbo without charges or trials is a "straw man" argument. Helen, you're old enough to remember WW ll, if not WWl. Other than leaders charged with crimes against humanity, ordinary POWs were not put on trial and besides according to the Geneva Convention, terrorist are not afforded POW status. But you would afford them the same rights as US citizens?

You wrote one of the most unjournalistic statement I have ever read in any legitiment newspaper as follows:

"And then there are the shameful alleged secret
prisons abroad where prisoners may be subjected to
torture under interrogation" (illtalics are mine).

This is one of those sentences that means nothing. It's nothing but supposition. Oh, and one of the serious issues that must be addressed is our lack of "moral credibility". Accordingly, you refer to Die Zeit, a German weekly, that declared Americans have "lost their moral credibility in Iraq." Gosh, we should feel so bad that we are not respected. "Moral credibility" and a Euro dollar wont get you a ride on a Berlin bus.

What is most amazing about your lies is that they are published in a legitimate newspaper (only in Seattle, of course), but it's your schtick. It must have been a slow op-ed day?

Reminds me of the story about the kid who, when given a choice of a dime or nickel, always took the bigger one. When asked, didn't he know that the dime was worth more, yeah he said, but if he took the dime no one would ask him anymore and he wouldn't get any nickels.

So, Helen, perhaps you have to be outrageous or no one will ask you to opine, or perhaps you really do think nickels are worth more than dimes.

Rove's Blunder?

According to the Washington Post op-ed Fall Elections Are Rove's Next Test by Jim VandeHei and Dan Baly, the GOP's succest or failure in the 2006 election rests on Rove's shoulders. Take heart you bitter Dems Rove, your arch nemesis, will be brought to his knees after the Democrat's expected 2006 election sweep - and besides he isn't that infallible -- look at his pass mistakes. According to Jim and Dan:

...the Social Security debate was probably Rove's biggest blunder,
Rove convinced Bush that an in-depth analysis of past second-term presidents showed the only way to succeed was to act quickly and boldly. Internally, Rove championed a plan to restructure Social Security by allowing younger Americans to put some of the their Social Security
taxes into private accounts in exchange for a reduction in guaranteed
benefits.

Rove gambled that Bush could bend Congress and a skeptical public to
his will. He was wrong.

Ah another example of liberal revisionism. The "blunder" wasn't made by Bush's effort to restructure Social Security, it was made by the Democrats and their friends in the press -- no way was a Republican president going to fix Social Security and deminish Franklin Roosevelt's status as a Democrat god. It was all out war and gutless wonders in congress, and especially Republicans up for reelection, slapped Bush down.

Dear Jim and Dan, consult your fifth grade civics book where it says the president and his advisors do not make laws.

So here is a question for history: Will Bush get credit for trying to fix Social Security before it became a desperate problem or will failure to fix it rest on Rove's blunder.