Helen Thomas Compares Obama to Bush
By Don | June 21, 2009
Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas is disappointed that Obama hasn't kept all his promises.
From Air America
Legendary White House correspondent Helen Thomas made an exclusive appearance on the Ron Reagan Show to talk about presidents past and present, Iran, health care, and other topics. She likes most of Obama's work thus far, but thinks his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan are larded with Dubya.
Thomas who was a frequent and vocal critic of president Bush would rather criticize one of theri own in Obama than admit the Bush-era policies may have been the correct ones after all. Nothing like a little dissension in the ranks.
Post #2130
10 Comments | Post a Comment
Don made a perfectly logical comment in that Thomas would never agree that “W” was correct about anything, therefore she has to be critical of the black messiah when his policies line up with those of “W”.
If you must speak of lies then realize that all major intellegence in the free world “lied” about the wmds. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, etc. all believed the “lies”. Bush took action and all liberals began the process of running the other way. They are still running.
Obamma by contrast does not only repeat the lies that he is told, he makes up his own lies. I think that is what Thomas is upset about.
The comment by Helen makes no sense at all. I don’t know how anybody reading Helen Thomas’s writtings all these years can possibly find anything impartial and/or patriotic she is just hateful “thinking” comminig from this old lady. To suggest that she might be persuaded that any of the Bush-era policies were the correct ones is the day hell freeze all over.
Personally, I think Bush 43 was the worst president of the 13 in my lifetime - and I would guess that historians will certainly place him among the worst five of all time. (???)
“Wrong-way Corrigan” also “took action” - and what the hell good did that “action” accomplish?
How naive to think that Bush invaded Iraq for oil. You sound like a foolish second grader repeating his radical left uncle’s garbage! He didn’t lie—or were all those other intelligence agencies who thought there was WMD there lying, too? Mistaken about WMD? Sort of. They did find 500 tons of yellowcake. Hussein got all the rest out before we invaded. He knew we were coming! Helen Thomas is a dried up has-been old prune who will always think left-minded to her last breath and cannot handle facts from the right.
Helen Thomas . . . “fine journalist?”
Ha ha ha. You’re joking, right?
Or, perhaps, just a troll?
Glad to see that at least one contributor remembered the yellowcake. Maybe at least one other will remember the chemical weapons that the UN inspectors were in the process of neutralizing when Saddam kicked them out.
Maybe one other will remember the thousands of his OWN people that Saddam murdered with WMD and we all saw in reputable news sources before the weapons mysteriously disappeared.
The invasion of Iraq wasn’t about WMD and it CERTAINLY WASN’T ABOUT OIL!IT WAS ABOUT REMOVING A LEADER WHO REPEATEDLY THREATENED US WITH WEAPONS WE ALL KNEW HE HAD PLENTY OF.
It may be convenient to forget that now -but that doesn’t make it true.
We can’t find the missing Air France jet right now -but we know it is out there>
Helen Thomas likely thinks Bush 43 did that too!
Regards
Yogi 13
According to an article by Ron Paul entitled “The End of Dollar Hegemony” http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html, Bush’s main motivation for going into Iraq was Sadaam’s insistence in 2000 that he would sell his oil for euros, and not for American dollars, thereby, putting the fragile, oil-backed dollar in jeopardy as the world’s reserve currency.
According to the article - [In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.
It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government.]
I implore those interested, to read this informative article and decide for yourselves the real reason for us going into Iraq.
Any concerns of weapons of mass destruction being used against us is undermined by the fact that our borders have been wide-open since 9/11. This is the governments way of scaring us into complying with American hegemony in the Middle East and making those who profit from perpetual war richer and more powerful.
Re: Post 8;
Although a fan of Paul during the recent campaign, I did not see the article you reference. However, I’ve heard that very explanation for the invasion of Iraq from several people over the last several years. It certainly seems plausible (and logical) to me.
And your comment:
“... Any concerns of weapons of mass destruction being used against us is undermined by the fact that our borders have been wide-open since 9/11. This is the governments way of scaring us into complying with American hegemony in the Middle East and making those who profit from perpetual war richer and more powerful ...”
Boy, ain’t that the truth!
JayMagoo
Amazing! 3000 died for a lie? THAT’S A LIE!! It was the conclusion of the entire free world at the time.
No oil was gotten for any of our OR GWB’s friends….IF SO, PLEASE SHOW US THE PROOF!
FDR took us into a very important war with the Germans, because JAPAN attacked us!!!??? 3000 is Democrat “small change” compared to American heroes (not to mention the civilian casualties) who gave their lives for that heroic effort. But somehow FDR didn’t lie or distort the truth or reasoning for our going to war???
HOW do you conveniently forget the terrorist training camps in IRAQ, and the fact that IRAQ’s Generals were told they had WMD’s??
Stop complaining and PRODUCE SOME FACTS!!
JayMagoo We can see how you got the name….the nearly blind Mr. Magoo
June 23 at 11:35 am | #1 | Link
The comment by Don Irvine makes no sense at all. I don’t know how anybody reading Helen Thomas’s comment can possibly find anything in it to suggest that she might be persuaded that any of the Bush-era policies were the correct ones. Bush’s policies on Iraq were to invade a country that was not a threat to us, and Bush’s invasion was based on lies. The real reason Bush invaded Iraq, at the cost of 3,000 plus American lives and huge amounts of our natural resources, was to steal their petroleum for his friends in the petroleum industry. There could be no policy more wrong than Bush’s policy on Iraq. It seems the Bush-defenders will jump through hoops and invent things that were never said to try to justify the actions of George W. Bush, possibly whe worst president in American history. Please don’t bring a fine journalist like Helen Thomas into your defense of Bush.