Don't know how I got there, but I read a post on Helen calling her a member of the 'Crazy Aunts Society' because of her questions to the Shrubmeister yesterday.
They cross-referenced this theme to the study of conservatives being whiny-ass titty-babies. The title of the post was "Who's Whiny and Crazy?" (referring to Helen)
My response:
You make the assumption that Helen Thomas is 'Whiny and Crazy'
If she's 'whiny and crazy', then how could she be a respected UPI correspondent for 57 years, covering every president since JFK?
Her question seemed reasoned and logical enough.
Some facts here (I know, I know). No WMD. No Al-Qaeda ties. Israel not involved. Oil was not a factor. No connection to 9/11 (Bush admitted that point).
So, what do we have left? The fact that Saddam is a bad man? That Saddam invaded another country in 1990? That he killed off his own people (absolutely undisputed)?
(I'll discretely leave out the fact that the Reagan administration implicitly supported and armed him here)
Because she's asking the questions that 65% (Mar. 18th Newsweek Poll "Disapproval of Bush handling of war) of Americans are asking?
It that's a classic example of 'whiny and crazy', I'd like to hear what you call sane.
I really would.
Don't know if I made a dent, but I guess I'll know soon.