You'll notice that she doesn't duck any questions, no matter how stupid ...
... and she asks some tough ones herself!
I've been watching some of the wingnut sites where people rant and rave against her, mostly based on her physical appearance. Every now and then they get down to substance, if you can call it that. Mostly they either highlight some of her statements, as if merely casting them in boldface were the same as refuting them:
The former UPI correspondent slammed Reagan declaring, "I think that the poor did not prosper under him at all," and charged the press was too soft on George W. Bush demanding that they should've asked the hard question: "How can you justify killing thousands of people to get one man? Who are we to depose anyone?'" But when it came to the Clinton administration, Thomas thought the press was too hard on the Clintons saying Whitewater amounted to "nothing," and pouted: "the Clintons suffered a lot."But what else can they do? Those who try to refute her only display their terminal ignorance:
She knew we were heading to war, even though the opportunity was given for Saddam to avert it by complying with the UN mandates. She claims it was "unprovoked" so apparently thinks that failure to abide by terms in a cease fire agreement don't count as provocation.Rock on, Helen.
In short she is a extreme liberal twit and the best argument for mandatory retirement that I've seen in many many years.