<< FOR THE ESPECIALLY HUNGRY PUPPY ~ MAIN ~ DON'T TALK TO CONDI >>

NAME ADDED TO LIST

Barbara Slavin, senior diplomatic reporter for USA Today, isn’t very diplomatic towards Australia during a discussion on recent election results with Washington Week in Review host Gwen Ifill:

Ifill: “The only one [of the big three] who survived was John Howard of Australia who was reelected …”

Slavin: “Maybe because [Australia is] so far away nobody minds, I don’t know …”

Slavin’s details will be forwarded to the Al-Ausqa Martyrs Brigade (a division of Hamoz). Pity her soul.

Posted by Tim B. on 05/07/2005 at 01:17 PM

  1. Most recently, Slavin was a Washington-based writer for The Economist and Los Angeles Times...

    [she] received her bachelor’s degree from Harvard University...

    HAT TRICK !!!

    Posted by guinsPen on 2005 05 07 at 03:31 PM • permalink

  2. what an ass.

    Posted by terryelee on 2005 05 07 at 04:35 PM • permalink

  3. I wonder if Gwen Ifill has told Dubya yet that he wasn’t reelected?

    Posted by PW on 2005 05 07 at 04:50 PM • permalink

  4. Who are the other two of the “big three”?

    Posted by tim maguire on 2005 05 07 at 06:04 PM • permalink

  5. Slavin: “Maybe because [Australia is] so far away nobody minds, I don’t know …�

    Help me, I’m trying to puzzle something logical out of things. Surely the only people who decide whether an Australian PM is re-elected are the Australian voters. Now why would Australian voters consider Australia “far away”.

    Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 07 at 06:36 PM • permalink

  6. “I don’t know”

    that about sums it up for her. I think the full transcript of this comes out on Monday or Tuesday; Im curious to read it and find out which “Big Three” were being referred to.

    Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 05 07 at 06:41 PM • permalink

  7. Bitch.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 05 07 at 07:24 PM • permalink

  8. Does she mean the big three Howards?

    Michael Howard lost to Blair
    Howard Dean lost the plot
    John Howard lost out by winning…

    Then theres Howard Stern & Howard Hughes, all a bunch of losers.

    Sounds pretty convincing to me.

    “Maybe because [Australia is] so far away nobody minds, I don’t know …�

    ...whaddaya reckon eh?

    Posted by rog2 on 2005 05 07 at 08:04 PM • permalink

  9. Ifill: “The only one [of the big three] who survived was John Howard of Australia who was reelected …�

    Perhaps Ifill meant “thrived” instead of “survived” (although that should still apply to Bush).  Perhaps she meant to have a career in something other than journalism too.

    Slavin: “..., I don’t know …�

    Well there’s an honest and all-encompassing statement.

    Posted by Craig Mc on 2005 05 07 at 08:39 PM • permalink

  10. guinsPen, yoyu shouldn’t really equate The Economist with the New York Times… it’s kind of the bible for evil heartless classical liberals and supported the Iraq war.

    Posted by OMGWTFBBQ on 2005 05 07 at 08:39 PM • permalink

  11. The Economist is always a bit squishy and equivocal on the issues it purports to support though.

    Posted by Quentin George on 2005 05 07 at 10:58 PM • permalink

  12. For someone so far away, we sure are getting a lot of attention from certain people. Take one of the newer games around, Mercenaries (where you get dropped into North Korea to pretty much level the place and capture a deck of 52), full of Aussies (we even find North Korea’s WMDs… good game as well, touch buggy though).

    Lots of films getting made here as well.

    Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 05 08 at 03:29 AM • permalink

  13. The Economist purports to be free market and anti-statist, but then went on to support Tony Blair for a bunch of extremely weak reasons.  I’m thinking about cancelling my subscription, but probably won’t because I like to read the job ads.

    Posted by PJ on 2005 05 08 at 05:15 AM • permalink

  14. OM,

    re: The Economist

    1. squishy and equivocal…
    2. extremely weak reson[ing]...
    3. Their “one down” cover would better fit The Al-Qaedist.

    Its head is so far up the Los Angeles Times’ ass, I can’t tell where one ends and the other begins.

    Posted by guinsPen on 2005 05 09 at 10:16 AM • permalink

  15. WTF???

    Posted by 11BRAVO on 2005 05 10 at 12:06 AM • permalink

    16. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.