PDA

View Full Version : What!?! No Ann Coulter?!



imported_Conrad
05-27-2004, 09:58 PM
Ah, here ya go! ;) Sheesh- she calls liberals "womanly" in this one. They won't like that! :eek:

Tit For Tet
May 26, 2004

Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.

The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.

Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq. Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality. America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"

And yet the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter. The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.

If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.

O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated." So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up. Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.

We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden. Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.

So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.

The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets. Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.

The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.

But the media tell us this means we're losing. The goalpost of success keeps shifting as we stack up a string of victories. Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")

We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.

Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground – which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier."

We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody! Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.

Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."

And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks! Incredibly lucky again! And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."

Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein – hated him! – because he was a "secularist"? As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."

Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).

The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated." I take it back: It is a quagmire.

Meerkat
05-28-2004, 01:50 AM
You guys really ought to be in favor of same sex marriage: Rush and Ann would make a lovely couple! :D

stan v
05-28-2004, 04:02 AM
From the article: rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).

Reckon most wouldn't even 'almost join' the military? :D

I love Ann! The left can keep MM (I sure hope he becomes much more active this election cycle...please, please tongue.gif )

Edited for humor. :D

[ 05-28-2004, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: stan v ]

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 05:18 AM
First line

Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. Last line

I take it back: It is a quagmire. Who was the lying media reporter that captured those images from the Porn Prison?

I'm glad this ocupation wasn't left to the embedded. I had serious doubts that decent reporting would happen when I saw the criminal, Ollie North smiling from the dunes.

Annie is a pip.

Ooops, forgot the m

stan v
05-28-2004, 05:47 AM
It's never about the terrorists. Why is it never about the terrorists?

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 05:53 AM
Ollie North is a terrorist.
So it is about terrorists a bunch of the time.

LeeG
05-28-2004, 05:57 AM
"Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq"

we control the vertical
we control the horizontal

we will we will rock you
SING IT!

stan v
05-28-2004, 05:59 AM
CC, that's what I mean....it's always about America being wrong, or us being terrorists. I know your upbringing is somewhat painful, but need you project that hate toward your country?

Edited to skip over troll.

[ 05-28-2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: stan v ]

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 06:03 AM
it's always about America being wrong, or us being terrorists What a silly leap.

stan v
05-28-2004, 06:09 AM
I disagree. A search of your posts will find negative, finger pointing accusations of not only this administration, but every administration that has attempted to either fight Communism, or terrorism. I've never seen a positive post of yours directed toward America.

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 06:23 AM
I've never seen a positive post of yours directed toward America. Lie.
I have written a number of times how much I love America and you write back that I am not writing the truth.
You'll do it again here, likely.
My contempt is for presidents, elected representatives and their staff who break the law and cause unjust war and death.
I've been that way since about 1965 so that makes me a man of my convictions and that I understand is noble, even if you disagree. .

edited for clarity

[ 05-28-2004, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

Donn
05-28-2004, 06:25 AM
Where did I put those chest waders??? :eek:

stan v
05-28-2004, 06:30 AM
Waders, indeed. :eek:

CC: It's been that way since about 1965 so that makes me a man of my convictions and that I understand is noble, even if you disagree.

Yes, of course, Vietnam. :rolleyes:

Let's see, as another liberal mentioned...we've lived without honor since Vietnam'....correct?

Since we were age 15, we've lived in a country without honor? Maine! Where's Mild Wassa and a few of his friends to back you up on that one?

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 06:35 AM
Since we were age 15, we've lived in a country without honor? Another baseless leap.
Ever try to jump from a moving platform? You never seem to land where you wanted to.

stan v
05-28-2004, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Chris Coose:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Since we were age 15, we've lived in a country without honor? Another baseless leap.
Ever try to jump from a moving platform? You never seem to land where you wanted to.</font>[/QUOTE]What? Did I miss your age in 1965?

AND I'm firmly rooted in America....no leaping, jumping, moving, or apologizing for me.

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 07:21 AM
AND I'm firmly rooted in America....no leaping, jumping, moving, or apologizing for me. Up comes the old glory drape/wrap.
Leaping and jumping is the liberties that you have taken since you got here.
This need to place people in black and white boxes causes you to make incorrect judgements based on lousy data as seen in this brief thread.

You don't have to apologize and neither do I for exactly the same reasons and if you think that is not true, you might consider yourself to be unworthy of that citizenship merit badge that you got in 1962.

stan v
05-28-2004, 07:31 AM
I see you can leap and jump. Flailing your arms? Yep, call me patriotic, call me blinded with Americanism, call me redneck (old taunts on the forum, but you know that), but I'm the type you'll surely call when the chips are down and more than just national pride is at stake. Odds are that there will be another catastrophic event in this country you and I share....I'm all for protecting the civilians and military in any manner necessary. That generally means not sitting on our hands hoping that terrorism doesn't hit us between the eyes, again.

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 07:40 AM
I'm all for protecting the civilians and military in any manner necessary. I'd be more conservative in the "manner necessary" department and that is basically our difference when it comes to defense against terrorism.
Your liberal application and that of Coulter and the dubbya's, may be causing greater problems as we have been seeing lately.

stan v
05-28-2004, 07:43 AM
You have no basis to say that. I submit that by killing terrorists, and those dumb enough to replace 'em, reduce the threat to America.

Chris Coose
05-28-2004, 07:52 AM
That surely is infromation that is important to understand and I would not be making it up. Don't take it from me, for sure.
Try these or a 100 other sources just this week to catch up with the threat.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html?cnn=yes

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/may/05_28_2.html

LeeG
05-28-2004, 08:10 AM
I gotta know,
jingo,,jingoistic
is it plant, vegetable or Texan,,
oh baby don't touch that dial.
my OED will set me free
AIYEEEEEEEE!!
coffee s**t kickinin

JayBoat95
05-28-2004, 08:16 AM
Hey look everybody, I'm a Republican!

Start your personal attacks so I can Email Scot!

I love Ann, she tells America what the Democrats want to keep hidden!

She shows us what an absurd pack of idiots the left really is!

November! Bring on November! Maybe MeerKat will jump off a tall building (just like the day the stock market fell....wouldn't want him to construe this as a personal attack!)! YEEEEHHAAAA!!

Keith Wilson
05-28-2004, 09:00 AM
Oh God, Coulter again. :rolleyes: I'd think our friends on the right would be embarrassed by her, but no . . . . Anyone care to give an accurate non-propaganda source for this claim? (The sarin I know about, that's the one artillery shell that those using it didn't know contained the chemical)


So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq.

John of Phoenix
05-28-2004, 09:08 AM
Substantiate Coulter? You mean with facts and stuff like that??? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Keith Wilson
05-28-2004, 09:22 AM
One can always try. I realize she's primarily an entertainer, but some haven't caught on yet.

LeeG
05-28-2004, 09:34 AM
you know with black hair, a cigarette holder with a Marlena Dietrich accent she'd be a hoot, the goth crowd would love her.

shamus
12-21-2004, 04:30 AM
Hmmmm -Nah -Yeah - Bump.

Victor
12-21-2004, 08:10 AM
This is getting tedious. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. This would be funny if people didn't actually believe this crap.

The Tet offensive caused a drop in support for the war because Westmoreland had been saying victory was almost at hand. The enemy proved him wrong by attacking vitually every major urban center and military target in the country simultaneously. Did we win? How do you define winning? We stopped the offensive at a tremendous cost to ourselves, and the war went on.

"The immediate result of the media's lies was a 25% drop in support of the war." And the media was telling the truth when it reported Westmoreland's constant assertions that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were on the brink of defeat, right?

So tell us Ann, what are Bush's many successes? Interesting you don't bother to cite any.

O'Hanlon thinks the Iraqi government should have some money to spend at its own discretion, and this is called a pointless, womanly complaint. Well no one will ever call you womanly, Ann. If the Iraqi government has no control over finance, then how much legitimacy does it have?

"Saddam Hussein reached out to Osama bin Laden." This is ironic, considering Iraq was virtually the only country in the Mideast where al Quaeda couldn't operate, because Saddam did not tolerate any kind of competition.

"So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq." Oh? And what unique source does she have for this?

"Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq – the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets." I know she's trying to be facetious, but knowing Ann, she probably really means this.

Nicholas Kristoff warned ... "[W]e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." (Unless, he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.") We've done all that." Oh really? Boy would I like some of that good stuff you're smokin. The Republican Guard wiped out? That's news. Everyone else thinks they were disbanded and became insurgents.

Kristoff also said, "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia." And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks!" This is the point where I seriously question why anyone who reads this woman is worth talking to. The untrained thugs in Mogodishu drove us out of their country, remember? It's also convenmient to forget it was Bush's father who put our troops there.

Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen." Wrong again, Ann. They said it would happen.

"Liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam because he was a secularist." And they were right, weren't they? "Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because those terrorists would use them against him." Right again.

Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender). Saddam's gone, remember?

"The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning. Every day liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred. We have always been at war with Eastasia." What? Speak for yourself.

[ 12-21-2004, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Victor ]

Dan McCosh
12-21-2004, 09:32 AM
What I like is the idea that we are fighting the Islamists. According to our President, these are our friends.

Elco's
12-21-2004, 10:05 AM
Oh it is refreshing to read Ann, thanks Conrad....and even stan v is here.

This thread speaks volumes of truth and the forum is much poorer without them. Liberals have ruined the forum. Thank GOD the voters of this country didn't allow them to ruin America.

Keith Wilson
12-21-2004, 10:25 AM
So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons – brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin – and long-range missiles in Iraq. Elco's, you missed that this thread was from last May, which is why StanV and Conrad are represented.

The above quote is still, to the best of my knowledge, a barefaced lie.

Well, gotta run, I'm off to ruin America . . . :rolleyes:

Victor
12-21-2004, 10:35 AM
It must be nice to think what you're told to think. Certainly simplifies things.

[ 12-21-2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Victor ]

Chris Coose
12-21-2004, 04:00 PM
Liberals have ruined the forum. Just gotta love this guy.

Foote, get a copy of Joe's Garage, sit alone in a dark room and put "Watermellons in Easter Hay" bout half way up - chill.