Coulter calls 9/11 widows "witches" [Archive] - Page 2 - Firehouse Forums

ChiefReason

06-24-2006, 10:06 PM

ChiefReason-

I would expect an educated man such as youself to not be so naive!

Is it truly about liberating the oppressed masses? Saving the innocent victims of tyranny?

Then why the HELL are we not in Rwanda, Darfur, etc??? The genocide of millions is happening, well documented, right under our noses.

We're not there because... oh, right. Follow the money.

BTW, don't get too hot under the collar. If we're gonna live in glass houses, expect a few stones. I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.
Lady:
I'm 53 years old. I was raised by parents who worked through the Depression; my grandpa fought in WWI; my father fought in BOTH theaters of WWII; I came from a large family, grew up in the 50s, 60s and 70s, so I am FAR from naive.
Your only entry in this melee is that it's about the MONEY. Wrong. It's about giving a country back to its people. If our presence in the region is about oil like some are claiming, then we would have picked an easier target, like Kuwait. We were already there and had liberated them from Iraq. We could have just kicked Iraq out and taken over the country ourselves.
And for clarification's sake, we ARE in Africa...with a multinational force under the flag of the UN. We asked for several other countries to join the fight in Iraq, but they chose not to.
Your cronies decry people like me because I support the President, the war and the troops. And all of their name calling and adolescent insults AND attempts at bullying others to concede isn't going to work on people like me. I would have to be naive to follow their philosophies and you would have to be naive to believe that I would. Go back and read my 4700 posts and then tell me how naive I am.
I do not live in a glass house. I live in a nice brick ranch style. I have earned everything that I have, so I don't think I will change the way I do things simply because someone from the Left is puking pre-packaged, your-name-here, rhetoric. If your opinion differs from their's, you are their enemy. I, however, believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of whether it is different than mine.
Oh; and name calling is so childish. How can they be taken seriously when they are calling others names?
If I want to learn, I read a book or take a college course on the subject.
When I want entertainment, I come here.
So, enjoy the show.
CR

ameryfd

06-24-2006, 10:57 PM

Maybe you can explain just how I'm "back-pedaling". I NEVER stated that I believed Bush made those statements, and I've never stated that I didn't hold the dems who lent ANY support to this stupid war accountable. But, nice try...now try actually addressing some of the questions I've posted.

No, but you sure dance around your words when the quotes were identified. On one hand you call Bush a liar and an SOB in regards to his quotes, but you still refuse to call Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, Daschle, ect.. liars and SOB's. You just say you hold them accountable for thier words but refuse to judge them like you judge conservatives. You say Bush is responsible, but the action was supported and AUTHORIZED by those same people you refuse to call liars.

Clinton said we'd be out of Bosnia by Christmas 1999. We're still there. Is he a liar in that case too?

Call them liars and hold them accountable too, unless your high moral ground is really just a blind hatred for the president.

By the way, please give me the definition of a neo-con....

scfire86

06-24-2006, 11:04 PM

This is not to even mention that it can and does effect their battlefield psyche. Combat troops always have enough to deal with without our own piling on more with the use of negative wording. In combat, that can be far more destructive than the enemy itself and the enemy will use it too their advantage.
Must be the returning troops I haven't spoken with. To a man (and woman) the folks I've spoken with tell me they could care less what is being said back home. Like all soldiers in the field their only concern is getting home in one piece. The political rhetoric being detrimental is a red herring thrown out by conservative pundits to a gullible audience.

What is more detrimental to the troops. Words questioning their being sent to a place of imminent danger for specious reasons? Or being sent on a mission that has been found to be false?

Insurgents like those we are fighting will always have one HUGE advantage. They are already home. Our soldiers are transients at best.

scfire86

06-24-2006, 11:07 PM

You say Bush is responsible, but the action was supported and AUTHORIZED by those same people you refuse to call liars.
What you're really saying is that Bush should get a sign for his desk.

"The Buck doesn't even pass by here, so how can it stop here?"

You can make your claims about Dems backing the war. But it is the President who makes the final decision. Remember, all those who supported the war saw the same flawed CIA intel. The CIA is an executive department that answers to the President. That is the flaw in your argument blaming those other than the President.

BFDNJFF

06-25-2006, 12:20 AM

Nice way to dance around the mans question. :rolleyes:

Firedawg3313

06-25-2006, 12:23 AM

Must be the returning troops I haven't spoken with. To a man (and woman) the folks I've spoken with tell me they could care less what is being said back home. Like all soldiers in the field their only concern is getting home in one piece. The political rhetoric being detrimental is a red herring thrown out by conservative pundits to a gullible audience.

What is more detrimental to the troops. Words questioning their being sent to a place of imminent danger for specious reasons? Or being sent on a mission that has been found to be false?

Insurgents like those we are fighting will always have one HUGE advantage. They are already home. Our soldiers are transients at best.

I can remember stating the same thing for years and I didn't hesitate to say it. As time went on I did realize that the real truth was I did care. I was so used to convincing myself that I came to accept it but it still bothered me inside and locked away. That is a survival method. Those that did care and thought about it weren't as effective until they learned to shut it off. I never met a combat vet that while being in a combat zone didn't have the thought of going home alive in one piece and there's also loyalty to your unit. Like any war, the reality is that it's not always going to happen. I've met very few combat vets that didn't agree with what I said. That may be part and parcel of knowing they're talking to someone who's been there and completely understands.

The bottom line is whether you like it or not, they chose their path. This is not and I repeat not a political pundit here. My opinions and thoughts simply come from experience under an even more anti-war enviorment and things these young men and women have stated to me in discussions. I have been working with combat vets for over 31 years and they are amazing people who will always know and feel they did right deep within their hearts but continue to hide or falsify most of their thoughts and feelings about that and other things, even to their families and friends let alone strangers (would have to go way to deep into the subject for a forum such as this). The good thing is that they will usually open up to another combat vet who's been there, done that. I wouldn't attempt to destroy or wound that deep held feeling for any reason. As I stated earlier, you have the right to your opinion as it should be.

scfire86

06-25-2006, 12:30 AM

Nice way to dance around the mans question. :rolleyes:
No dancing. Just stating the obvious. Anyone should be able to see that.

And my neighbor's 12 y/0 daughter rolls her eyes all the time. Just like you.

MamaLieut

06-25-2006, 02:10 AM

Lady:
I'm 53 years old. I was raised by parents who worked through the Depression; my grandpa fought in WWI; my father fought in BOTH theaters of WWII; I came from a large family, grew up in the 50s, 60s and 70s, so I am FAR from naive.

And for clarification's sake, we ARE in Africa...with a multinational force under the flag of the UN. We asked for several other countries to join the fight in Iraq, but they chose not to.

Your cronies decry people like me because I support the President, the war and the troops. And all of their name calling and adolescent insults AND attempts at bullying others to concede isn't going to work on people like me.

I do not live in a glass house. I live in a nice brick ranch style. I have earned everything that I have, so I don't think I will change the way I do things simply because someone from the Left is puking pre-packaged, your-name-here, rhetoric. If your opinion differs from their's, you are their enemy. I, however, believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of whether it is different than mine.
Oh; and name calling is so childish. How can they be taken seriously when they are calling others names?
If I want to learn, I read a book or take a college course on the subject.
When I want entertainment, I come here.
So, enjoy the show.
CR

Chief Reason, Sir:
(PS- I like that at least we're being polite!)
Without writing my own resume here-- CR, take a deep breath for a moment. I don't doubt for one minute that you've lived a full life, and that your opinions are based on experience and "Reason" able intelligence.
I have read through some of your old threads, and from what I garner, you don't like the UN one teeny weeny little bit. So why are you extolling the virtues of our troops in Africa under the auspices of the UN? The genocide in the Congo is barely a blip on this country's radar, and you know it! The US has less than 4,000 troops committed to the region, where over 4 MILLION people have been killed. (That's the entire population of Atlanta.)

However, as another poster stated, this thread is not the place for this anymore. You're not going to wake up and have an "ah-ha" moment, and neither am I.

As far as name calling, I found your position, in my opinion, "naive". You came at me and my "cronies" with our "puking pre-packaged rhetoric". Funny, I see it quite the opposite! Thus is our fate...

I'm new here, but I've already been thrown in the naughty liberal corner. Okay. I may disagree strongly with you (and I never came here originally for politics-- got sucked in!), but when it comes to fighting fire, you're my brother and I respect what it is inside you that brings you to the same table. Ann Coulter is not invited to that table (unless she has a change of career.)

See! I tied it back in at the end! I was at the bookstore on my day off, and actually read a few passages. Coulter is a terrible writer. The radical right could do so much better...

FlaFireGator

06-25-2006, 08:23 AM

Here is another intelligent, well thought out article from Ann. She is awesome. She is funny and knows how to drive home a point!!! :cool:

POLL: MOST AMERICANS LOVE COULTER COLUMNS!
March 22, 2006

Bush has lost his momentum, Americans' support for the Iraq war is dwindling, and opposition to Bush policies is hardening. That's according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll being covered as if it were a real news story.

Like callers to talk radio claiming to be Republicans angry with Republicans, liberals love to pretend public opinion is always in the process of shifting in their direction. They can't win elections — Democrats have gotten a majority vote in a national election only two times since FDR was president (Lyndon Johnson in '64 and Jimmy Carter in '76). But they're always experiencing an upswing in the polls.

Clinton could never get a majority of Americans to vote for him but, according to the polls, as soon as the public found out about his sex romps with Monica, his support shot up to above 80 percent. Bush did get a majority of the country to vote for him less than two years ago. Now we're told 70 percent of Americans hate the man.

Indeed, according to the polls, the public's feeling about the war in Iraq began three years ago with fear, skepticism and dread — and steadily went downhill.

If these poll results were accurate, support for the war should be about negative 3,000 percent by now. The public would have stormed the White House, seized the president and flogged him to death.

Here's a sample of New York Times headlines on stories discussing poll numbers since before the Iraq war began in March 2003:

— Poll Finds Most in U.S. Support Delaying a War (2/14/03)

— Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs Costs of War (3/26/03)

— World's View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds (6/4/03)

— Study Finds Europeans Distrustful of U.S. Global Leadership (9/4/03)

— Despite Polls, Pataki Backs Bush on Iraq All the Way (10/3/03)

— Poll Finds Hostility Hardening Toward U.S. Policies (3/17/04)

— Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes (4/29/04)

— Rising Casualties, One Falling Poll (5/2/04)

— Polls Show Bush's Job-Approval Ratings Sinking (5/14/04)

— Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds (6/29/04)

And then — despite the fact that every single man, woman and child in America opposed the war in Iraq and despised George Bush — a few months later, Bush won re-election against well-respected war hero John Kerry.

Immediately after the election, public opinion polls showed Americans turning once again against the war and against George Bush, according to the Times:

— Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda (11/23/04)

— Public Voicing Doubts on Iraq and the Economy, Poll Finds (1/20/05)

— Bad Iraq War News Worries Some in GOP on '06 Vote (8/18/05)

— Support for Bush Continues to Drop as More Question His Leadership Skills, Poll Shows (9/15/05)

— Iraq's Costs Worry Americans, Poll Indicates (9/17/05)

— Most Americans Find Cindy Sheehan Attractive, Interesting (2/8/06). OK, I made that one up. The rest were made up by the Times.

The media are constantly telling Americans what they believe: You are dissatisfied ... You are getting more dissatisfied ... You are slowly becoming utterly dissatisfied ... Your dissatisfaction is now reaching a fever pitch!

News coverage of public opinion polls is barely justifiable in an election year. When there's no horse race, these cooked-up polls are nothing more than the mainstream media's long, monotonous brainwashing of the public.

At least the old subliminal ads for popcorn in movie theaters operated by stealth. Today's mainstream media engage in open conditioning of the public in a fantastical scheme to shift public opinion.

Noticeably, there's always an odd disconnect between what the polls say and what people actually do.

Despite the fact that — according to the polls — the "American people" are fed up with the war Iraq, only a few hundred anti-war protesters showed up in New York City last weekend. The naked cowboy in Times Square gets a bigger crowd than that.

Despite the fact that polls show the public is ready to throw in the towel on Iraq, members of the House of Representatives, or "the people's house," recently voted 403-3 against withdrawing the troops.

Despite the fact that 70 percent of the public thinks Bush is doing a lousy job, when they had a chance to put someone else in the White House a mere 15 months ago, they decided to keep him.

There is, however, one poll taken by millions of Americans every day, year in, year out. Based on plummeting viewers, circulation numbers and ad rates, we can say with some certainty, the American people are beginning to loathe the liberal media.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

BFDNJFF

06-25-2006, 10:22 AM

No dancing. Just stating the obvious. Anyone should be able to see that.

And my neighbor's 12 y/0 daughter rolls her eyes all the time. Just like you.

IMO if you call one a liar then they are all liars. Don't just pick and choose.

No need to bash, I give you more credit than Noz.

scfire86

06-25-2006, 11:00 AM

See! I tied it back in at the end! I was at the bookstore on my day off, and actually read a few passages. Coulter is a terrible writer. The radical right could do so much better...
She writes to the level of her audience. There's no need to do better.

scfire86

06-25-2006, 11:01 AM

Despite the fact that 70 percent of the public thinks Bush is doing a lousy job, when they had a chance to put someone else in the White House a mere 15 months ago, they decided to keep him.

By a whopping 2.5% margin. The narrowest ever for an incumbent President.

MIKEYLIKESIT

06-25-2006, 03:22 PM

I wont listen to Ann Coulter and you wont listen to my Dixie Chicks CD and maybe we can find something more interesting to argue about.

Yankee750

06-25-2006, 03:40 PM

By a whopping 2.5% margin. The narrowest ever for an incumbent President.

If you do the math, look real close now,

George Bush won a larger percent of the vote in 2000 and in 2004 that Clinton did in 92 and 96. Clinton never had more than 50%. Bush did both times!!! You can make those numbers look any way you want but guess what, Bush still one twice. If you don't like it wait 2 1/2 more years and someone else will have the job. Otherwise move to Canada or shut up!!

As far as Ann Coulter goes, she has right to say what she wants in her book. if you don't like it, don't buy it. No one is putting a gun to your head saying you have to read it so quit crying. I've read her other books and I happen to think that she brings up some valid points. When I get a chance I will be reading her new one.

GeorgeWendtCFI

06-25-2006, 05:26 PM

Don't you know that free speech is only a right when it is a liberal talking? If a conservative is talking, it is called hate speech.

GeorgeWendtCFI

06-25-2006, 05:28 PM

Take, for example, this babbling, anti-American fool...errrr, I mean hero :rolleyes: .

Murtha says U.S. poses top threat to world peace
SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL
MIAMI — American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.
Murtha was the guest speaker at a town hall meeting organized by Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, D-Miami, at Florida International University's Biscayne Bay Campus. Meek's mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Miami, was also on the panel.
War veterans, local mayors, university students and faculty were in the Mary Ann Wolfe Theatre to listen to the three panelists discuss the war in Iraq for an hour.
A former Marine and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Murtha reiterated his views that the war cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions. He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait.
"We do not want permanent bases in Iraq," Murtha told the audience. "We want as many Americans out of there as possible."
Murtha also has publicly said that the shooting of 24 Iraqis in November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, was wrongfully covered up.
The killings, which sparked an investigation into the deadly encounter and another into whether they were the subject of a cover-up, could undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq more than the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004, Murtha said.
"(The United States) became the target when Abu Ghraib came along," Murtha said.

ThNozzleman

06-25-2006, 06:14 PM

No, but you sure dance around your words when the quotes were identified. On one hand you call Bush a liar and an SOB in regards to his quotes, but you still refuse to call Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, Daschle, ect.. liars and SOB's. You just say you hold them accountable for thier words but refuse to judge them like you judge conservatives. You say Bush is responsible, but the action was supported and AUTHORIZED by those same people you refuse to call liars.
I danced around nothing. I've seen that list posted so many times, I didn't even give it a second glance. Bush and his cronies are the ones responsible for this war, and as SC stated, the buck stops there. They engineered this invasion many years ago. Bush conjured up the "evidence" to present to congress and the nation...and we all know it was a pack of lies. I do not let the dems who lock-stepped with this travesty off the hook, either. They disgusted me with their vote-pandering and fear of losing face during the upswing of nationalist rage after the attacks on the World Trade Center. However, the majority of democrats voted against the resolution, whereas nearly ALL the republicans supported it. In fact, not one liberal democrat I know of supported it. Many people demonized Saddam when doing so appeared to benefit their political careers. After the reports by inspectors monitoring WMD in Iraq, it should have been clear that they were no threat to anyone, and especially not enough of a threat to declare a war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. And as stated before, many were relying on the skewed "intel" provided by the Bush administration.
I judge Bush to be responsible for this war because it was HIS failed policies that got us into it. The blame lies entirely at his feet. It is very sickening to watch the neo-cons and their supporters attempt to stand by their failures and lies in light of what we now know is the truth.
As for neocons...I'll let Wikipedia do it for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
Also, research PNAC...they pretty much sum up the attitude and ideas of the new conservative movement in this nation, something I find closely resembling fascism.

scfire86

06-25-2006, 07:55 PM

Boy oh boy. Where do I start?

If you do the math, look real close now,

George Bush won a larger percent of the vote in 2000 and in 2004 that Clinton did in 92 and 96. Clinton never had more than 50%. Bush did both times!!! You can make those numbers look any way you want but guess what, Bush still one (sp?)twice.
Hate to be buzz kill for you here. First of all. A majority isn't required to win. Winning only takes a plurality. You may want to look that up. What Bush did win was a majority of the electoral college vote. And since you brought Clinton's election record into the debate. Bush's best vote tally from the electoral college was 286 in 2004. Both of Clinton's totals are well over 300 with 370 received in either 1992 or 1996. I forget, but I'm sure you could look it up given your being such a stickler for facts. But taking the glee that I take in bursting bubbles, Bush actually lost the popular vote in 2000. You may not have read the papers. But Gore receieved more votes. And like it or not. Bush didn't receive a majority of the popular votes unless you live in a region where 47.9% (vs 48.4% for Gore) is a larger number than 50.1%. Try READING a math book. It's FUN-da-mental.

If you don't like it wait 2 1/2 more years and someone else will have the job. Otherwise move to Canada or shut up!!
This must be your feeble imitation of Johnny Carson's Floyd Turbo character. Don't give up your day job.

As far as Ann Coulter goes, she has right to say what she wants in her book. if you don't like it, don't buy it. No one is putting a gun to your head saying you have to read it so quit crying. I've read her other books and I happen to think that she brings up some valid points. When I get a chance I will be reading her new one.
Proving my point that she doesn't need to be a good writer in order to cater to her audience, ........and proving the old adage:

(fill in the blanks)

"A (what) and his (what) are soon parted".

Have a nice day.

ameryfd

06-25-2006, 11:17 PM

I danced around nothing. I've seen that list posted so many times, I didn't even give it a second glance. Bush and his cronies are the ones responsible for this war, and as SC stated, the buck stops there. They engineered this invasion many years ago. Bush conjured up the "evidence" to present to congress and the nation...and we all know it was a pack of lies. I do not let the dems who lock-stepped with this travesty off the hook, either. They disgusted me with their vote-pandering and fear of losing face during the upswing of nationalist rage after the attacks on the World Trade Center. However, the majority of democrats voted against the resolution, whereas nearly ALL the republicans supported it. In fact, not one liberal democrat I know of supported it. Many people demonized Saddam when doing so appeared to benefit their political careers. After the reports by inspectors monitoring WMD in Iraq, it should have been clear that they were no threat to anyone, and especially not enough of a threat to declare a war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. And as stated before, many were relying on the skewed "intel" provided by the Bush administration.
I judge Bush to be responsible for this war because it was HIS failed policies that got us into it. The blame lies entirely at his feet. It is very sickening to watch the neo-cons and their supporters attempt to stand by their failures and lies in light of what we now know is the truth.

You're missing my point and dancing around my question. If, as you claim, Bush is a liar and SOB for saying there were WMD in Iraq. Then why can't you call the libs who said the same thing after reading the same intellegence liars. Call them liars and SOB's by name and I'll leave this point alone. By your continued refusal to call those people the SAME names that you call Bush.....You are simply being two-faced. Just write it down. Clinton is a liar and a Son of a B++ch, Gore is a liar and a Son of a B++tch, Kerry is a liar and an SOB ect.... and you will at least regain a shred of credibility in your argument.

E229Lt

06-25-2006, 11:27 PM

Sometimes it takes a blind man to help us see clearly
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/wallsten.jpg

scfire86

06-26-2006, 04:56 AM

Sometimes it takes a blind man to help us see clearly
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/wallsten.jpg
You have to love the press conference where Bush is poking fun at this guy for wearing sunglasses on an overcast day. Our moron in Chief didn't realize the man had degenerative eye disorder and is legally blind.

And the same person has his finger on the nuclear button.

Nine3Probie

06-26-2006, 09:24 AM

You have to love the press conference where Bush is poking fun at this guy for wearing sunglasses on an overcast day. Our moron in Chief didn't realize the man had degenerative eye disorder and is legally blind.

And the same person has his finger on the nuclear button.

SC...just for a clarification on this issue. The reporter stated himself that he told no one else in the press corps about his condition, let alone the White House. This isn't the proof that W is a moron. It lies elsewhere, perhaps, but not here.

But yeah...big time OOOPS!!! :D

E229Lt

06-26-2006, 09:49 AM

This isn't the proof that W is a moron. It lies elsewhere, perhaps, but not here.

Maybe it's here

SUN CITY CENTER, Fla. May 9, 2006 (AP)

Bush visited with some waiting in a courtyard where Frank Sinatra's "Young At Heart" played on the loudspeakers, then he went indoors where people were looking over the laptops. He walked around giving handshakes and hugs to those who rose for his entrance, and greeted a man who remained sitting in a wheelchair with, "You look mighty comfortable."

Nine3Probie

06-26-2006, 09:53 AM

Maybe it's here

SUN CITY CENTER, Fla. May 9, 2006 (AP)

Bush visited with some waiting in a courtyard where Frank Sinatra's "Young At Heart" played on the loudspeakers, then he went indoors where people were looking over the laptops. He walked around giving handshakes and hugs to those who rose for his entrance, and greeted a man who remained sitting in a wheelchair with, "You look mighty comfortable."

:rolleyes: I guess it gets easier to be understood as time goes on to speak with your foot firmly planted in your mouth. ;)

Ltmdepas3280

06-26-2006, 11:24 AM

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Take the quiz

E229Lt

06-26-2006, 01:36 PM

It says I'm a little left of center.

scfire86

06-26-2006, 01:38 PM

Literally right in the middle.

Bones42

06-26-2006, 01:56 PM

Since we're this far off topic...

If we truly invaded Iraq just for the oil, why are we bothering to try and help them start their own government? Why don't we just take over, make all our own rules, shoot everyone that disagrees, and take the oil? Why would we care about the Iraq people? ...if it's just for the oil...

fpcfc137

06-26-2006, 04:10 PM

Sounds like a good idea...turn it into a parking lot, just suck the oil dry. But I did hear a rumor that we are importing less and less from the Middle East and more from Argentina and the rest of South America, so maybe we'll take their oil and set up a Disneyland...that'll piss off the islamic fundamentalists pretty good.

ThNozzleman

06-26-2006, 07:42 PM

Why don't we just take over, make all our own rules, shoot everyone that disagrees, and take the oil? Why would we care about the Iraq people?
Because it's easier to let puppet governments take care of our dirty work, so long as they are playing ball our way. That's right out of the neocon playbook. Of course, Saddam quit playing by our rules some time ago...and the neocons were out to get him ever since. He was our boy for a long time, you know. Plus, they hope that by the permanent presence of our military, OPEC will be intimidated into more cooperation.

ThNozzleman

06-26-2006, 07:44 PM

Sounds like a good idea...turn it into a parking lot, just suck the oil dry.
Right on, man...let's just kill millions of people to get what we want. Well, it appears the neocon strategy of convincing the ignorant masses to dehumanize these people is working...at least in your case, any how.
Hey, tell me this...which one of you winners would actually push the button?

ThNozzleman

06-26-2006, 07:51 PM

Take the quiz
Hey, I'm a liberal! Imagine that! Just left of the centrist box, actually.

GeorgeWendtCFI

06-26-2006, 08:02 PM

Because it's easier to let puppet governments take care of our dirty work, so long as they are playing ball our way. That's right out of the neocon playbook. Of course, Saddam quit playing by our rules some time ago...and the neocons were out to get him ever since. He was our boy for a long time, you know. Plus, they hope that by the permanent presence of our military, OPEC will be intimidated into more cooperation.
You are truly a ray of sunshine. :rolleyes:

BTW, there's that nasty "War for Oil" comment again, nozzlecommie. How about that proof? You're having a little bit of difficulty with that one, aren't you buddy?

jasper45

06-26-2006, 08:07 PM

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they just don’t work. They don’t happen. Someone always is turned on, someone rights a book to make money, or there is a movie deal, etc… When you start talking about conspiracy theories at the upper most levels of government, get real. Nothing is done in today’s society without it being caught. You want to believe that this whole war on terrorism is all about oil, there is nothing anybody can do to change your mind. However, that doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong in your belief. I also seriously doubt that anyone here really looks at the Iraqi people as “subhuman”, terrorists aside.
To say that this is all about oil is to dodge the real issue in that it is about religion. To be blunt, it is entirely about religion. It is true that oil is abundant in the Middle East, but we import more oil from central and southern America than from the mid-east. If it were truly all about oil, we could go and take it from Alaska. It would be far cheaper and easier with no hassle at all. However, it is much easier to duck around the true issue here, and that is that we are at war with Islamic-fascists who want to kill us because of our non-muslim ldeology, and that we are free, and that we are a very wealthy nation. Why, one might ask. The simple answer is that it is not politically correct to criticize Islam in today’s society, but it is alright to trample any mention of Christianity.
So, if it were truly about the oil, Saudi Arabia, as well as Kuwait have as much oil as we would ever need, and our troops were already staged there. There was no need to invade Iraq for those very reasons; if in fact, this war is about oil.

(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Apr-06 Mar-06 YTD 2006 Apr-05 Jan - Apr 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 1,710 1,716 1,726 1,676 1,551
MEXICO 1,601 1,697 1,692 1,541 1,510
SAUDI ARABIA 1,582 1,322 1,413 1,449 1,533
VENEZUELA 1,171 1,183 1,190 1,391 1,352
NIGERIA 1,022 1,114 1,149 1,130 1,030
IRAQ 531 476 498 542 522
ANGOLA 338 510 433 365 461
ECUADOR 312 242 288 240 302
ALGERIA 256 281 235 232 182
KUWAIT 225 111 139 164 179
UNITED KINGDOM 169 145 108 256 225
COLOMBIA 149 170 154 183 128
BRAZIL 111 123 114 36 38
CHAD 82 84 79 75 74
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 80 52 63 87 64

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

jasper45

06-26-2006, 08:10 PM

Take the quiz

I was a bit surprised, I scored as libertarian, but right on the line with conservative.

ChiefReason

06-26-2006, 08:36 PM

Took the test. What a surprise.
Conservatism is generally associated with the following views: Personal responsibility. General opposition to "big government" policies or state economic interventionism. Support for Judeo-Christian religious and moral values. Support for strong law enforcement and strong penalties for crimes. Restraint in taxation and regulation of businesses. Support for a strong military, and well-defended protected borders with regulated immigration. Support for drug prohibition. -- Word iQ
Yeah; that pretty much sums it up.

Some well-known conservatives include President George W. Bush, columnist George F. Will, actor Bruce Willis, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, commentator Ann Coulter (>), former Congressman Newt Gingrich, FOX TV's Sean Hannity, former president Ronald Reagan, singer Ted Nugent, writer William F. Buckley and Firehouse Forums contributor ChiefReason.
Yep; in pretty special company. :D
CR

Firedawg3313

06-26-2006, 08:40 PM

Right on, man...let's just kill millions of people to get what we want. Well, it appears the neocon strategy of convincing the ignorant masses to dehumanize these people is working...at least in your case

So in your mind, it's alright for the adversary to do just that with absolute extremism and belief. We should just play nice? Taking your life and millions of others is their goal. They have stated without question this is their intention. Unless of course you decide to capitulate to their way and only their way.

Now, please tell us exactly what the correct path is? Lay out your plans for the defeat of the terroists oranizations and their efforts.

Do we want to fight them here?

Do we want to fight them outside the U.S.?

Do we draw as many as possible into an area and fight them there?

Do we just wait for them to attack us everywhere in the world?

Do we start to cower here and become isolationists while trying to detect their next moves until the media lets the cat out of the bag and they move quickly to another tactic and attack in that short period of time?

Do we give the military complete control when an attack happens? Remember this would demand military control of state and local governments.

Do we cut and run now?

Do we stay and complete the mission?

Again, please give us the answers that only you seem to know?

So millions upon millions of peole right now are all ignorant indivduals? I'm happy to see that your ego's in check. I guess, again, that you've got all the answers to our problems. When are you going to run for office in order to put all these poor ignorant people in line with your political philosophy? Please enlighten the poor ignorant masses? Your emense political and sociological expertice should help others to follow the right path as you believe they should.

scfire86

06-26-2006, 10:26 PM

Hey, Nozz:
You want to talk about grieving widows and family members for their losses?
Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?

CR. We know one person who isn't concerned about the two brutal killings and mutilations of our soldiers. Don't we.

ChiefReason

06-26-2006, 10:38 PM

CR. We know one person who isn't concerned about the two brutal killings and mutilations of our soldiers. Don't we.
Yes.
His name is Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
But you knew that.
CR

scfire86

06-26-2006, 10:43 PM

Took the test. What a surprise.

Yeah; that pretty much sums it up.

Some well-known conservatives include President George W. Bush worst president ever, columnist George F. Will commentary's that put most to sleep, actor Bruce Willis so much for the all in Hollywood being liberal, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh convicted felon, commentator Ann Coulter intellectually lazy writer and pundit adept at seperating fools/conservatives from their money(>), former Congressman Newt Gingrich philanderer, FOX TV's Sean Hannity blowhard chickenhawk, former president Ronald Reagan tough talking conservative who put us on path to bankrupting the nation, singer Ted Nugent wacko chickenhawk has been rock star, writer William F. Buckley cut from the same cloth as George Will and Firehouse Forums contributor ChiefReason.

Yep; in pretty special company. :D
CR

Yes very special indeed.

scfire86

06-26-2006, 10:46 PM

Yes.
His name is Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
But you knew that.
CR
How interesting that he has something in common with Barbara Bush? Don't you think?

ChiefReason

06-26-2006, 11:02 PM

How interesting that he has something in common with Barbara Bush? Don't you think?
That's all you got on the former First Lady?
Then you could be a little more like her.
CR

scfire86

06-26-2006, 11:09 PM

That's all you got on the former First Lady?
Then you could be a little more like her.
CR
What are you talking about? I have nothing in common with her. I worry about the troops on a daily basis. And I can assure I support for more than her given my comparative means with her.

SPFDRum

06-26-2006, 11:19 PM

ThNozzleman

06-26-2006, 11:33 PM

All because I don't believe what they do....
Oh, yeah...and you sure are one to keep your mouth shut, right? :rolleyes:

scfire86

06-26-2006, 11:33 PM

Gee, I really hate when the 1st Amendment, or the Constitution for that matter, allows me to express my personal beliefs. Even though I will get reprimanded by the likes of scfire and noz for doing so. All because I don't believe what they do....
I haven't reprimanded anyone for thinking what they want. You have your rights. And given how much crap I've taken for my beliefs since I've been on these boards we have something in common.

ChiefReason

06-26-2006, 11:35 PM

What are you talking about? I have nothing in common with her. I worry about the troops on a daily basis. And I can assure I support for more than her given my comparative means with her.
You have more in common with her than you think.
For starters, you have her eye...

ThNozzleman

06-26-2006, 11:36 PM

So millions upon millions of peole right now are all ignorant indivduals? I'm happy to see that your ego's in check.
If you think that millions and millions agree with your position (parking lot, steal the oil, blah, blah, blah), I'm afraid you are not capable of continuing debate on the matter.

scfire86

06-26-2006, 11:39 PM

You have more in common with her than you think.
For starters, you have her eye...
Yawn!!! Don't give up your day job.

Firedawg3313

06-26-2006, 11:57 PM

If you think that millions and millions agree with your position (parking lot, steal the oil, blah, blah, blah), I'm afraid you are not capable of continuing debate on the matter.

I realize your superior intellect is just to much for my ignorant brain to concieve but I will say one thing. Out of all the people's posts I've read on here over the last couple of weeks, you're a real piece of work (the word arrogance comes to mind) and civil too (yeah right).

Please answer the question on if you really believe that these millions of people are ignorant or not? Simple question, only requires a simple answer of yes or no or you could write a dissertation on it if it suits you. Do me one favor though. Speak for yourself and not include others on this. I believe, unlike you that they have their own opinions and I doubt you know a lot of theirs. They are fully capable of speaking for themselves (oh that's right, I forgot, too many are to ignorant to have a valid position different from yours) and so am I.

I mentioned nothing about my opinion in relation to anything pretaining to parking lots, stealing oil or blah blah blah. Those are words that you chose to pick up, not mine and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to put any words in my mouth and/or state my position (as you think you know it) on something you have no knowledge of (my positions) in many areas.

I can also see that you gave out your wisdom on the other questions so other's that aren't as ignorant and DUH stupid as me could be enlightened with your genuis. What are your answers to the questions or do you even have any to share with everyone.

Post on the new thread. This one is Ann's:)

http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=82495

ChiefReason

06-27-2006, 12:00 AM

I won't.
It's a good living.
And the people there don't take themselves too seriously.
CR

scfire86

06-27-2006, 01:46 AM

Took the test. What a surprise.

Some well-known conservatives include radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh

Yep; in pretty special company. :D
CR

Hey CR. Are you sure you want to be compared to Rush Limbaugh? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-26-limbaugh-arrest_x.htm?csp=34)

Is there something you want to tell us about?

I bet this is the reaon Daryn Kagan dumped him.

ChiefReason

06-27-2006, 10:29 AM

Hey CR. Are you sure you want to be compared to Rush Limbaugh? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-26-limbaugh-arrest_x.htm?csp=34)
If we are talking about his politics, then sure. Other than that, there is no more a comparision there than there is between you and Barbara Bush. Remember?

Is there something you want to tell us about?
I am happy to say that I do NOT need a blue pill. A little bit of wind or a picture of a fire truck is all I need. I thought that was normal.

I bet this is the reaon Daryn Kagan dumped him.
No; I'm betting she dumped him because he didn't make enough money to lavish her in a style that she was accustomed to.
You know; they make a "blue pill" for women, too.
Did you see where the Bush administration is looking at filing formal charges against the New York Times for "treasonous acts"?
That ought to give us something to talk about, eh?
Looking forward to it.
CR

scfire86

06-27-2006, 10:47 AM

I am happy to say that I do NOT need a blue pill. A little bit of wind or a picture of a fire truck is all I need. I thought that was normal.

Gives a whole new meaning to 'Talent on loan from god'.

FlaFireGator

06-27-2006, 12:03 PM

Well, thought-out, articulate review of the Number 1 bestseller!!! ;)

Ann Coulter: America's fiery, blond commentatrix
One crack about 9/11 widows and the author of Godless loses her audience. Too bad
MARK STEYN
Ann Coulter's new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is a rollicking read very tightly reasoned and hard to argue with. After all, the progressive mind regards it as backward and primitive to let religion determine every aspect of your life, but takes it as advanced and enlightened to have the state determine every aspect of your life. Lest you doubt the left's pieties are now a religion, try this experiment: go up to an environmental activist and say "Hey, how about that ozone hole closing up?" or "Wow! The global warming peaked in 1998 and it's been getting cooler for almost a decade. Isn't that great?" and then look at the faces. As with all millenarian doomsday cults, good news is a bummer.
But nobody's talking too much about the finer points of Miss Coulter's argument. Instead, everyone -- from Hillary Rodham Clinton down -- is going bananas about a couple of paragraphs on page 103 and 112 in which the author savages the 9/11 widows. Not all of them. Just the quartet led by Kristen Breitweiser and known as "the Jersey Girls." These four widows have been regular fixtures in the New York TV studios since they first emerged to complain that the average $1.6 million-per-family compensation was insufficient. The 9/11 commission, in all its ghastly second-guessing showboating, was largely their project. As Miss Coulter writes:

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
And at that point Senator Clinton jumped in to denounce the incendiary blond commentatrix as (dread word) "mean-spirited." Maybe so. But in 2004, the Jersey Girls publicly endorsed John Kerry's campaign for president: they inserted themselves into the political arena and chose sides. That being so, to demand that they be insulated from the normal rough 'n' tumble of partisan politics merely because of their biography seems absurd. There are any number of 9/11 widows. A few are big George W. Bush supporters, many are apolitical. I was honoured to receive an email the other day from Deena Gilbey, a British subject whose late husband worked on the 84th floor of the World Trade Center and remained in the building to help evacuate his colleagues. A few days later, U.S. Immigration sent Mrs. Gilbey a letter informing her that, as she was now a widow, her residence status had changed and they were enclosing a deportation order. Having legally admitted to the country the men who killed her husband, the U.S. government's first act after having enabled his murder is to further traumatize the bereaved.
The heartless brain-dead bonehead penpusher who sent out that letter is far more "mean-spirited" than Miss Coulter at full throttle. Yet Mrs. Gilbey isn't courted by the TV bookers the way the Jersey Girls are. Hundreds of soldiers' moms believe their sons died in a noble and just cause in Iraq, but it's Cindy Sheehan, who calls Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world," who gets speaking engagements across America, Canada, Britain, Europe and Australia. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi winds up pushing up daisy cutters, the media don't go to Paul Bigley, who rejoiced that the man who decapitated his brother would now "rot in hell," nor the splendid Aussie Douglas Wood, who called his kidnappers "arseholes," nor his fellow hostage Ulf Hjertstrom, a Swede who's invested 50,000 bucks or so in trying to track down the men who kidnapped him and visit a little reciprocal justice on them. No, instead, the media rush to get the reaction of Michael Berg, who thinks Bush is "the real terrorist" rather than the man who beheaded his son.
But it wasn't until Ann Coulter pointed it out that you realize how heavily the Democratic party is invested in irreproachable biography. For example, John Kerry's pretzel-twist of a war straddle in the 2004 campaign relied mainly on former senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee from a Vietnam grenade accident whom the campaign dispatched to stake out Bush's Crawford ranch that summer. Maybe he's still down there. It's gotten kinda crowded on the perimeter since then, what with Cindy Sheehan et al. But the idea is that you can't attack what Max Cleland says about war because, after all, you've got most of your arms and legs and he hasn't. This would normally be regarded as the unworthy tactic of snake-oil-peddling shyster evangelists and, indeed, the Dems eventually scored their perfect Elmer Gantry moment. In 2004, in the gym of Newton High School in Iowa, Senator John Edwards skipped the dreary Kerry-as-foreign-policy-genius pitch and cut straight to the Second Coming. "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases . . . When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Mr. Reeve had died the previous weekend, but he wouldn't have had Kerry and Edwards been in the White House. Read his lips: no new crutches. The healing balm of the Massachusetts Messiah will bring the crippled and stricken to their feet, which is more than Kerry's speeches ever do for the able-bodied. As the author remarks, "If one wanted to cure the lame, one could reasonably start with John Edwards."
"What crackpot argument can't be immunized by the Left's invocation of infallibility based on personal experience?" wonders Miss Coulter of Cleland, Sheehan, the Jersey Girls and Co. "If these Democrat human shields have a point worth making, how about allowing it to be made by someone we're allowed to respond to?"
Now that's a point worth making. As it is, thanks to Coulter cracks like "Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy," even chaps on the right are doing the more-in-sorrow shtick and saying that they've been making the same basic argument as Ann and it's such a shame she had to go too far with her cheap shots because that's discredited the entire argument, etc.
The trouble with this line is that hardly anyone was objecting to the professional widow routine pre-Coulter. Well, that's not strictly true. Yours truly objected. After the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, I wrote:
"The first reaction of the news shows to the verdict was to book some relative of the 9/11 families and ask whether they were satisfied with the result, as if the prosecution of the war on terror is some kind of national-security Megan's Law on which they have inviolable proprietorial rights. Sorry, but that's not what happened that Tuesday morning. The thousands who died were not targeted as individuals: they were killed because they were American, not because somebody in a cave far away decided to murder Mrs. Smith. . . It's not about 'closure' for the victims; it's about victory for the nation."
But nobody paid the slightest heed to this line. For all the impact my column had, I might as well have done house calls. Then Coulter comes in and yuks it up with the Playboy-spread gags, and suddenly the Jersey Girls only want to do the super-extra-fluffy puffball interviews. So two paragraphs in Ann Coulter's book have succeeded in repositioning these ladies: they may still be effective Democrat hackettes, but I think TV shows will have a harder time passing them off as non-partisan representatives of the 9/11 dead.
So, on balance, hooray for Miss Coulter. If I were to go all sanctimonious and priggish, I might add that, in rendering their "human shield" strategy more problematic, she may be doing Democrats a favour. There's no evidence the American people fall for this shtick: in 2002, the party's star Senate candidates all ran on biography -- Max Cleland, Jean Carnahan (the widow of a deceased governor), and Walter Mondale (the old lion pressed into service after Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash). All lost. Using "messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to" doesn't solve the Democrats' biggest problem: their message. The Dems, says the author, have "become the 'Lifetime' TV network of political parties." But, except within the Democrat-media self-reinforcing cocoon, it's not that popular. A political party with a statistically improbable reliance on the bereaved shouldn't be surprised that it spends a lot of time in mourning -- especially on Wednesday mornings every other November.
To comment, email letters@macleans.ca

ameryfd

06-27-2006, 01:38 PM

You're missing my point and dancing around my question. If, as you claim, Bush is a liar and SOB for saying there were WMD in Iraq. Then why can't you call the libs who said the same thing after reading the same intellegence liars. Call them liars and SOB's by name and I'll leave this point alone. By your continued refusal to call those people the SAME names that you call Bush.....You are simply being two-faced. Just write it down. Clinton is a liar and a Son of a B++ch, Gore is a liar and a Son of a B++tch, Kerry is a liar and an SOB ect.... and you will at least regain a shred of credibility in your argument.

Bumping this...still waiting for Noz and sc call em liars by name. Until you do so everything you say is nothing more than Bush hating rhetoric...

scfire86

06-27-2006, 02:08 PM

Bumping this...still waiting for Noz and sc call em liars by name. Until you do so everything you say is nothing more than Bush hating rhetoric...
Already answered your question. You just didn't like the answer.

For the record. I don't hate Bush. He seems like a nice enough guy. Since I'm not the son and grandson of billionaires, or a failed businessman I don't have anything in common with him.

His policies on the other hand are a different matter. I can dislike the policies without disliking the man.

ChiefReason

06-27-2006, 03:35 PM

Gives a whole new meaning to 'Talent on loan from god'.
It is not a God given talent.
It comes from years of practice.
CR

FlaFireGator

06-27-2006, 05:59 PM

Some more well thought out reviews. Hope you enjoy!!! :D

Ann Coulter has it right on the widows of 9/11

By Alan Caruba

It's embarrassing that two New Jersey Democrats, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley of Jersey City and Assemblywoman Linda Stender of Scotch Plains, are calling on bookstores in the state not to sell Ann Coulter's new book.
One wonders whether Quigley and Stender have heard of Amazon.com or are aware that Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, is on its way to becoming a best-seller just like her previous diatribes against liberalism?
Coulter may be motivated by "her desire to sell books," as our astute assemblywomen surmised, but she is hardly the personification of evil.
Defending Coulter, who also has come under attack from Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), is an oxymoron.
She is the last person who needs to be defended, given that she is a lawyer who presumably can defend herself and possesses a frightening intellect and wit.
While promoting her book on television recently, Coulter made reference to a group of New Jersey women whose husbands were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center.
Coulter noted, as she does in her book, that these "Jersey Girls," after receiving huge amounts in compensation for their losses, then went public blaming President Bush for having failed to anticipate and prevent the 9/11 attacks.
The mainstream media made much of them while ignoring some very key factors that undermined their views. Coulter, of course, did not.
Noticeably missing from the initial press reports was any mention of what Coulter actually wrote:
"The 9/11 Commission was a scam and a fraud, the sole purpose of which was to cover up the disasters of the Clinton administration and distract the nation's leaders during wartime. Not only did the Jersey Girls claim credit for this Clinton whitewash machine, they spent most of the hearings denouncing the Bush administration for not stopping the 9/11 attacks from the weak position handed it by the Clinton administration."
The gist of what Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza claimed was that an August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing should have alerted Bush to order immediate action to prevent 9/11.
Coulter notes in her book that "all the information about bin Laden in the August PDB comes from the nineties. Not one fact in the PDB is more recent than 1999."I grant you Coulter takes no prisoners when she writes.
"Mostly the witches of East Brunswick wanted George Bush to apologize for not being Bill Clinton," was her take on the Jersey Girls, but "the rest of the nation was more interested in knowing why the FBI was prevented from being given intelligence about 9/11 terrorists here in the United States more than a year before the attack..."
The answer - well-known by now - is that Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, "had specifically prohibited intelligence agents from telling law enforcement agents about suspected terrorists in the country."
And whom did the Democrats put on the 9/11 Commission? Jamie Gorelick.
So what we are seeing in the denunciations by members of the U.S. Senate and now the New Jersey Assembly represents more than a fair amount of partisanship.
Coulter has done a very good job of documenting her case. If some Jersey Girls get a public spanking in the process, so be it.
Alan Caruba, of South Orange, Essex County, writes "Warning Signs," a weekly column for the National Anxiety Center, an Internet site he founded. The site's address is www.anxietycenter.com.

scfire86

06-27-2006, 07:45 PM

It is not a God given talent.
It comes from years of practice.
CR
You mean not being able to get a boner takes practice? Who knew? Now we really know what he's talking about when he talks about El Rushbo.

scfire86

06-27-2006, 07:51 PM

"The 9/11 Commission was a scam and a fraud, the sole purpose of which was to cover up the disasters of the Clinton administration and distract the nation's leaders during wartime. Not only did the Jersey Girls claim credit for this Clinton whitewash machine, they spent most of the hearings denouncing the Bush administration for not stopping the 9/11 attacks from the weak position handed it by the Clinton administration."
This is a very interesting piece of revisionist history. Coulter conveniently leaves out how the GOP majority congress did everything in its power to paralyze the Clinton administration through endless faux investigations and subpoenas for literally millions of pages of documents.

Bush had been in office for close to eight months when the fateful PDB was given to him detailing Bin Laden and the plans to hijack airliners into missiles. Soooo....how long is one supposed to be in office before they are responsible for the actions (or lack thereof) of their administation?

There are a lot of fingerprints on that knife.

SSTONER

06-30-2006, 06:30 AM

When is she going to be in Playboy? :eek:

pvfire424

06-30-2006, 10:54 AM

When is she going to be in Playboy?

Never if these quotes are true !!!!

...someone should kick her right in the balls.

She's got more(balls) than you do.

ChiefReason

06-30-2006, 11:26 AM

This is a very interesting piece of revisionist history. Coulter conveniently leaves out how the GOP majority congress did everything in its power to paralyze the Clinton administration through endless faux investigations and subpoenas for literally millions of pages of documents.

Bush had been in office for close to eight months when the fateful PDB was given to him detailing Bin Laden and the plans to hijack airliners into missiles. Soooo....how long is one supposed to be in office before they are responsible for the actions (or lack thereof) of their administation?

There are a lot of fingerprints on that knife.
Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers got their green light when Clinton pulled our men out of Somalia.
CR

scfire86

06-30-2006, 12:17 PM

Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers got their green light when Clinton pulled our men out of Somalia.
CR
Dream on. If anything he got his green light when conservatives accused Clinton of 'wagging the dog' every time he pursued Bin Laden.

jasper45

06-30-2006, 02:03 PM

Dream on. If anything he got his green light when conservatives accused Clinton of 'wagging the dog' every time he pursued Bin Laden.

Somalia was just one of many moves made by the US government that sent a clear-cut signal to Muslim extremists that we are weak, that we have no stomach to follow through on what we say. The USS Cole, the Khobar towers, as well as the East Africa embassy bombings all were contributing factors, as were the political games played in Washington that may or may not have contributed to President Clinton’s lack of pursuit. I do feel however, that “wagging the dog” did give the Muslims the opinion that our government could be easily manipulated with political games.

Terrorism needs to be dealt with quickly, harshly, and with absolute resolve. I think that Libya should serve as an excellent example. Politics need to be put aside, and our nation needs to be unified in order to save innocent American lives, both here and abroad.

ChiefReason

06-30-2006, 05:34 PM

Dream on. If anything he got his green light when conservatives accused Clinton of 'wagging the dog' every time he pursued Bin Laden.
Really!
When Sudan had Bin Laden in custody, why didn't Clinton jump at the chance to get him if Clinton was "pursuing" him, as you say?
And why would Bin Laden in a taped interview tell his interviewers that Somalia gave his men "new hope" because it showed them that the US didn't have the stomach for war. Of course, I'm paraphrasing.
CR

scfire86

06-30-2006, 06:45 PM

The USS Cole, the Khobar towers, as well as the East Africa embassy bombings all were contributing factors, as were the political games played in Washington that may or may not have contributed to President Clinton’s lack of pursuit. I do feel however, that “wagging the dog” did give the Muslims the opinion that our government could be easily manipulated with political games.

The USS Cole was attacked in Oct. 2000. The FBI concluded Al Qaeda were the perps that December. There were certainly suspicions. But nothing official till then. Clinton has stated he didn't want to leave the incoming President with a shooting war. And had he attacked immediately after the bombing what would have been the outcry from the 'wag the dog' sycophants? In March 2001, Al Qaeda published a videotape claiming responsibility for bombing the USS Cole and Bush did nothing. A presidential memo (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html) that Condi Rice testified to the 9/11 committee that there was no indication of an emminent attack still warranted no response.

And despite what CR states that Clinton had an offer from Sudan, there is nothing subtantive to that claim. And who stated that? Ken Starr in his impeachment report to the House Judiciary Committee.

To blame it all on Clinton is nothing more than wishful thinking by those who spent too much time listening to folks like Limbaugh. Who now has his set of problems.

Firedawg3313

06-30-2006, 07:24 PM

To blame it all on Clinton is nothing more than wishful thinking by those who spent too much time listening to folks like Limbaugh. Who now has his set of problems.

So in your mind, to blame everything on Bush is ok? If, as you have suggested more than once in posts, that the President is the last stop and it's in his lap. Then you can't just let Clinton off the hook.

I wasn't happy when Bush #1 cut our human intelligence and I wasn't pleased with the continued cuts under Clinton.

scfire86

06-30-2006, 07:49 PM

So in your mind, to blame everything on Bush is ok? If, as you have suggested more than once in posts, that the President is the last stop and it's in his lap. Then you can't just let Clinton off the hook.

I could use the same argument regarding 9/11. And I could just as easily say there are those who believe Clinton is the sole individual to blame for the rising threat of terrorism. My point is there are plenty of fingerprints on the blade. From both sides of the aisle.

Same as with the current failed foreign policy in the Mideast.

CaptainGonzo

06-30-2006, 09:43 PM

I could use the same argument regarding 9/11. And I could just as easily say there are those who believe Clinton is the sole individual to blame for the rising threat of terrorism. My point is there are plenty of fingerprints on the blade. From both sides of the aisle.

Same as with the current failed foreign policy in the Mideast.

As the voters and taxpayers.. we should demand that both parties acknowledge their complicity in the creation of the mess... and then quit playing the games and work to resolve the issues...

Of course, we all know that isn't going to happen! :rolleyes:

ChiefReason

07-01-2006, 12:13 AM

As the voters and taxpayers.. we should demand that both parties acknowledge their complicity in the creation of the mess... and then quit playing the games and work to resolve the issues...

Of course, we all know that isn't going to happen! :rolleyes:
A noble idea, Gonz, but too idealistic.
Conservatives and liberals will never peacefully co-exist.
Both want control of the White House, Congress and the real prize...the Supreme Court.
CR

ameryfd

07-01-2006, 12:37 AM

You took the bait Noz. Please look who made those quotes. If your "lies" argument is valid, you need to call these people the same names you call the President.

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

AND

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

AND

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

AND

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

AND

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

AND

"after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

AND

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

AND

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

AND

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

AND

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

AND

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Are they all liars too? ;)

It has been over a week and Noz and SC continue to refuse to judge these people with the same measure as the President. You people call Bush a liar and an SOB yet REFUSE to call these same libs the same names. Oh yeah, we get a "I hold them accountable" and "oh they didn't advocate a war" crap but you refuse to call them liars like you did the President. This is why people of your political ilk have ZERO credibility in this discussion. You are blinded by hate and talking points. If you are not a hypocrite, then either call the libs liars by name or publically say that Bush was not lying. To do niether simply shows your arguments for the dogmatic political hate speach that it is. There is no virtue in your argument unless you judge everyone by the same stick you judge the ones you disagree with.

People have left churches and refused to go back because they say the church is full of hyporcites....... The lib's have lost every major election in the last decade for the exact same reason.

Just call them liars or retract any statement about the President....Is that so hard?

scfire86

07-01-2006, 12:41 AM

It has been over a week and Noz and SC continue to refuse to judge these people with the same measure as the President. You people call Bush a liar and an SOB yet REFUSE to call these same libs the same names.
I've never called Bush either of those names. Clearly you have me mistaken for someone else.

I've already discussed the issue. There is no point in paying for the same real estate twice.

But keep believing your little fantasy.

xploded

07-01-2006, 03:50 AM

The USS Cole was attacked in Oct. 2000. The FBI concluded Al Qaeda were the perps that December. There were certainly suspicions. But nothing official till then. Clinton has stated he didn't want to leave the incoming President with a shooting war. And had he attacked immediately after the bombing what would have been the outcry from the 'wag the dog' sycophants? In March 2001, Al Qaeda published a videotape claiming responsibility for bombing the USS Cole and Bush did nothing. A presidential memo (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html) that Condi Rice testified to the 9/11 committee that there was no indication of an emminent attack still warranted no response.

And despite what CR states that Clinton had an offer from Sudan, there is nothing subtantive to that claim. And who stated that? Ken Starr in his impeachment report to the House Judiciary Committee.

To blame it all on Clinton is nothing more than wishful thinking by those who spent too much time listening to folks like Limbaugh. Who now has his set of problems.

I hate to bust your bubble but there is evidence that Clinton had an offer from the Sudan-It is a recording of Clinton HIMSELF saying that very thing. I personally have heard it several times. So unless Ken Starr does a great Clinton impression I don't think that shot in the dark you are trying to fire works very well.

And also about Rush having his own problems if he had been a Kennedy or a McKinney you would have heard ZERO about it.

GeorgeWendtCFI

07-01-2006, 08:18 AM

And also about Rush having his own problems if he had been a Kennedy or a McKinney you would have heard ZERO about it.
Wrong. You would have heard all about them being picked on and singled out by the big bad oppressive government. Then, they would have had news conferences talking about how they were victims of unlawful search and seizure. Then you would have had six weeks of news analysis of how the government is out of control.

Besides, it has been well-established in the past few weeks that laws do not apply to members of Congress.

ThNozzleman

07-01-2006, 10:56 AM

Just call them liars or retract any statement about the President....Is that so hard?
Most politicians are liars...what's your point? That somehow GWB and his minions can be forgiven for starting this stupid war, simply because some of the Dems went along with them? You know, if you'd make a valid point it might not take a week for someone to address it. We all know who engineered this disaster. But, I guess when your only defense is "He did it too!!", you've already lost the debate. Keep trying, though. Oh, yeah...let's hear some more "Clinton did it! Clinton did it!" bullcrap. That always makes my day.

ThNozzleman

07-01-2006, 11:01 AM

I could use the same argument regarding 9/11. And I could just as easily say there are those who believe Clinton is the sole individual to blame for the rising threat of terrorism. My point is there are plenty of fingerprints on the blade. From both sides of the aisle.
Hey, I know...let's blame the U.S. soccer team's World Cup loss to Ghana on Clinton for not building a stronger soccer team when he was in office. I mean, it's plainly his fault.

ThNozzleman

07-01-2006, 11:06 AM

ameryfd

07-01-2006, 11:23 AM

I'm sorry...remind me again which war it was that Clinton started?

That would be Bosnia. :cool:

Still can't see past your hypocracy and call em liars can you. Saying most polititians are liars is rhetoric, calling them liars by name is what you won't do.

ThNozzleman

07-01-2006, 11:28 AM

That would be Bosnia.
And just how did Clinton start that war???
Still can't see past your hypocracy and call em liars can you. Saying most polititians are liars is rhetoric, calling them liars by name is what you won't do.
And you still can't get the point that it doesn't matter. Bush started this war, and was going to have it, regardless of how many vote-scared Dems went along. But, just keep up the deflections...you're doing a GREAT job of defending this war.

scfire86

07-01-2006, 12:20 PM

I hate to bust your bubble but there is evidence that Clinton had an offer from the Sudan-It is a recording of Clinton HIMSELF saying that very thing. I personally have heard it several times. So unless Ken Starr does a great Clinton impression I don't think that shot in the dark you are trying to fire works very well.
So pony up and prove me wrong. I have heard the recording of someone stating that fact after he had left office. Unfortunately, while a sitting President has extraordinary powers the rest of us do not, he is still governed by laws. And that is one of the reasons he didn't pursue Bin Laden as greatly as some would have liked. And remember he had the specter of Ken Starr hounding his every move looking for something (anything actually) that would qualify as an impeachable offense. Like oh say, ordering the execution of a foreign national without approval from a GOP majority Congress.

And also about Rush having his own problems if he had been a Kennedy or a McKinney you would have heard ZERO about it.
Seems to me we've heard plenty about both from all media outlets. Unless you've not been paying attention. But you have to admit it is pretty funny that one of the icons of the angry, white, male, conservative needs boner drugs and trips to third world countries to get his ashes hauled. It might explain why he is so angry. More curious is why a person who postures about the immorality of extra-marital sex needs viagra for an "all boys trip" (his words) at all when he is not married.

xploded

07-01-2006, 10:41 PM

JHR1985

07-01-2006, 10:48 PM

he is still governed by laws

Yet, he lied under oath and to the american people.

scfire86

07-01-2006, 10:51 PM

So pony up and prove what? You said you heard the tape. Do you not think that was Clinton? Maybe a vast right wing conspiracy that created a fake computer voice and matched it to say what they wanted.
Yes I did. Hearing someone with hindsight and without the external scrutiny he was under from idiot conservatives hounding and criticizing his every move.

he is still governed by laws

Yet, he lied under oath and to the american people.
We've already covered this. Tried and acquitted. He apologized and people forgave him. His approval ratings at the end of his tenure were higher than Reagan's.

ThNozzleman

07-02-2006, 12:16 AM

We've already covered this.
No doubt. Jeez, don't you guys have anything but Clinton-bashing to trot out? Lame.

JHR1985

07-02-2006, 12:36 AM

I never did any clinton bashing. I just stated a known fact. One night, he gets on TV in front of millions and says I didnt and the next night, he does his poor pitaful me I'm sorry. I lied to the American people.

If it was me, I would rather him have killed Bin Laden and be faced with acknowleding that. And, somebody brought up Bosnia. Bosnia became a major factor right during the Monica dealo. But, can anyone remember the I believe weekend long airstrikes that were conducted against Iraq during Clinton's reign?

scfire86

07-02-2006, 12:41 AM

I never did any clinton bashing. I just stated a known fact. One night, he gets on TV in front of millions and says I didnt and the next night, he does his poor pitaful me I'm sorry. I lied to the American people.
And they forgave him. And a lot of people did a LOT of Clinton bashing. But I am amused at how many on this board say they never supported those critical of him.

But, can anyone remember the I believe weekend long airstrikes that were conducted against Iraq during Clinton's reign?
I bet you there are Iraqis who remember.

ChiefReason

07-02-2006, 12:41 AM

No doubt. Jeez, don't you guys have anything but Clinton-bashing to trot out? Lame.
Any Kennedy, Howard Dean, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, any New York Times editorial, the Warren Commission(for history's sake)...just to name a few.
CR

scfire86

07-02-2006, 12:46 AM

any New York Times editorial
Is this the same NY Times used by the Bush administration to leak the name of a covert opertative? Or a different NY Times?

xploded

07-02-2006, 11:51 AM

Is this the same NY Times used by the Bush administration to leak the name of a covert opertative? Or a different NY Times?

"Covert" another lefty spin term. It was well known (all though not well reported) that she was not covert.
Also your beloved NY Slimes just this weekend published the location, basic routes into and out off and the location of security cameras and features of the homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. I guess that is no big deal either.

scfire86

07-02-2006, 12:42 PM

"Covert" another lefty spin term. It was well known (all though not well reported) that she was not covert.
To who? You? I've never heard of her. She had Official Cover and Non-Official Cover status. Her superiors at the CIA believed her status required those classifications for any amount of work being done by her. So unless you are privvy to some CIA functions the rest of us are not please don't dwelve into an area you know nothing about.

It may come as a BIG surprise to you. Covert agents do not live in a special compound sequestered away from the rest of society. They lead basic normal lives when they are not functioning in their capacity as covert operatives.

My dyed in the wool GOP brother in law has done work for the CIA in helping them to use new technologies for stand off surveillance being used by field personnel. He is livid over this matter as are several agents he knows. So please don't give us the righty spin how this is no big deal.

xploded

07-03-2006, 02:18 AM

To who? You? I've never heard of her. She had Official Cover and Non-Official Cover status. Her superiors at the CIA believed her status required those classifications for any amount of work being done by her. So unless you are privvy to some CIA functions the rest of us are not please don't dwelve into an area you know nothing about.

It may come as a BIG surprise to you. Covert agents do not live in a special compound sequestered away from the rest of society. They lead basic normal lives when they are not functioning in their capacity as covert operatives.

My dyed in the wool GOP brother in law has done work for the CIA in helping them to use new technologies for stand off surveillance being used by field personnel. He is livid over this matter as are several agents he knows. So please don't give us the righty spin how this is no big deal.

I forgot you are the superior intellect on this board. If anyone has a differing opinion or take on a subject, then your first instinct is to be condenscending.
My info on the Plame case comes the same place as yours does- the media. Only I choose not to be led to the liberal trough and lap up the kool-aid.
It is no BIG surprise to me that they live among us. You can say what you want in your better than everyone else tone but I sure as hell don't believe that the outing of an "alleged" covert agent even comes close to stacking up to the treason (more righty spin) done by the NY Crimes.
I know,who am I to question your almighty views.

scfire86

07-03-2006, 05:47 AM

I forgot you are the superior intellect on this board. If anyone has a differing opinion or take on a subject, then your first instinct is to be condenscending.
My info on the Plame case comes the same place as yours does- the media. Only I choose not to be led to the liberal trough and lap up the kool-aid.
It is no BIG surprise to me that they live among us. You can say what you want in your better than everyone else tone but I sure as hell don't believe that the outing of an "alleged" covert agent even comes close to stacking up to the treason (more righty spin) done by the NY Crimes.
I know,who am I to question your almighty views.
Nice. Your post does nothing to disprove my assertion that a covert operative (unless you know more about her activity than us or the NYT) was outed for political purposes. You resort to an ad hominem attack only proving your argument has no merit.

Thanks for continuing to prove me right about folks like you. With your tired cliché diatribe about the Times it is still obvious you can be led around by your nose. As I mentioned earlier, this is the same NYT used to out a covert agent to discredit an individual critical of the Bush administration. It is similar to Limbaugh (http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=72471&highlight=Limbaugh) referring to Paul Hackett as a 'staff puke' after Hackett had returned from Iraq to run for Congress as a Dem. Folks like you are a real piece of work when service to country doesn't matter if they disagree with your notions of what constitutes a 'good' American. I bet you're one of those folks with a 'Support the Troops' sticker on your car. Better get a new one that says 'Only Support the Republican Troops".

Or maybe this is your feeble imitation of Floyd Turbo.

FlaFireGator

07-03-2006, 08:53 PM

Here is another well thought out article. :D

12 DOWN: TOP SECRET WAR PLANS, 36 ACROSS: TREASON
June 28, 2006

When is The New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al-Qaida secret program?

In the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government anti-terrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times, last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the U.S.

In response, the Bush administration is sounding very cross — and doing nothing. Bush wouldn't want to get the press mad at him! Yeah, let's keep the media on our good side like they are now. Otherwise, they might do something crazy — like leak a classified government program monitoring terrorist financing.

National Review has boldly called for the revocation of the Times' White House press pass! If the Times starts publishing troop movements, National Review will go whole hog and demand that the paper's water cooler privileges be revoked. Then there's always the "nuclear option": disinviting Maureen Dowd from the next White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Meanwhile, the one congressman who has called for any sort of criminal investigation is being treated like a nut. Don't get me wrong: Congressman Peter King is nuttier than squirrel droppings — but he's right on this.

Unless, that is, the country has simply abolished the concept of treason. We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of The New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)

Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots. She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.

Fast forward to today, when New York Times publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger has just been named al-Qaida's "Employee of the Month" for the 12th straight month.

Before the Vietnam War, this country took treason seriously.

But now we're told newspapers have a right to commit treason because of "freedom of the press." Liberals invoke "freedom of the press" like some talismanic formulation that requires us all to fall prostrate in religious ecstasy. On liberals' theory of the First Amendment, the safest place for Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan; it's in The New York Times building.

Freedom of the press means the government generally cannot place a prior restraint on speech before publication.

But freedom of the press does not mean the government cannot prosecute reporters and editors for treason — or for any other crime. The First Amendment does not mean Times editor Bill Keller could kidnap a child and issue his ransom demands from The New York Times editorial page. He could not order a contract killing on the op-ed page. Nor can he take out a contract killing on Americans with a Page One story on a secret government program being used to track terrorists who are trying to kill Americans.

What if, instead of passing information from the government's secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?

Ezra Pound, Mildred Gillars ("Axis Sally") and Iva Toguri D'Aquino ("Tokyo Rose") were all charged with treason for radio broadcasts intended to demoralize the troops during World War II. Their broadcasts were sort of like Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio — except Tokyo Rose was actually witty, and Axis Sally is said to have used a fact-checker.

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason for a single remark she made on air: "Orphans of the Pacific, you really are orphans now. How will you get home now that your ships are sunk?" For that statement alone, D'Aquino spent six years in prison and was fined $10,000 (more than $80,000 in today's dollars).

Axis Sally was convicted of treason for broadcasts from Germany and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Pound avoided a treason trial for his radio broadcasts by getting himself committed to an insane asylum instead (which I take it is Randi Rhodes' "Plan B" in the event that she ever acquires enough listeners to be charged with treason).

There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.

The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."

Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence — Al-Qaida." You just have to read The New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.

The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency — our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals — it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

FlaFireGator

07-03-2006, 09:07 PM

Ironic...but look who's Number One on the NYT bestseller list!!!! :cool:

Hardcover Nonfiction

THIS LAST WEEKS
WEEK WEEK ON LIST

1 GODLESS, by Ann Coulter. (Crown Forum, $27.95.) The columnist argues that liberalism is a religion with sacraments, a creation myth and a clergy. 2 3
2 WISDOM OF OUR FATHERS, by Tim Russert. (Random House, $22.95.) The host of "Meet the Press'' presents readers' letters about their fathers in responseto his book "Big Russ and Me.'' 1 5
3 MARLEY & ME, by John Grogan. (Morrow, $21.95.) A newspaper columnist and his wife learn some life lessons from their neurotic dog. 3 36
4 DISPATCHES FROM THE EDGE, by Anderson Cooper. (HarperCollins, $24.95.) The CNN correspondent describes a year of covering the tsunami in Sri Lanka, the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. 4 5
5 THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE, by Ron Suskind. (Simon & Schuster, $27.) An investigation of the Bush administration's strategic thinking and of the role of ideology and personality in the decision to go to war.

scfire86

07-03-2006, 09:29 PM

Here is another well thought out article. :D

Just one problem. Bush himself stated that financial transactions of suspected terrorists were going to be targeted. So unless real terrorists were living in a cave with no access to the outside world this article is yet another example of Coulter's intellectual laziness. And reinforcing her adeptness at seperating conservatives/fools from their money.

ChiefReason

07-03-2006, 11:52 PM

Just one problem. Bush himself stated that financial transactions of suspected terrorists were going to be targeted. So unless real terrorists were living in a cave with no access to the outside world this article is yet another example of Coulter's intellectual laziness. And reinforcing her adeptness at seperating conservatives/fools from their money.
Bush stated several times in GENERAL terms that we were going to target the money/money-laundering of the terrorists.
The Times gave the terrorists the blueprint.
We are still fighting terrorists in this country and they work for the New York Times.
You never hear about how Al-Qaeda treats American prisoners. That's because they kill, mutilate and behead captured Americans.
Al-Qaeda prisoners are given 3 hots and a cot, the Koran, prayer time, cable TV and the accords of the Geneva Convention.
And with every NYT editorial, we give our enemies hope. Just like we did during Vietnam. Don't you find it interesting that North Vietnam leaders cite the anti-war protests that were permeating our country back then as one of the reasons that they pressed on against the U.S.? They watched the news accounts of the protests and it lifted their spirits. I am sure they got giddy when they saw footage from the '68 Democratic Convention. You remember that liberal slug-fest don't you?
Can't blame the conservatives or the Republicans for that one, can you?
CR

xploded

07-04-2006, 12:26 AM

Nice. Your post does nothing to disprove my assertion that a covert operative (unless you know more about her activity than us or the NYT) was outed for political purposes. You resort to an ad hominem attack only proving your argument has no merit.

Thanks for continuing to prove me right about folks like you. With your tired cliché diatribe about the Times it is still obvious you can be led around by your nose. As I mentioned earlier, this is the same NYT used to out a covert agent to discredit an individual critical of the Bush administration. It is similar to Limbaugh (http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=72471&highlight=Limbaugh) referring to Paul Hackett as a 'staff puke' after Hackett had returned from Iraq to run for Congress as a Dem. Folks like you are a real piece of work when service to country doesn't matter if they disagree with your notions of what constitutes a 'good' American. I bet you're one of those folks with a 'Support the Troops' sticker on your car. Better get a new one that says 'Only Support the Republican Troops".

Or maybe this is your feeble imitation of Floyd Turbo.

Just to put your mind at ease- I do have a support sticker and I HAVE been out on the lines with them firing back at me. So you see your little petty insults mean nothing. I have been where the kind of talk that comes from people like you do more harm than good. I also felt that way when your hero Clinton sent my rear over to get shot at. At the time I didn't like him but I would have done nothing to dishonor my president or country when the enemy was shooting back. Have been disabled since Pres. Clinton sent me there, kinda where my handle "xploded" comes from. So you can rail on all you want about how this Pres. sucks or how I suck but I would be there today if I could.
So your petty arguments are just nothing to me but a way to pass the time.

scfire86

07-04-2006, 01:01 AM

Bush stated several times in GENERAL terms that we were going to target the money/money-laundering of the terrorists.
The Times gave the terrorists the blueprint.
We are still fighting terrorists in this country and they work for the New York Times.
This is a crock. How many different ways do you think there are to investigate banking transactions.

You never hear about how Al-Qaeda treats American prisoners. That's because they kill, mutilate and behead captured Americans.
Al-Qaeda prisoners are given 3 hots and a cot, the Koran, prayer time, cable TV and the accords of the Geneva Convention.
So what. Are you saying we should act more like them? In case you forgot we invaded claiming the moral high ground. You know. Winning "Hearts and Minds" and all that.

And with every NYT editorial, we give our enemies hope. Just like we did during Vietnam. Don't you find it interesting that North Vietnam leaders cite the anti-war protests that were permeating our country back then as one of the reasons that they pressed on against the U.S.? They watched the news accounts of the protests and it lifted their spirits.
We are fighting a war against indigenous fighters. Do you actually believe they read the NYT before they go out on a op or plant an IED? I remember watching the Civil War documentary by Ken Burns. One eopisode detailed a story by a reporter from the North interviewing a confederate POW. When the POW was asked why he fought so hard against the Union he replied, "because you're down here". That is what we are up against.

I am sure they got giddy when they saw footage from the '68 Democratic Convention. You remember that liberal slug-fest don't you?
Right before I got drafted. I got drafted a couple years later. I could have tried to get a deferment like five time Cheney. Or maybe claimed an easily repaired medical malady like drug addict Limbaugh but I went to my induction. I was fortunate that Nixon started the drawdown of forces in Vietnam before I could be deployed.

Can't blame the conservatives or the Republicans for that one, can you?
CR
Yawn!!! This is nothing more than trying to provoke an emotional response. It was civil discord with the war that caused a political solution to be pursued.

scfire86

07-04-2006, 01:06 AM

Just to put your mind at ease- I do have a support sticker and I HAVE been out on the lines with them firing back at me. So you see your little petty insults mean nothing. I have been where the kind of talk that comes from people like you do more harm than good. I also felt that way when your hero Clinton sent my rear over to get shot at. At the time I didn't like him but I would have done nothing to dishonor my president or country when the enemy was shooting back. Have been disabled since Pres. Clinton sent me there, kinda where my handle "xploded" comes from. So you can rail on all you want about how this Pres. sucks or how I suck but I would be there today if I could.
Read the part above where I mention I got drafted. You volunteered. I already had it out with another poster who explained that I didn't need to have concern for an all volunteer military force. If I were truly interested I would find the links.

So your petty arguments are just nothing to me but a way to pass the time.
Like which ones? Like asking you to prove that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative? All you've done is parrot right wing talking points from folks who have no idea of her function within the CIA. But if it helps, here's a letter from a couple of her former colleagues regarding the matter.

CIA Agents Letter to US Senate and House

18 July 2005

AN OPEN STATEMENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.

The Honorable Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Dr. William Frist, Majority Leader of the Senate

The Honorable Harry Reid, Minority Leader of the Senate

We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.

The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this "talking point":

Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, "And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day."

Victoria Toensing stated on a Fox News program with John Gibson on July 12, 2005 that, "Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them."

Ed Rodgers, Washington Lobbyist and former Republican official, said on July 13, 2005 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any meaningful investigation about that."

House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo), on Face the Nation, July 17, 2005, "It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."

These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who "work at a desk" in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.

While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation’s security.

We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation’s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.

We also believe it is important that Congress speak with one non-partisan voice on this issue. Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs. In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor. We stand in her stead and ask that Republicans and Democrats honor her service to her country and stop the campaign of disparagement and innuendo aimed at discrediting Mrs. Wilson and her husband.

Our friends and colleagues have difficult jobs gathering the intelligence, which helps, for example, to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad. They sometimes face great personal risk and must spend long hours away from family and friends. They serve because they love this country and are committed to protecting it from threats from abroad and to defending the principles of liberty and freedom. They do not expect public acknowledgement for their work, but they do expect and deserve their government’s protection of their covert status.

For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community and help protect their ability to live their cover.

Sincerely yours,

______________________________ _______

Larry C. Johnson, former Analyst, CIA

JOINED BY:

Mr. Brent Cavan, former Analyst, CIA

Mr. Vince Cannistraro, former Case Officer, CIA

Mr. Michael Grimaldi, former Analyst, CIA

Mr. Mel Goodman, former senior Analyst, CIA

Col. W. Patrick Lang (US Army retired), former Director, Defense Humint Services, DIA

Mr. David MacMichael, former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA

Mr. James Marcinkowski, former Case Officer, CIA

Mr. Ray McGovern, former senior Analyst and PDB Briefer, CIA

Mr. Jim Smith, former Case Officer, CIA

Mr. William C. Wagner, former Case Officer, CIA