Coulter calls 9/11 widows "witches"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:oyvey:

Somebody needs to lock this hermaphroditic freak show up in the appropriate loony bin...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060607/ts_nm/life_coulter_dc

By Claudia Parsons 1 hour, 20 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Conservative author Ann Coulter sparked a storm on Wednesday after describing a group of September 11 widows who backed the Democratic Party as millionaire "witches" reveling in their status as celebrities.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," published on Tuesday, referring to four women who headed a campaign that resulted in the creation of the September 11 Commission that investigated the hijacked plane attacks.

Coulter wrote that the women were millionaires as a result of compensation settlements and were "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

Continued at link...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

Republicans should be proud of their spokeswomen and men, eh?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

http://tinyurl.com/ecxx4

[Hogan11]

She's insane. I've seen her owned by just about everyone she's come up against from Al Franken to Bill Maher. Like O'Rielly, she's not even a challenge anymore, much less relevant or noteworthy.....Other than for an easy mark, she's simply not worth the time nor effort.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

She's insane. I've seen her owned by just about everyone she's come up against from Al Franken to Bill Maher. Like O'Rielly, she's not even a challenge anymore, much less relevant or noteworthy.....Other than for an easy mark, she's simply not worth the time nor effort.

No shyte.

Just when you think the she-male can't possibly outdo herself in the psychopath sweepstakes, she opens her pie hole and out squirts some vile sewage that puts her on the same plane as Fred Phelps.

[defenseman]

She's insane. I've seen her owned by just about everyone she's come up against from Al Franken to Bill Maher. Like O'Rielly, she's not even a challenge anymore, much less relevant or noteworthy.....Other than for an easy mark, she's simply not worth the time nor effort.

Depends on your point of view, many would disagree with you......and of course , everyone has an opinion....dman.

[55CrushEm]

1st of all....I don't agree with Coulter on everything she says.....but get one thing straight.....in regards to this thread's title....Coulter is referring to the "Jersey girls".....FOUR women who CHOSE to take the public spotlight and attack Bush, the war on terror, and cut campaign commercials for John Kerry during his presidential run.....

She was NOT villifying ALL 9/11 widows (more media misrepresentation)......think what you want.

For whatever reason, Democrats have this way of thinking that if a person endures some personal tragedy, that that somehow sanctifies their political message.....that we can't respond to them politically......B/S.

Cindy Sheehan is another example.....if we disagree or slam her politically, then that should be un-allowed because she lost a son in the war. Nobody is denying that her loss was great and unimaginable.....but if you then go public with your "views", you should EXPECT responses.....just like every other politician.....

[spdirty]

HEY YOU, BROWSING 'GODLESS' -- BUY THE BOOK OR GET OUT!
June 7, 2006


The long-anticipated book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" was finally released this week. If The New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

"Godless" begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted -- with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner -- even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift -- especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

"Godless" examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals -- who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? -- is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with "Slander" or "Treason," and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion -- otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where -- thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU -- the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

http://www.anncoulter.com/welcome.html<!--<script type="text/javascript">google_ad_client = "pub-3566469879896640";google_ad_width = 468;google_ad_height = 60;google_ad_format = "468x60_as";google_ad_channel ="";google_ad_type = "text";google_color_border = "CCCCCC";google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";google_color_link = "000000";google_color_url = "666666";google_color_text = "333333";</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"></script>-->

[Bronco_Beerslug]

1st of all....I don't agree with Coulter on everything she says.....but get one thing straight.....in regards to this thread's title....Coulter is referring to the "Jersey girls".....FOUR women who CHOSE to take the public spotlight and attack Bush, the war on terror, and cut campaign commercials for John Kerry during his presidential run.....

She was NOT villifying ALL 9/11 widows (more media misrepresentation)......think what you want.

For whatever reason, Democrats have this way of thinking that if a person endures some personal tragedy, that that somehow sanctifies their political message.....that we can't respond to them politically......B/S.

Cindy Sheehan is another example.....if we disagree or slam her politically, then that should be un-allowed because she lost a son in the war. Nobody is denying that her loss was great and unimaginable.....but if you then go public with your "views", you should EXPECT responses.....just like every other politician.....

That's what I thought you are closet Coulter fan. Calling Coulter's remarks "political" is lunacy. But on second thought, to the religious right and right wingers, it probably isn't.

[Spider]

LOL , writter says No proof about Darwinism , but yet he ignores that there is no proof of god either ....funny stuff

[55CrushEm]

That's what I thought you are closet Coulter fan. Calling Coulter's remarks "political" is lunacy. But on second thought, to the religious right and right wingers, it probably isn't.

Dude, you seriously need to learn how to read.....my post refers to what Coulter was talking about.....and IN FACT, she was not vilifying ALL 9/11 widows, as I'm sure you'd LOVE to believe......

In fact, she was referring to 4 women, specifically......I think there were more than 4 widows, weren't there? hmmm...

And of course you totally missed my point on why the left feels that you can't disagree with anyone who has endured personal tragedy.....when that person CHOSES to go into the public spotlight....but then again, I fully expect you to ignore the relevant parts to my post.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And of course you totally missed my point on why the left feels that you can't disagree with anyone who has endured personal tragedy.....when that person CHOSES to go into the public spotlight....but then again, I fully expect you to ignore the relevant parts to my post.
No, in fact you missed my point. Who cares if someone disagrees with someone else? You tried to pass her comments off as "political". I pointed out they are lunacy.

[Spider]

Dude, you seriously need to learn how to read.....my post refers to what Coulter was talking about.....and IN FACT, she was not vilifying ALL 9/11 widows, as I'm sure you'd LOVE to believe......

In fact, she was referring to 4 women, specifically......I think there were more than 4 widows, weren't there? hmmm...

And of course you totally missed my point on why the left feels that you can't disagree with anyone who has endured personal tragedy.....when that person CHOSES to go into the public spotlight....but then again, I fully expect you to ignore the relevant parts to my post.
whoa there , both sides do it , both sides attack the same way , Remember the snowflake fouindation ? how many times has Bush used , the parents of a lost son in Iraq for PR ? ...........Tunnel vision gets nothing done .....

[Rohirrim]

(Okay, multiple threads, same subject. I'll move this over here)
Coulter runs a little cottage industry with a simple premise: If you spout enough insane ****, the Right Wing base will run out, buy your book, and make you rich. The good part is, like Rove discovered long ago, the RW base is so ignorant that you can keep yanking their chain and they'll keep barking, like Pavlov's dog, and never wise up. You never have to actually stop abortion, or gay marriage or flag burning. All you have to do is tell them that you're going to do it, once you're elected. All you have to do is wave a picture of two, gay guys kissing or accuse the opponent of having illegitimate black babies. They'll run to the polls. They'll send in their money. And you never have to produce.

Like Rove, Rush & O'Reilly, Coulter is an ignorance merchant. The good part is, it's like running a mortuary - you never run out of customers.

[defenseman]

whoa there , both sides do it , both sides attack the same way , Remember the snowflake fouindation ? how many times has Bush used , the parents of a lost son in Iraq for PR ? ...........Tunnel vision gets nothing done .....

I kind of agree with you on that one spide. I don't like it either. Then again, whomever he(Bush) 'used' chose to come on board. I'm sure he didn't force them, no different than the 4 women who chose to climb on board the other sides bandwagon. In any case, I personally don't like it when either side does it, however, I also don't pay any attention to any of them (victims on either the right or the left) for the most part. Neither side has any impact on my thoughts on finishing this war off as quickly as possible with minumum loss of human life. It is a dirty business to put it mildly...dman

[Spider]

I kind of agree with you on that one spide. I don't like it either. Then again, whomever he(Bush) 'used' chose to come on board. I'm sure he didn't force them, no different than the 4 women who chose to climb on board the other sides bandwagon. In any case, I personally don't like it when either side does it, however, I also don't pay any attention to any of them (victims on either the right or the left) for the most part. Neither side has any impact on my thoughts on finishing this war off as quickly as possible with minumum loss of human life. It is a dirty business to put it mildly...dman
well I jumped the Bush Bandwagon over Iraq , I was and still am 100% invading Afghanistan , Iraq is a waste of money , time , and personel ...... But then Iwas for getting N.Korea and Iran instead of Iraq .... I am no pasifist by any means , but I dont like engaging in wars we dont need either .......

[55CrushEm]

I kind of agree with you on that one spide. I don't like it either. Then again, whomever he(Bush) 'used' chose to come on board. I'm sure he didn't force them, no different than the 4 women who chose to climb on board the other sides bandwagon. In any case, I personally don't like it when either side does it, however, I also don't pay any attention to any of them (victims on either the right or the left) for the most part. Neither side has any impact on my thoughts on finishing this war off as quickly as possible with minumum loss of human life. It is a dirty business to put it mildly...dman

Well said d-man......but Beerslug in his never-ending attempt to spin what other say.....missed my point....

And my point was ONLY that Coulter was NOT vilifying ALL (repeat, "ALL") 9/11 widows....which is contrary to the thread's title....nothing more. Again, she was singling out FOUR women who chose to enter the public arena of debate......

[55CrushEm]

well I jumped the Bush Bandwagon over Iraq , I was and still am 100% invading Afghanistan , Iraq is a waste of money , time , and personel ...... But then Iwas for getting N.Korea and Iran instead of Iraq .... I am no pasifist by any means , but I dont like engaging in wars we dont need either .......

Perhaps we don't disagree as much as I once thought, Spide......however, if we are nabbing high level terrorists in Iraq, I hesitate to say that it is a TOTAL waste being there.....

[defenseman]

(Okay, multiple threads, same subject. I'll move this over here)
Coulter runs a little cottage industry with a simple premise: If you spout enough insane ****, the Right Wing base will run out, buy your book, and make you rich. The good part is, like Rove discovered long ago, the RW base is so ignorant that you can keep yanking their chain and they'll keep barking, like Pavlov's dog, and never wise up. You never have to actually stop abortion, or gay marriage or flag burning. All you have to do is tell them that you're going to do it, once you're elected. All you have to do is wave a picture of two, gay guys kissing or accuse the opponent of having illegitimate black babies. They'll run to the polls. They'll send in their money. And you never have to produce.

Like Rove, Rush & O'Reilly, Coulter is an ignorance merchant. The good part is, it's like running a mortuary - you never run out of customers.


Both sides do the same. Except the basic premise for the parties differ. But the tactics of both parties differ very little. This is the exact reason why I am swearing off any sort of party allegiance and doing my best to research the candidates, really doesn't matter to me anymore what party they are with, just if I believe they can guide the country in the right direction...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well said d-man......but Beerslug in his never-ending attempt to spin what other say.....missed my point....

In other words, what I originally said wasn't what I meant.

[Spider]

Perhaps we don't disagree as much as I once thought, Spide......however, if we are nabbing high level terrorists in Iraq, I hesitate to say that it is a TOTAL waste being there.....
Nabbing Zarqawi is great thing , I can live with that bastard being dead , maybe it isnt a total waste , but I believe we could have got Zarqawi in Iran just as well .......in my way of thinking , N.Korea well Kim Jong Ill needs to be removed , he has threatened us with Nukes once to often , and I am the type , you threaten me , I make you back it up ...... Iran , I have had a problem with since 1979 . the hostiages , in fact one of the Hostiages pointed out the leader of Iran as being the mastermind behind the Kidnapping , Iran has been more of a threat to us then Iraq ....... Stomp out the threats , Deal with defiance when you get time ......

[Spider]

Dont get me wrong , I think anyone who is a threat to the USA , should be removed fast and quick , I would support a full blown invasion of N.Korea and Iran , take the gloves off , Go in hard and bring hell with us ...... But this isnt the case with Iraq ....

[bendog]

bu****es, the issue isn't so much that coulter or anyother pol pundit would criticize the 4 "witches," but the absolute slime and bitchiness. She's saying 'oh, they were going to be divorced, so they should pose for playboy, and they're husbands didn't love them." Jesus Christ don't you "people" have a ****ing shred of human decency? Rhetorical question: no, you don't.

[55CrushEm]

, in fact one of the Hostiages pointed out the leader of Iran as being the mastermind behind the Kidnapping

I've heard the same.....there are supposedly photos showing that one of the kidnappers at the time, is in fact now the president of Iran.....

[Spider]

I've heard the same.....there are supposedly photos showing that one of the kidnappers at the time, is in fact now the president of Iran.....
Pisses me off to no end .....the guy is unstable in my opinion , cant be trusted ... No telling what would set him off , and if he has Nukes , no telling who he targets ...

[Spider]

bu****es, the issue isn't so much that coulter or anyother pol pundit would criticize the 4 "witches," but the absolute slime and b****iness. She's saying 'oh, they were going to be divorced, so they should pose for playboy, and they're husbands didn't love them." Jesus Christ don't you "people" have a ****ing shred of human decency? Rhetorical question: no, you don't.
excellent point .......

[Hotrod]

Shes a whack job without a doubt but the point that because someone loses a loved one they suddenly become a great political mind that all should see/hear is laughable. Americans are smarter then the left thinks. We all feel for the people who lost loved ones but that sure as hell dont make them correct.

If I were killed and my wife used my death as a spring board to push her personal agenda (or let others use her for their agenda) I would turn in my grave. Takes a pretty sick group to use these women for their personal agenda.

[Hotrod]

I was taking a break from this forum..........I guess its like crack or something ;D

[55CrushEm]

Shes a whack job without a doubt but the point that because someone loses a loved one they suddenly become a great political mind that all should see/hear is laughable. Americans are smarter then the left thinks. We all feel for the people who lost loved ones but that sure as hell dont make them correct.

If I were killed and my wife used my death as a spring board to push her personal agenda (or let others use her for their agenda) I would turn in my grave. Takes a pretty sick group to use these women for their personal agenda.

Well said.....

Man, I start laughing everytime I look at your avatar......

[Spider]

Shes a whack job without a doubt but the point that because someone loses a loved one they suddenly become a great political mind that all should see/hear is laughable. Americans are smarter then the left thinks. We all feel for the people who lost loved ones but that sure as hell dont make them correct.

If I were killed and my wife used my death as a spring board to push her personal agenda (or let others use her for their agenda) I would turn in my grave. Takes a pretty sick group to use these women for their personal agenda.
well the agenda is National Security ...... granted they are not Experts theWidows , but then niether is Bush . our borders should be called 7-11 open 24hours a day 7 days week ..... our Dock security should be called whats behnd door #1 ,2 , or 3 ..

[Hotrod]

well the agenda is National Security ...... granted they are not Experts theWidows , but then niether is Bush . our borders should be called 7-11 open 24hours a day 7 days week ..... our Dock security should be called whats behnd door #1 ,2 , or 3 ..

I was in now way sticking up for Bush's policy on border contol. It flat out sucks todate.

[Antilles]

Shes a whack job without a doubt but the point that because someone loses a loved one they suddenly become a great political mind that all should see/hear is laughable. Americans are smarter then the left thinks. We all feel for the people who lost loved ones but that sure as hell dont make them correct.

If I were killed and my wife used my death as a spring board to push her personal agenda (or let others use her for their agenda) I would turn in my grave. Takes a pretty sick group to use these women for their personal agenda.

I don't think the issue is "because someone loses a loved one they suddenly become a great political mind." More likely, because someone loses a loved one they suddenly become invested in a particular political issue and the politicos see them as a tool.

Coulter has a very small point - its harder to attack the message when the messenger has some sort of moral infallibility. Of course, what she fails to acknowlege is that this is a a tried and true tradition on both sides - just like Bush troting out the swift boat vets, war vets who denounce Murtha's message, reformed gays, women who had abortions and are now anti-abortion, etc.

So rather than taking on the additional challege of attacking the message itself; Coulter decides to the easy road and attack these women personally. That's what makes her (like anyone on either side who does likewise) a classless scumbag.

[Spider]

I was in now way sticking up for Bush's policy on border contol. It flat out sucks todate.
i didnt think you was, I was just putting the 4 widows stance in prespective .......

[defenseman]

Pisses me off to no end .....the guy is unstable in my opinion , cant be trusted ... No telling what would set him off , and if he has Nukes , no telling who he targets ...

I agree. I'm thinking he's a nut job and can't be trusted. Your take on N. Korea? I'll just say, that it is MUCH easier said than done. There is MUCH, MUCH more behind door #2 is all I'm going to say...dman

[Spider]

I agree. I'm thinking he's a nut job and can't be trusted. Your take on N. Korea? I'll just say, that it is MUCH easier said than done. There is MUCH, MUCH more behind door #2 is all I'm going to say...dman
oh I know taking on N.Korea will be hard , and probably engulf most of Asia for and against us ......but we have a better foot hold in Asia then we did in the ME .....Chinia is key , not so much Military , but them cashng in their notes on our debt .......but we could put strong foothold in Tiawan ........

[Hotrod]

i didnt think you was, I was just putting the 4 widows stance in prespective .......

They have every right to speak their minds. If it were me trying to argue against them I certainly would not do it the way coulter did. I would expose whose standing behind them. Who is in their heads/coaching them. If nobody then I dont care what they say...again speak their minds. I would just like to make sure they are not speaking someone elses mind because of the "sympothy card"...figure heads per se.

I'll get killed on this forum for saying this but thats never stopped me before ;D O'Reilly (like him or not) never to my knowledge took his attack on Sheehan(sp) to a personal level. He exposed who was paying her way. Giving people a clear picture of who was in her corner and certainly coaching her. If someone can show me where he attacked her on a personal level I'd back down from the arguement that his reporting in that case was wrong.

[Hotrod]

Well said.....

Man, I start laughing everytime I look at your avatar......

I like it it looks like me after 10 cups of coffee every morning ;D

[Spider]

They have every right to speak their minds. If it were me trying to argue against them I certainly would not do it the way coulter did. I would expose whose standing behind them. Who is in their heads/coaching them. If nobody then I dont care what they say...again speak their minds. I would just like to make sure they are not speaking someone elses mind because of the "sympothy card"...figure heads per se.

I'll get killed on this forum for saying this but thats never stopped me before ;D O'Reilly (like him or not) never to my knowledge took his attack on Sheehan(sp) to a personal level. He exposed who was paying her way. Giving people a clear picture of who was in her corner and certainly coaching her. If someone can show me where he attacked her on a personal level I'd back down from the arguement that his reporting in that case was wrong.
thats fine , but even O'Reilly is being paid by the right , as Sheehan is the left . 2 way street , both sides pays shrills , the Widows believe National security should be prority 1 , Bush and Coulter think everything is ok , realy cant fight back ot what the Widows say about secuirty ......all the Widows are doing is questioning why the Steps of the 9-11 commision havent been followed .....

[bendog]

It's not in KimBongII's interest to have a war. Moreover, because Seoul is in artillary range of KimBongII, in this case the SK's have told bushii he may not start another meaningless war. Thank God, some adults are in charge over there. Bushii will simply have to cut a deal to allow Kim BongII to continue his reign of terror over his fellow countrymen. And SK cares about the NK peasants more than we do becuase they're related.

[Hotrod]

oh I know taking on N.Korea will be hard , and probably engulf most of Asia for and against us ......but we have a better foot hold in Asia then we did in the ME .....Chinia is key , not so much Military , but them cashng in their notes on our debt .......but we could put strong foothold in Tiawan ........

N Korea is a whole mess unto itself. I was in the corner of taking them out early but Im not sure we can do it today. I am completely unsure what action should be taken. Sanctions will only hurt the population and probebly turn them against us not the government. How about assassination of a public official of course that wont be condoned here and the next idiot in line may turn out worse.

[defenseman]

They have every right to speak their minds. If it were me trying to argue against them I certainly would not do it the way coulter did. I would expose whose standing behind them. Who is in their heads/coaching them. If nobody then I dont care what they say...again speak their minds. I would just like to make sure they are not speaking someone elses mind because of the "sympothy card"...figure heads per se.

I'll get killed on this forum for saying this but thats never stopped me before ;D O'Reilly (like him or not) never to my knowledge took his attack on Sheehan(sp) to a personal level. He exposed who was paying her way. Giving people a clear picture of who was in her corner and certainly coaching her. If someone can show me where he attacked her on a personal level I'd back down from the arguement that his reporting in that case was wrong.

I'll agree with you. He didn't. And, he won't attack the 4 women either. Many are aware of who they are trumpeting for and who carries their collective flag. I don't agree with Coulter's methods of reprisal against the supposed "liberal" left. In short though, her attempt to make a point (and I DO NOT agree with the method at all) will open some eyes I'm sure. And I'm sure the left is somewhat infuriated. considering the method of delivery, I for one would be miffed if I were them too. BUT, I would counter with exactly the opposite method of delivery for effect. Fire back for "effect" the right way, and the liberal left could get 'some' mileage out of this. That being said, Coulter will make millions and millions on her delivery alone...dman

[Spider]

It's not in KimBongII's interest to have a war. Moreover, because Seoul is in artillary range of KimBongII, in this case the SK's have told bushii he may not start another meaningless war. Thank God, some adults are in charge over there. Bushii will simply have to cut a deal to allow Kim BongII to continue his reign of terror over his fellow countrymen. And SK cares about the NK peasants more than we do becuase they're related.
I agree , the Mission would be to remove Kim JongIll not nation building , no police action , just go in remove Kim Jong Ill nd his defenses as quick as possible ... 2 thinks will happen S.K takes control or Chinia .....

[Hotrod]

thats fine , but even O'Reilly is being paid by the right , as Sheehan is the left . 2 way street , both sides pays shrills , the Widows believe National security should be prority 1 , Bush and Coulter think everything is ok , realy cant fight back ot what the Widows say about secuirty ......all the Widows are doing is questioning why the Steps of the 9-11 commision havent been followed .....

Agree

Thats why the system is broke. Both sides have to much control in the media. Fox on the right others on the left. Depending on what show the average Joe watches he would think were either winning the war on terror or everything is a total mess. Like mose issues the correct answer is probebly somewhere in the middle. Thats why if the dems get their heads out of the *** long enough to run a canidate in 08 thats in the middle and not a far out left flamer I will actually take a long serious look at throwing my vote that direction. Same thing goes for the right. Im sick of extreamist politics.

[defenseman]

N Korea is a whole mess unto itself. I was in the corner of taking them out early but Im not sure we can do it today. I am completely unsure what action should be taken. Sanctions will only hurt the population and probebly turn them against us not the government. How about assassination of a public official of course that wont be condoned here and the next idiot in line may turn out worse.

We cannot take them out right now...it ain't happenin any time soon I have absolutely no doubt...dman

[Spider]

We cannot take them out right now...it ain't happenin any time soon I have absolutely no doubt...dman
probably right , but the point is a case can be made either way about N.Korea , that cant be said for Iraq .....

[bendog]

I agree , the Mission would be to remove Kim JongIll not nation building , no police action , just go in remove Kim Jong Ill nd his defenses as quick as possible ... 2 thinks will happen S.K takes control or Chinia .....
I don't see SK agreeing to this. They seem quite prepared to prop up Kim BongII with food for the peasants and army. When Kim BongII is dead, I think the SK's see reapproachment. Kim BongII just wants to stay in power. Bushii sold Iraq on Saddam being some danger, but he really wasn't.

Now Iran? I'm really not sure what Iran wants. They want to be an international player with prestige, but what their end game, or goals, are, I really am not tracking.

[Spider]

Agree

Thats why the system is broke. Both sides have to much control in the media. Fox on the right others on the left. Depending on what show the average Joe watches he would think were either winning the war on terror or everything is a total mess. Like mose issues the correct answer is probebly somewhere in the middle. Thats why if the dems get their heads out of the *** long enough to run a canidate in 08 thats in the middle and not a far out left flamer I will actually take a long serious look at throwing my vote that direction. Same thing goes for the right. Im sick of extreamist politics.
:thumbsup: well we are abut ready to get into the nasty part .... aug , the mud will fly , i dont care how anyone votes, just as long as they vote on issues , and is in step with the canidate they vote for ......

[Hotrod]

Now Iran? I'm really not sure what Iran wants. They want to be an international player with prestige, but what their end game, or goals, are, I really am not tracking.

My greatest fear (hopefully Im dead wrong or were all screwed) is their "end game/goal is the destruction of Israel plain and simple. You have to remember they have no seperation of church and state. You have to try and understand what they are thinking and that all comes from their religious upbringing.

[Mile High Shack]

she's trying to get attention to sell her book

she is crazy

but crazy enough to get attention on the week her book comes out

[Hotrod]

I guess the real question for the single guys on here. How many drinks before you'd hit it???

[defenseman]

Agree

Thats why the system is broke. Both sides have to much control in the media. Fox on the right others on the left. Depending on what show the average Joe watches he would think were either winning the war on terror or everything is a total mess. Like mose issues the correct answer is probebly somewhere in the middle. Thats why if the dems get their heads out of the *** long enough to run a canidate in 08 thats in the middle and not a far out left flamer I will actually take a long serious look at throwing my vote that direction. Same thing goes for the right. Im sick of extreamist politics.

I disagree. Rarely do I see anyone saying , we are winning the war on terror. I do see some occassional positive reporting on the war, but, as far as winning it? Very, very little. I'll agree with ya the DEMS do have a few guys that could very well get elected in '08. Some of you on the board said look at Warner for the DEM's. I've done a bit of research, and to be honest, he's looking pretty good right now. Better than most of the repub's for a measuring stick. I do need to do more homework on him though. The guy looks like he's right in the middle overall..dman

[Traveler]

she's trying to get attention to sell her book

she is crazy

but crazy enough to get attention on the week her book comes out


Exactly! What else can you attribute the following to:


In the new book Coulter shocked many when she made inflammatory and callous statements about the 9-11 widows who oppose George Bush and the war on Iraq:

" These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." [from Godless]


After announcing that Coulter deliberately chose the Day of the Antichrist - 06-06-06 - to launch her book, Hannity immediately did a belly-flop into a pool of supposition and blamed "liberals" for the murder of Clemson student Tiffany Souers, whose mother they had just interviewed. He conflated the Souers case with Coulter's chapter about Willie Horton. Horton was a murderer released on a weekend furlough under a program approved by Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. Horton then used his furlough to assault a man and rape his fiancee.

When Dukakis ran against George H. W. Bush in 1988, the Bush campaign, which was being largely directed by his campaign manager, Lee Atwater, working closely with the candidate's youngest son, George W. Bush, seized on this and plastered the airwaves with a now-infamous ad in which they painted Dukakis as too soft on crime.

Using the Horton case, Coulter has claimed in her book that there is a "general compulsion" among liberals to "free criminals."

COULTER: "I can assure you it wasn't a conservative legislature or a conservative judge who was releasing these guys."

Alan Colmes asked her about her "Christianity".

COLMES: "You say your Christianity fuels everything you do, and everything you write and that you're called upon to battle cruelty ... Would Jesus sanction a book that belittles and ridicules a large segment of the American population?"

COULTER: "Yes."

As justification, Coulter compared liberals to the moneychangers that Jesus swept out of the temple with a whip. She then went on to say that "liberals always think of Christ as some kind of panty-waist." When pressed by Colmes to identify which liberals feel that way, she suddenly got very cagey and defensive, saying "This naming names things you're not gettin' me into." Colmes kept pressing her for specific names but she dodged the question repeatedly.

COULTER: "This naming names idea of who's a liberal and who's godless, I mean, that is a way of preventing me - or anyone - from talking about liberalism."

It became obvious that Lawyer Coulter was dodging the questions because she knew she was on thin ice and could be sued the minute she actually mentioned a real live person on air. (In fact, it would not surprise this News Hound in the least if she is being sued by the 9-11 widows she slandered in her book!)

During the second segment, Colmes went after Coulter on the issue of whether or not she committed voter fraud in Florida as alleged by Election Supervisor Arthur Anderson.

Coulter's reponse? "I think that syphilis has gone to their brains."

When pressed by Colmes, she refused to answer direct questions, hiding behind claims that this would let her "stalkers" know her address. She did, however, say, directly, "I live in New York" and then denied receiving a registered letter from Mr. Anderson's office. "This is all false, I'm telling you'," she said, clearly angry. "Ya' gotta stop. The Treason Times may hate America but they're at least accurate. When you go to the bush league newspapers, you get all the venom of the New York
Times, but they're all retarded." (I wondered at the time if Coulter realized that her use of the words "bush league" might not go over so well with FOX viewers?)

Colmes then questioned her about her appalling statements regarding the 9-11 widows. Coulter again stepped in it big-time, claiming that the Republican widows of 9-11 were not Republican until they'd experienced a "conversion." Quite literally, as you read the exchange below, I believe you will see that Coulter may be losing it.

COLMES: "You've actually attacked women - bereaved women - and you've called them 'sobbing, hysterical women'...."

COULTER: "I don't attack them for being widows. I attack - I simply do not believe that having their husband die entitles your left-wing views to sanctification..."

COLMES: "They're not all left-wing."

COULTER (overtalking him): "... and I think this is the most vulgar thing ..."

COLMES: "In fact, many of them were Republicans and voted for Bush."

COULTER: "Yes, until then."

COLMES: "Yes, That's right."

COULTER (disparaging tone): "Yes. We always hear about the Damascus Road conversion. I'm sure they were. Not - no. This is, I think, a serious point. The liberal - and it's a chapter in my book on liberal infallibility - and I think it is one of the most vulgar things liberals have done to discourse in America and that is this personal ..."

COLMES: "These women were not liberals, these women who spoke out."

COULTER: "Wait, just let me finish this. This personal authenticity to have a position on something. What can I not talk to you about, you know, discrimination against Jews?"

CROSSTALK

COLMES: "No one's stopping you."

COULTER: "Can you not talk to me about women in America?" (she quickly glanced at Hannity, who remained silent through most of the entire interview)

COLMES: "No one's stopping you. Look at the broad platform we have."

COULTER: "Do I have to kill my mother, so I can be a victim, too?"

COLMES (trying to get her to hear him): "But, Ann, these women are not liberal ..."

COULTER: "They're always putting forward ..."

COLMES: "... these women who spoke out."

COULTER: "No. They say they need to be listened to and we can't respond, because they're victims."

COLMES: "Would you call grieving, sobbing ..."

COULTER: "Nobody likes being lectured by a victim."

END CROSSTALK

COLMES: "Do you think calling them 'sobbing, hysterical women' when these women had their husbands blown up by terrorists shows due respect to these grieving widows?"

COULTER: "You're leaving out the entire point of why they are even in the news and we're being - and we're talking about them. They injected themselves into the public debate. They're giving - um - um - um - interviews, you know ..."

COLMES: "Yeah."

COULTER: "... and press conferences on public policy ..."

COLMES: "They get to speak out, too."

COULTER: " ... on the response to 9-11."

During the first segment Hannity and Colmes followed their usual precise division of time, each speaking with Coulter for 2 minutes. However, during the second interview, they abandoned this ironclad division of labor. Coulter was quizzed for 3 minutes by Colmes and only during the last minute by Hannity, who tried to bring the ranting woman back to the conservative talking points.

Realizing that, in the eyes of the FOX viewers, Coulter had repeatedly slandered all of the 9-11 widows, Hannity tried to do damage control, saying "I guess now we're going to accuse the President of using widows for - is that what I'm hearin'?"

Of course, Hannity's sentence, being incomplete, actually had no meaning per se. But it served to imply to the less astute of the FOX viewers that somehow liberals were accusing the President of something nefarious. Never mind that neither Colmes nor Coulter had mentioned the President at all in this second segment!

Calling the book "provocative", Hannity questioned Coulter about her chapter entitled "Holiest Sacrament: Abortion". Coulter responded, "I think we may be at the point where the abortion ladies are finally gonna be thrown off the boat, but they are the last ones the Democratic Party are going to throw out." She continued, saying "I mean it is striking that Bill Clinton, the last Democrat the Democrats have been able to trick the American people into putting in the White House, sold out basically every Democratic special interest group but one. He vetoed the partial birth abortion ban twice."

Coulter then explained what she meant by the title of the book - Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

COULTER: "Well, it is an entire cosmology, a view of the world, beliefs in the supernatural. I do think - something I don't get to until the end of the book - that at the root of a lot of it is their obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces the sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death. Sex and death - that's how you get the improvement in the species and, allegedly, the new species, which they've never been able to produce."

Hannity told Coulter that "when I mention your name to liberals, they melt. You are like Alka-Seltzer in water. They bubble, fizz, give off their energy. You are the Antichrist to them." He then asked her to explain where her philosophy came from.

COULTER: " ... I'm a Christian and everything comes from being a Christian. ... I do think Christianity fuels all of my books because you are called upon to behave in a certain way as a Christian and that is to fight lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy, that fuels everything."

Good Christian moneychanger that he is, Hannity ended the interview by plugging his radio show and a book-signing by Coulter.

Colmes got the last word: "By the way, this is great because on 06-06-06, we're one of the only shows to bring the Antichrist to you."

COMMENT
Throughout the interview Alan Colmes tried his best to counter Coulter's irrational bleating with rational ideas. By doing so, he fell into the classic liberal trap. Reason doesn't work with people like Ann Coulter. This is a highly-educated woman, a lawyer, who pretends that she doesn't know the difference between religion and political philosophy. She deliberately eschews reason in favor of offensive sound bites.

However, there seemed to be a curious departure from the standard Hannity & Colmes routine last night. This is based strictly on my womans' intuition. It seemed to me that Sean Hannity distanced himself from Coulter. I wondered if Little Annie Loudmouth has become box-office poison for conservatives now that she's lashed out at the powerful Republican women who lost their husbands on September 11th. Time will tell.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/media_watch/opinion___editorials/SIG=12hf74brp;_ylt=AiJzy7WflThP_5qyGFhRLndg.3QA;_y lu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--/*http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/07/havent_we_all_had_enough_of_ann_coulter.php

[Rohirrim]

I think Coulter is nuts. And I mean that literally, as in "suffering from some sort of psychosis."

[TheDave]

I guess the real question for the single guys on here. How many drinks before you'd hit it???

http://www.worralls.plus.com/pics/forums/hitit21.jpg

[Traveler]

http://www.worralls.plus.com/pics/forums/hitit21.jpg


I think that may be part of her problem.ROFL!

She needs a good fcuk! Someone needs to clean out the cobwebs! Maybe then she'll settle down for awhile. JMO...

[bendog]

Seriously, say your spouse got burned alive in one of the Towers, and see stuff like Sandy Berger spiriting docs out, and Condi saying "OMG, we just never thought they'd use planes as missles," and then learn they knew just that -- wouldn't you want hearings?

I've said before that I don't buy the bush bashing over airline security, cause people would've screamed bloody murder. I think he put a gas pipeline before confronting the guys who bombed the Cole,though.

I don't buy the line that "WJC turned down getting bin laden." We don't and never did want bin laden in US custody. Look at the trouble we have with just the guys we have, and the blind sheik sniffed the NSC's elec eavesdropping in his trial. WJC's admitted that in retrospect, yeah, he should have tried harder to kill the guy.

I'm grateful for the widows pushing for the commission. Without it I don't think we'd really know just how much intell we had. We knew the names, and that they were in the US and getting flight training. We knew al queda contemplated this type of attack. We just didn't connect it all together. Bushii continues this secrecy of needing to curtail more freedom. But, I'm not at all sold that it's necessary. I don't mind doing some searching of calling patterns for terrorism, but now they're admitting they're after kiddie porn. Kiddie Porn, bad. Search warrants, good.

Meanwhile, the CIA - which was the one organization that knew of planes as missles and the names of the hijackers - has been treated like a political football over dumbya's lies on womd. They're getting blamed for bushii's lies. That's not really helping natl security. And, the biggest reform the commission id'ed was sharing info. What's going on is not helpful on that front, with Negroponte and rumsfeld running roughshod on the CIA and Dept of State.

btw, I don't think Ann likes it "old school." Rumor was she liked it rough and back door, or at least doggy style.

[Old Dude]

I guess the real question for the single guys on here. How many drinks before you'd hit it???

Well, I'm not single, but I can safely say that I'd be dead of alcohol poisoning before I even thought about hitting Coulter with anything other than a tactical nuke.

[alkemical]

rigimortis would have to set in to make it possible for me to 'hit it'

[TheDave]

btw, I don't think Ann likes it "old school." Rumor was she liked it rough and back door, or at least doggy style.


Well, I'm not single, but I can safely say that I'd be dead of alcohol poisoning before I even thought about hitting Coulter with anything other than a tactical nuke.


rigimortis would have to set in to make it possible for me to 'hit it'

Liars... you'd all hit it

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/idhitit-23540.jpg

[Hogan11]

She's an incredibly ugly human being, especially on the inside.

[ak1971]

[QUOTE=TheDave]Liars... you'd all hit it
yeah probably.during college..i had no morals back in the day.

I bring back an oldie but a goodie..

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well, I'm not single, but I can safely say that I'd be dead of alcohol poisoning before I even thought about hitting Coulter with anything other than a tactical nuke.

It's not a she anyway, but for all the right wingers that would, congrats for taking a walk on the wild side.

[Rohirrim]

It's not a she anyway, but for all the right wingers that would, congrats for taking a walk on the wild side.

I guess, for the Bush bots, a romp with the Coultergeist is okay, just as long as you don't marry her/him?
:giggle:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Seriously, say your spouse got burned alive in one of the Towers, and see stuff like Sandy Berger spiriting docs out, and Condi saying "OMG, we just never thought they'd use planes as missles," and then learn they knew just that -- wouldn't you want hearings?


Exactly.

That's why it's so offensive when rightards like Coulter try to spin this demand for accountability as "politics."

It's the Tom DeLay defense: When you get caught doing something crooked, just accuse the whistleblower of "partisan politics."

[Old Dude]

I know that some have suggested that maybe Coulter should be capped.

That would be wrong. I would never advocate violence against her, merely for being an ignorant, arrogant, ruthless, nazi pig.

At the same time, she's not really very high on my list of likable people. In fact, if I came across a situation where she and Osama Bin Laden were both tied to train tracks, and I only had time to save one of them, you could probably go ahead and start stitching Osama's number on an orange jail suit.

[Edskins_RVA]

I'll agree with ya the DEMS do have a few guys that could very well get elected in '08. Some of you on the board said look at Warner for the DEM's. I've done a bit of research, and to be honest, he's looking pretty good right now. Better than most of the repub's for a measuring stick. I do need to do more homework on him though. The guy looks like he's right in the middle overall..dman
Only because he's a Virginia Democrat.. They tend to be more conservative than national dems, due to the more conservative nature of the Commonwealth (State - for those of you in Rio Linda).. ;)

He wouldn't be too bad if he got elected, especially compared against some of the other contenders.. He's got a solid business and tech background. He's definitely more friendly to business and economic growth than your average national dem.

However, he did run on not raising taxes and immediately broke that promise upon being elected. I also wonder about his foreign policy knowledge/ability, though that can be overcome.. He's from a very military-friendly area and would probably look out for the troops..

Overall he did a decent job here in VA and would be a strong candidate for the donks.. Probably means he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell! :wiggle:

[Edskins_RVA]

By the way.. I want to have Ann Coulter's babies!! !Booya!

[alkemical]

Considering she's a man, someone has to be the b****....

[W*GS]

Question is, who's got the bigger ones?

Coulter or Hillary?

[W*GS]

Come to think of it, Coulter does for the GOP what LABF does for the Dems - make those truly wanting to help the party cringe and hope they go away...

[alkemical]

*shudder*

[BroncoBuff]

Regardless of what anybody says .... these are FACTS:

ONE: On 9/11 - The USA suffered its worst domestic attack ever (Hawaii wasn't a state til 59)
TWO: In 2002/early 2003, we were mired in Afghanistan seeking Osama and revenge for that attack
THREE In early 2003, our president diverted most of the military into Iraq for a war that had nothing to do with 9/11
FOUR: Three years later, Iraq is in worse shape than when we arrived, and we haven't found Osama.

In my humble opinion, the response to 9/11 should have started sooner, utilized more firepower, followed through longer, been the one and ONLY U.S. military operation anywhere in the world until Osama was found.

I believe the president's oath of office demanded this. If I were a relative of a 9/11 victim like these women, I couldn't sleep at night for anger over our sissy response to Osama. We look like children trying to catch him - killing our football heroes with friendly fire while Osama puts out a new "Greatest Hits" tape every few months.

The president of the United States has failed in his duty to protect. To avenge. Fvck Bush.

[Blueflame]

Question is, who's got the bigger ones?

Coulter or Hillary?

Question is, who cares? I sure don't. :P

[Spider]

Question is, who cares? I sure don't. :P
well in W*GS defense he has been hung up on Clinton's pecker for a long time now ...... it is only fair to ask if Hillary has a bigger unt then he does ......

[W*GS]

In my humble opinion, the response to 9/11 should have started sooner, utilized more firepower, followed through longer, been the one and ONLY U.S. military operation anywhere in the world until Osama was found.

I agree - except that the military should have been brought to bear on OBL and al-Qaeda long before 9/11 - we'd already suffered multiple attacks, and why we did nothing to impact al-Qaeda and its operations is something too few people want answers for.

The president of the United States has failed in his duty to protect. To avenge. Fvck Bush.

You misspelled "Clinton" as "Bush".

[W*GS]

well in LABF's defense he has been hung up on Clinton's pecker for a long time now ...... it is only fair to ask if Hillary has a bigger unt then he does ......

Fixed it for ya.

[Spider]

Fixed it for ya.
no need to get all riled up there buddy ole pal , just tryin to help ya out is all

[W*GS]

Seeing as how you brought in "little Willy" to the conversation... Perhaps I shoulda put "Spider" instead of "LABF"...

[Edskins_RVA]

Regardless of what anybody says .... these are FACTS:
TWO: In 2002/early 2003, we were mired in Afghanistan seeking Osama and revenge for that attack
The conflict started in Oct. 2001 and the Taliban was routed by December 2001. The only action occuring in 2002 and 2003 were clean-up and S&D operations against the scattered pockets of Taliban and AQ remnants..

THREE In early 2003, our president diverted most of the military into Iraq for a war that had nothing to do with 9/11
There were only 10,000 troops in Afghanistan during the peak of the operation. We went into Iraq w/ over 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.. We had hundreds of thousands more in reserve. Iraq is part of the strategic War on Terror, not revenge for 9-11..

FOUR: Three years later, Iraq is in worse shape than when we arrived...
Where can I find "factual' information to support this?
...and we haven't found Osama...
Yet..

In my humble opinion, the response to 9/11 should have started sooner, utilized more firepower, followed through longer, been the one and ONLY U.S. military operation anywhere in the world until Osama was found.
If you used "facts", such as listed above, to come to this conclusion, it's probably a good thing nobody got your opinion.. :pray: ;D

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Freedom

[Spider]

Seeing as how you brought in "little Willy" to the conversation... Perhaps I shoulda put "Spider" instead of "LABF"...
go ahead , Doesnt bother me , mos know I didnt care where Clinton stuck his W*GS ..... err Dick sorry typo

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The conflict started in Oct. 2001 and the Taliban was routed by December 2001. The only action occuring in 2002 and 2003 were clean-up and S&D operations against the scattered pockets of Taliban and AQ remnants..

How predictable that you omit the part about letting Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora.

Iraq is part of the strategic War on Terror, not revenge for 9-11..

:oyvey:

Your posts are just like the little ticker that runs across the bottom of the TV screen on Fox News.

Meanwhile, here in the real world:

1) Iraq did not attack us.
2) Iraq was not a threat to us.
3) Iraq was not even capable of threatening its neighbors.
4) Bush's blundering in Iraq has created a terrorist presence where one didn't exist before.
5) Bush's ignorant, bellicose policies have created more - not fewer - terrorists.
6) Perhaps most important: Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't wage war on either of these. Therefore, the whole concept of a "war on terror" is a sham (albeit a very useful and profitable sham for BushCo and its corporate bosses.)

Where can I find "factual' information to support this?

Try picking up any mainstream American newspaper.

If you used "facts", such as listed above, to come to this conclusion, it's probably a good thing nobody got your opinion.

:laugh:

Thus spake the latest purveyor of already-discredited WH spin and RNC talking points.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Coulter's 'Godless' is gutless

Anne Coulter says we're "Godless" -- we "liberals." And by "liberals," she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants, out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift America.

It's time someone took on the blonde bully.

Anne, I realize this is a special day for you, releasing your book on June 6 -- 06-06-06.

Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: 'Godless' is a 300-page brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion magazine: Big Brother wears Prada.

You accuse those who don't sign on to your list of prejudices as the Lord's enemies. That's not original, Anne: the Taliban thought of it before you and they too were partial to dressing in black.

You want to talk about Godless? OK, let's go:

Would the Lord lie us into a war?

Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a golf resort?

Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?

You talk about being "Christian" -- but with all your zeal to fire up electric chairs and Abrams tanks, you sound more like a Roman.

I suggest this, Anne: let's debate. Set the time, set the place, and I'll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism.

But I know you don't have the guts to do anything but lob idiocies from your electronic Fox-hole.

Your new book is called, "Godless." Your autobiography should be called, "Gutless."

http://www.gregpalast.com/_godless_is-gutless