Response to Al Gore

[techweenie]

Fintstone, I can't find a fact in Ann's whiny, defensive diatribe. Do you want to try to point one out?

By the way, there's hope for you neocon guys, if you'll just commit to a little reading and independent thinking:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812930991/ref=ase_hereinreality-20/002-1428915-3868838?v=glance&s=books

[tabs]

Techy thats why U are a Liberal..U want to reason with the unreasonable. U also must realize that under pressure reason/logic is the first casuality of war...

[Rot 911]

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by techweenie
Planet Coulter has spun out of orbit around the sun and is in danger of leaving the universe altogether.

"Losing the war in Iraq?" We won the war. Very tidily. Just like the Russians won in Afghanistan. But the Russians lost the occupation. And we're on the same path. The longer we're there, the more enemies we make. The issue is not *if* we're leaving, it's how soon.

The Brookings Institution 'liberal'? Its senior people are from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Oh, they must've said something Ann didnt' like, so of course, they're now liberal.

She plays the 'what "is" is game with 'Saddam had weapons of mass destruction' and 'Saddam gassed his own people.' Sure and Bush had trouble staying sober behind the wheel and showing up for military duty. Both events are over a decade behind us.

She talks about Saddam as if he's still running Iraq: "...Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region – which liberals also said wouldn't happen. Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein..." Um, Ann, Saddam's not there with his police anymore to keep them away. Ann? Earth to Ann!

Okay, I'll bite here.

You compare Iraq to Russias Attempted invasion of Afghanistan and you think Ann Coulter is "spinning out of orbit". Okay, I'll even give you a shot; in 500 words or less explain how Iraq and Afghanistan were similar. *please don't claim the Iraqis are now "freedom fighters"*

Oh that damned conservative think tank otherwise known as "the Brookings institute". Since they are staffed almost entirely (230 or so) by ivy league proffessors (some past some present) and the rest either worked for Carter (one stuck around DC until 81, is that the one you are referring to?) or Clinton, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they lean substantially to the left. Insult? Depends on if you're offended to be a leftie. Speeder don't seem to mind

So as far as you're concerned, a discrepancy in Bush's service records (after all that talk of "desertion" turned out to be BS) and drinking fall right along the same lines as Saddam gassing hundreds of thousands of his own people and violating Un resolutions with WMD's??????? So with you I guess time does truly does heal all wounds? It did happen *years* ago after all......well at least the gassing Kurds thingie anyway and since I guess we haven't found the WMDs we'll just give him a pass on that one as well. For you I guess the graves truly are "half full".

So, when the lefites made the prediction that the "other" radicals would join in and they were wrong, but they would have been right if Saddam was still in power? Didn't they get the memo? Our goal was to depose Saddam. Maybe they were confused when they said that.

Pete

[nostatic]

Originally posted by fintstone
You guys just hate a woman that is smarter than you,

no...in fact, I married one...who could intellectually lap Ann Coulter before she realized the flag had dropped.

Ann Coulter is smart in that she knows how to inspire people who feed on hyperbole and innuendo. Just like Michael Moore.

[Pete Pranger]

I edited out the opinon in the article so.........

Originally posted by fintstone
By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war.

The immediate consequence of the media's lies was a 25 percent drop in support for the war. The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert

Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq.

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

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

O'Hanlon's indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend that are not already pre-allocated."

We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden.

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

The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.

The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops,

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

We've done all that!

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

We've captured Saddam! And it wasn't bloody!

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

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

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

AnnCoulter.com

Techweenie...............

You don't find any of this to be factual? What parts?

Pete

[island911]

Originally posted by Kurt V

Hillarious

I hear the Kerry camp is not too happy about Gores rant. Something about Gores rant not exactly appealing to the mainstream dem's. The leftist wackos loved it, but that doesn't exactly help Kerry.

OTOH -Rightwing radio was having a field-day. . .making fun with snips of Gores speech followed on by Deans patented "herrrRRRRAAAAAAHHH."

and to think that this guy was a few thousnd dimpled chads away from being our President. Ssssskerry

[CamB]

Originally posted by Pete Pranger
I edited out the opinon in the article so.........

Techweenie...............

You don't find any of this to be factual? What parts?

Pete

I'll answer. It isn't that its not "factual" - it is extraordinarily selective. For instance, in isolation, this bit sounds fabulous:

We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden.

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

The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them. Iraqis living in Karbala had recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.

The entire Kurdish region – one-third of the country – is patrolled by about 300 American troops,

But the media tell us this means we're losing.

However, the first bit remains extremely debateable as a rationale for invading (evidence is weak - no WMD threat, no strong Al Qaeda links, go fix other countries if you like deposing dictators). The second para neglects to mention that they are in quantities which would never have justified an invasion.

The "terrorist" (that alone is editorial - either they are genuine terrorists, or in the majority of cases - guerrillas or insurgents) stronghold of Karbala might be safe, but not after pissing off a lot of residents and making a hash of Fallujah and Najaf. While reading that, you might think "well, Cam's wrong there, for X, Y and Z reasons". Fair enough, but leave it to the British to find a more sensible way of dealing with the same problem:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/28/wirq228.xml

Finally, the bit about the Kurdish region is nice, but last I checked although it might be 1/3 of the land, it is only about 15-20% of the population. Its pretty misleading.

You're being told you're losing because there still remains, IMHO, a very real chance that you will end up leaving the country having accomplished little of worth in the aggregate sense. The Middle East isn't more stable - its arguably less so. Muslims like you even less than they did before. A LOT of people have died (not just US soldiers).

In other words, Coulter has selectively picked out successes and blamed the media for only focusing on failures. She has further IMPLIED (opinion) that this focus is a liberal media's way of saying "we're losing". She simply expects you all to celebrate the victories and ignore the "challenging" bits.

The rest of the world isn't going to do that, and perhaps the "liberal" media, and liberals in general, are smart enough to recognise that the international perception of the US is very, very important.

[araine901]

Hey Cam, What was the Kurd population before the gas?

[Bleyseng]

Atleast Gore has the guts to speak his mind about the "truth" of the Bush admin and all their lies and spin!
Just finished reading the article in Harper's "Beyond Fuallujah-A Year with the Iraqi Resistance" by Patrick Graham. Oh, I forgot they are just a bunch of thugs, Baathists....not people fighting another occupation. They have fought the British, Greeks, Mongols and Persians.

The right wing wackos (Bush Admin) still think they can "speak to God" to get out of this mess. His speach the other night was a joke, same old crap based on some foolish beliefs.

Geoff

[araine901]

I guess most of you would be happier if Bush just lobbed a few missles at OBL then picked the plumpest intern to pork and called it a day. For Gore to state that Bush invented the ousting of Saddam and every one should Rezaaaaaine is dishonest since he help set up the doctrine of regime change. BTW Was anyone asked to resign after we bombed the Chinese Embassy or killed 70 people in Waco or raided the Gonzalez home in Miami? Hmmmmmm

[fintstone]

Yep. Looks like that "al- out nationwide offensive" (not) is pretty much over Fallujah is quiet, Najaf is quiet, Karbala is subdued. The Iraqis are starting to step up to their responsibility to run the country. Things seem to be coming together just in time for the handover. Time to terrorize the Iraqis and build a couple more schools. Oh the humanity of it all!

[speeder]

Originally posted by araine901
I guess most of you would be happier if Bush just lobbed a few missles at OBL then picked the plumpest intern to pork and called it a day.

That would be a step in the right direction for him, actually. We'd all be a lot better off.

[hardflex]

another perspectice on the internet and Gore that seems relevant here.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/promo/my/wpvideo_0527/*http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index2&cid=2055

[trj911]

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by CamB
I'll answer. It isn't that its not "factual" - it is extraordinarily selective. For instance, in isolation, this bit sounds fabulous:

Cam, I responded to Techweenie who claimed there was NO facts in Coulters article. The point is that it IS factual. You can claim that her facts don't support your opinoins but thet are still facts. That was my point.


However, the first bit remains extremely debateable as a rationale for invading (evidence is weak - no WMD threat, no strong Al Qaeda links, go fix other countries if you like deposing dictators). The second para neglects to mention that they are in quantities which would never have justified an invasion.


In your opinion anyway..............


The "terrorist" (that alone is editorial - either they are genuine terrorists, or in the majority of cases - guerrillas or insurgents) stronghold of Karbala might be safe, but not after pissing off a lot of residents and making a hash of Fallujah and Najaf. While reading that, you might think "well, Cam's wrong there, for X, Y and Z reasons". Fair enough, but leave it to the British to find a more sensible way of dealing with the same problem:


So, your opinion of the status of someone shooting at us is more accurate than hers? This is not you say potatoe and I'll say potahto here. They are either terrorists or insurgents. If you can't see the difference perhaps you could do some work for the NYTimes.........

BTW this is still your opinion.........


Finally, the bit about the Kurdish region is nice, but last I checked although it might be 1/3 of the land, it is only about 15-20% of the population. Its pretty misleading.

Whats misleading here? 10-20% of 25,000,000 = 2,500,000 - 5,000,000 patrolled by 300? Thats fair isnt it? *note, these numbers are probably inaccurate so if you can post some accurate numbers I will change mine*


You're being told you're losing because there still remains, IMHO, a very real chance that you will end up leaving the country having accomplished little of worth in the aggregate sense. The Middle East isn't more stable - its arguably less so. Muslims like you even less than they did before. A LOT of people have died (not just US soldiers).

By your own admission (IMHO) this is ALL opinion, not fact.......


In other words, Coulter has selectively picked out successes and blamed the media for only focusing on failures. She has further IMPLIED (opinion) that this focus is a liberal media's way of saying "we're losing". She simply expects you all to celebrate the victories and ignore the "challenging" bits.

So let me see if I can get this right:

The media picks only "bad" things to report.

Coulter picks only "good" things to report.

Since you say that by doing this Coulter "expects" you to ignore the "challenging bits" then in turn logically the media would "expect" you to ignore the "good" things.

But once again your opinion only...................


The rest of the world isn't going to do that, and perhaps the "liberal" media, and liberals in general, are smart enough to recognise that the international perception of the US is very, very important.

Liberals are "smart" so then conservatives must be "stupid". How I love to be called stupid because your opinions differ from my facts. Don't worry I don't offend easily.

As noted above EVERYTHING you wrote was a combination of opinion, conjectute and speculation. You are of course free to do this at will, but don't confuse it with fact.

Perhaps you could explain in detail why the "international perception of the US is very, very important". I'm apparently just an ignorant conservative.

Pete

[turbocarrera]

Originally posted by Pete Pranger

Perhaps you could explain in detail why the "international perception of the US is very, very important".
Pete

I take it you think the international perception of the US is unimportant. That would include the Iraqi perception of the US. To think that thier perception of your soldiers is unimportant is absoloutely wacko.

[Pete Pranger]

Thank you for assuming something that is not in evidence.

Cam made a statement and I asked him to explain it, I'm sorry if that's too hard for you.

[turbocarrera]

You're right.. i made an assumption. I apologize.

So Pete, do you think that the international perception of the US is important or unimportant?

[Pete Pranger]

I am simply going to say "yes" to your question.

I am really very interested to hear this explained by Cam.

Once I get a response, I will gladly give you my opinion (if you can't wait that long, I can PM you, I'm not hiding anything here)

I also apologize as rereading my response was uncalled for.

Pete