Response to Al Gore
 

I like this as a response to Al Gore's whining speech.

Tit For Tet
May 26, 2004
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive. By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war. And people say reporters are lazy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've done all that! How incredibly lucky.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AnnCoulter.com

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!

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

It fell down for me right about there.

I'm not in the US, I don't see much of your liberal media, and I still think (and hear) that you're struggling in Iraq. I dunno about "losing the war", but my best guess right now is that once you pack up and leave, the US will fall to about #87 on the list of Iraq's favourite countries.

The only alternative will be to stay there long term, enjoying the ire of the Iraqi populace. No-one wants an occupying force.

You guys just cannot take the truth. You applaud the Algore fairy tales and run from any other opinion.

I have news for you, Fintstone, that was not "the truth", but rather pure opinion. After the first 3 sentences I knew that it was Anne Coultier, her unique delivery of twisted spin and mangled facts makes her someone who is impossible to take seriously. Absolutely nothing that she says is the whole truth/nothing but the truth/etc..... :rolleyes:

You two should go out on a date, it would be like tripping on acid! Altered reality w/o any dangerous drugs! Wheeeeeeee!! You could talk about the liberal media hiding in the trees and putting microchips in your heads! :D

Seriously, I still say that she is going to be the ugliest cocktail waitress at the D.C. Ramada Inn after November.

:D :D :D :D :D

"You guys just cannot take the truth."

That's an incredibly lame non-response, even from you. What about the inaccuracies I pointed out?

Ann Coulter is the Right's answer to Michael Moore.

Fint, I would not have posted that if I were in your shoes. I'm not even going to pick it apart piece by piece because that would not be challenging. I wonder if you understand that this "liberal media" name-calling, while it might be fooling a strategic number of Americans like yourself, fools almost no one else on the planet. As Cam alludes to, the rest of the world considers our media to be overwhelmingly conservative. And the Coulter thing sure twists things conveniently, again to catch ignorant voters. The two that stand out are the insinuations that Saddam and bin Laden might have been tempted to cooperate, and the assertion that WMD's have been found. Hussein and bin Laden's ideologies are more opposite than bin Laden/America, and Hussein appears to have been prepared to wipe out something the size of a K-Mart parking lot but that's it.

But she's apparently effective. She's got you fooled. I think the nation's capitol should be move to Hollywood. That would make more sense right now.

Ann Coulter?
Fint, you can do better than that. Really, you can.
....but then again, the two of you would make an interesting case study........http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/grenade.gif

Not one of you has posted a single fact that contradicts her article..other than Superman who incorrectly implies that a WMDs have not been found and that a link to Al-Qaeda has not been established. so why should I respond?

There is stronger circumstantial evidence that A. Coultier started life as a man than there is a link between Saddam and Bin Laden.

The Adam's apple, the fact that you'll never see "her" in pants, only skirts, (big clobber-stick to hide), and the God that I believe in never made a woman that ugly, the list goes on and on..... ;)

Altered reality, Fint. Just go with it, if you fight it your head might explode. :cool:

Fint,

If you expect to have any credibility, do not quote from right-wing wackos like Ann Coulter who have no handle on reality. Instead, I suggest you quote speeches given by pragmatic moderates like Al Gore, whom I believe began life as a woman . . .

got to say, if she is a man, the surgeon did a better job than they did on Hillary or Al..

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1085686236.jpg

Yep, the farther away you are, the better she looks. And it helps if the photo is out of focus.

Post a 'fact' to react to, Fintstone.

Unfortunately for the Liberals U all have me to deal with. I don't give a rats a$$ about ideology, mangling of the facts or Gores Fairy God Mothers Fairy Tales. I'm interested in Reality, and Real Politik.

I believe there is goodness and compassion in man, that you call love..However people think, are mislead into thinking man is civilized. Nothing can be farther from the truth. For when men get scared the demons that are inside are let loose revealing a dark, brutish character that is capable of great cruelity.

Ouiet frankly ther is only one way to to vanquish those demons and that is to meet them head on. To basically embrace the fact that you are that dark brutish character who is capable of great cruelity. That is where the role of God comes in, for we all need forgivness for our trespasses. Now let's put those mtherfkers to the sword.

Sorry, she would do the "penthouse pet" shot, nor would she wear the patented Kerry "Cannes Seethrough."

Pick one of her facts and disprove it...LOL

"Now let's put those mtherfkers to the sword."

No, I still prefer to try to reason with neocons.

Looks like a party waiting to happen to me. You guys just hate a woman that is smarter than you,

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1085687879.jpg

I'll continue to do my partying w/ the left, Thank you very much. :)

And she is smart? Reminds me of an obnoxious telemarketer or something. To each their own, I guess. :cool:

Is it just me, or does anybody else notice the resemblance to SNL's "Drunk Girl"? ;)
http://www.tastyjeff.com/mmedia02.php?newVid=DrunkGirl051703&charSort=Drunk +Girl