Since everyone loves Ann Coulter

I shall post her articles here from time to time.

Dems' New Slogan: No Teacher Left Behind July 28, 2004

The traditional greeting at the Democratic National Convention is, "Where do you teach?" On rare occasions, the greeting is modified to, "Where does your husband teach?" or "Where does your gay lover teach?" (Democrats could save a lot of money by holding the Democratic National Convention and the National Education Association Convention at the same time.)

The Democrats keep loudly proclaiming that Republicans represent only extremely white rich people, while the Democrats represent all Americans. (Bar bet: Among the four major candidates for president and vice president this year, who has the smallest net worth? Answer: George Bush.)

If the Democrats are a fair cross-section of America, then I guess we can stop worrying about class size. As a friend of mine points out, if the Democratic delegates represent America, then the teacher-student ratio in this country is, at worst, one teacher for every three students. And since the teachers unions don't include private or parochial school teachers, we're looking at a teacher-student ratio of about one teacher for every one student.

Democrats are representative of the nation only if the nation we're talking about is Brazil. For Democrats, there is only the maid and millionaires. There are no Americans in the middle. To the extent Democrats are forced to recognize working-class white men, they call them "fascists."

To thunderous applause here in the American Taliban, billionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry said she looks forward to a day when "women who have earned the right to be opinionated will be called smart and informed -- just as men are." It's no wonder Democrats weren't interested in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from woman-hating Islamicist fanatics: They think real oppression of women consists of people calling Teresa "opinionated" right here in the USA.

How did Teresa "earn" the right to be opinionated again? By marrying inherited wealth? She also boasted that the Heinz family charity, John Kerry, "earned his medals the old-fashioned way." A couple of sponges on another man's wealth might want to steer clear of using the word "earn" so much. Democrats don't believe in capitalism and don't worry about taxes on earned income because they can't imagine there is any way to "earn" money other than the Teresa Heinz-John Kerry way.

Despite colossal efforts by the Democrats to fake out Americans and pretend the Democrats are normal Americans who love their country, every once in a while they make a mistake and give us a "tell." The Democrats have carefully studied Americans, observed their habits and expressions, so you would think for five days the Democrats could pull off a passable impression.

Special-effects artists are working overtime. Gore was prohibited from screeching about Republicans being Nazis, and Clinton was told not to show up in a toga. Democrats unable to conceal their America-hating pacifism were relieved of their anti-war signs and escorted to the free-speech veal pens a few blocks from the convention center.

Convention organizers even forced the delegates to choke their way through the Pledge of Allegiance -- something the teachers' students are not allowed to say. The delegates play along, pretending they know the words and making the occasional random reference to "God," trying not to sound ironic.

But, inevitably, they stumble, dogs start growling, and you realize these people are androids.

In a prepared speech carefully reviewed by the Democrats' Americanization team, Jimmy Carter said: "After 9/11, America stood proud." Proud? I believe "proud" was the last emotion most Americans were feeling after 9/11, coming in considerably behind, for example, "fighting mad," "incensed," "enraged," "humiliated" and "vengeful." It didn't occur to any of the Democrats vetting Carter's speech to cut that line? "What's the matter, Prince? Why are you growling? That's just a moderate Democrat."

Even as Democrats ape Republicans -- producing a platform that lyingly claims Democrats support war with Iraq, the Patriot Act and the defense of America -- the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats can't help slipping out: Democrats are not angry about 9/11. Sad, maybe -- sad that it didn't happen on Clinton's watch so his legacy would be more than a semen stain. But they're not angry.

Indeed, the belle of the ball at the convention is noted patriot Michael Moore, who apparently thinks Americans who voted for George Bush deserved to be killed on 9/11. The day of the attack, Moore wrote this on his Web page: "Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" Perhaps Moore could provide the terrorists with a map of the red states before the next attack.

This week, Moore was boasting about how well-received he was by the Democrats in Boston -- evidenced by his yukking it up in a sky box with former president Jimmy Carter. He has been hugged by DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe and praised by impeached former president Bill Clinton.

Moore's only concession to the Democrats' role-playing is to deny that he is a Democrat, hoping enough Americans were taught by public school teachers that no one will know how to look up Moore's voter registration card. ("Democrat.")

Moore says Bush must be defeated because Bush lied about the war in Iraq. Ninety-three percent of the delegates agree with him, saying they oppose the war in Iraq, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

But the Democrats' candidates for president and vice president both voted for war with Iraq. Their party platform supports the war with Iraq. (Let's just hope wherever the delegates teach, they're not teaching logic.)

The only "issues" Democrats dare discuss publicly are the things everyone can agree on: They are for "jobs," a good economy and the middle class. None of their blather ever touches on any issue on which Democrats and Republicans could possibly disagree.

The issues on which the parties differ are: pre-emptive attacks on terror-producing nations, gay marriage, gun control, partial-birth abortion, taxes, letting non-citizens and felons vote. But the Democrats won't talk about those issues. This is the Democrats' week to make-believe they are Republicans for the folks watching at home on TV. In the lingo of the delegates, this is "story time."

• I hate it when people from outside the U.S. read this stuff - it doesn't speak for me or millions of other people!

So to counteract the power of her words, here is a bit from Bill Clinton's speech:

We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment. We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful future. Our differences [btwn Democrats and Republicans] are in how we can best achieve these things, in a time of unprecedented change. Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people a positive campaign, arguing not who's good and who's bad, but what is the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve.

...

We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action. I think we're [democrats] right for two reasons: First, America works better when all people have a chance to live their dreams. Second, we live in an interdependent world in which we can't kill, jail, or occupy all our potential adversaries, so we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists.

That Ann Coulter is so smart!!!

Originally posted by lowbranches - I hate it when people from outside the U.S. read this stuff - it doesn't speak for me or millions of other people!So to counteract the power of her words, here is a bit from Bill Clinton's speech: We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment. We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful future. Our differences [btwn Democrats and Republicans] are in how we can best achieve these things, in a time of unprecedented change. Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people a positive campaign, arguing not who's good and who's bad, but what is the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve.

...

We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action. I think we're [democrats] right for two reasons: First, America works better when all people have a chance to live their dreams. Second, we live in an interdependent world in which we can't kill, jail, or occupy all our potential adversaries, so we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists.

Clinton made a very uplifting, good-sounding speech, but heck the international community thought of him as a joke. Sheesh our visible intelligence prob.s date back to maybe the war to liberate "innocent" Kosovo when we shot a Chinese embassy in Belgrade. That whole war was idiotic; we thought hundreds of thousands of Kosovars were killed by Slobodan, when it happened to be a couple thousand (not that those lives didn't matter). Hmm Osama in the Sudan... Not jumping into the genocidal wars in Rwanda. Clinton at the end of his presidency desparately tried to get a peace agreement between Yasser and Isrrael, but it didn't work. Hell when's the last time we have had a good forign relations president? Not Dubya, not Clinton at all!, Papa Bush had a good relation with dem Contras and Saudis, Reagan is arguable depending which side of the aisle (I think he was the last great foreign relations man we've had), Carter was one of the worst of all time, Ford , Nixon dealt well with China, LBJ and 'Nam , JFK and the Bay of Pigs , Ike and the Soviets , hmm FDR was the last respectable fellow.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr That Ann Coulter is so smart!!!

alot of this shite she talks is borderline fascist...

"invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity.."

-in regards to islamic nations...

..I dunno if im the only one making the connection here.. blonde hair, blue eyes, anglo-saxon protestant background..

the woman is a closet nazi

Originally posted by Spenser Stone alot of this shite she talks is borderline fascist..."invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity.." -in regards to islamic nations.....I dunno if im the only one making the connection here.. blonde hair, blue eyes, anglo-saxon protestant background..the woman is a closet nazi

If blond hair, blue eyes and being an anglo-saxon makes someone a Nazi, then nearly every WASP here, and many Brits must be Nazis. With Ann Coulter, one must take everything with a grain of salt. She is VERY sarcastic much of the time, and if you understand her, then she can be very humorous and enlightening at the same time.

Here is a picture for Trevor to do some photoshop work on:

Ooh another great picture:

Your politicians might be fucking nutcases, but they're a whole lot more interesting than our drab lot....;)

Incidentally, does the headline about being "Left behind" refer to the Rapture? I'm doing some research on the Christian Right at the minute and so obviously the idea that only the righteous will be saved is a prominent one....

Originally posted by Tristan Here is a picture for Trevor to do some photoshop work on:

The caption is "Sean is finally mastering the basics of reading, though he still has trouble with big words like 'is', 'the', and 'tax cuts'."

just a few responses:

Originally posted by Tristan It's no wonder Democrats weren't interested in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from woman-hating Islamicist fanatics

interesting that bush welcomed a delegation of taliban leaders to tour america only a few months before 9/11 to discuss the oil pipeline. bush was hardly interested in 'liberating' anyone from the taliban then, was he?

also, iraq was the most secular of the muslim-arab states. perhaps the most secular of the predominately-muslim states, period. just because saddam hussein was a dictator did not make him a 'woman-hating islamicist[sic] fanatic.' it may make good PR to lump the two together, but it doesn't represent the facts.

Democrats don't believe in capitalism

yeah, that ted turner sure is a raging communist if ever i saw one!

talk about an asinine generalization, not to mention a totally false one. you might say that for the greens (or many of them, anyway), but the democrats! give me a f*cking break.

Despite colossal efforts by the Democrats to fake out Americans and pretend the Democrats are normal Americans who love their country, every once in a while they make a mistake and give us a "tell." The Democrats have carefully studied Americans, observed their habits and expressions, so you would think for five days the Democrats could pull off a passable impression.

so, what she's saying is that democrats are not 'normal' people? i guess that means that most black people aren't 'normal,' more than 50% of women aren't 'normal,' and, well hell, at least 50% of the voting population isn't 'normal'! well, i'll be! glad she told me that. i'll be sure to steer clear of these freaks of nature that make up so much of our country.

Convention organizers even forced the delegates to choke their way through the Pledge of Allegiance -- something the teachers' students are not allowed to say.

as a teacher who hears the pledge of allegiance over the intercom in my classroom every morning and watches my students stand and say it, all i can say is:

Originally posted by Doctor Clayhead Your politicians might be fucking nutcases, but they're a whole lot more interesting than our drab lot....;)Incidentally, does the headline about being "Left behind" refer to the Rapture? I'm doing some research on the Christian Right at the minute and so obviously the idea that only the righteous will be saved is a prominent one....

I believe that headline has more to do with Bush's education policy of "No Child Left Behind," which basically means continuing to dumb down public school curricula even more than before (if that was possible), just so that every little glue-sniffer will be able to get squeezed out out the ejamakashon system and right into reliable jobs in factories and fast food. And who knows? Even one day they could become President.

And while we're on the subject of the President and religion, take a look at this frightening article: http://www.thestranger.com/2004-06-10/feature2.html

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope > Originally posted by Doctor Clayhead> Your politicians might be fucking nutcases, but they're a whole lot more interesting than our drab lot....;)> > Incidentally, does the headline about being "Left behind" refer to the Rapture? I'm doing some research on the Christian Right at the minute and so obviously the idea that only the righteous will be saved is a prominent one....

I believe that headline has more to do with Bush's education policy of "No Child Left Behind," which basically means continuing to dumb down public school curricula even more than before (if that was possible), just so that every little glue-sniffer will be able to get squeezed out out the ejamakashon system and right into reliable jobs in factories and fast food. And who knows? Even one day they could become President.

And while we're on the subject of the President and religion, take a look at this frightening article: http://www.thestranger.com/2004-06-10/feature2.html

The NCLB act is not bad at all; if you look at it, it would actually benefit our schooling system, but the problem is, that THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PUT MONEY TO MAKE THE FUCKING PROVISIONS WORK!

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope> > > > Originally posted by Doctor Clayhead> > Your politicians might be fucking nutcases, but they're a whole lot more interesting than our drab lot....;)> > > > Incidentally, does the headline about being "Left behind" refer to the Rapture? I'm doing some research on the Christian Right at the minute and so obviously the idea that only the righteous will be saved is a prominent one....>

I believe that headline has more to do with Bush's education policy of "No Child Left Behind," which basically means continuing to dumb down public school curricula even more than before (if that was possible), just so that every little glue-sniffer will be able to get squeezed out out the ejamakashon system and right into reliable jobs in factories and fast food. And who knows? Even one day they could become President.

And while we're on the subject of the President and religion, take a look at this frightening article: http://www.thestranger.com/2004-06-10/feature2.html

The NCLB act is not bad at all; if you look at it, it would actually benefit our schooling system, but the problem is, that THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PUT MONEY TO MAKE THE FUCKING PROVISIONS WORK!

and that means TAXES! i'm more than willing to pay...are you?

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope> > > > > > > Originally posted by Doctor Clayhead> > > Your politicians might be fucking nutcases, but they're a whole lot more interesting than our drab lot....;)> > > > > > Incidentally, does the headline about being "Left behind" refer to the Rapture? I'm doing some research on the Christian Right at the minute and so obviously the idea that only the righteous will be saved is a prominent one....> > >

I believe that headline has more to do with Bush's education policy of "No Child Left Behind," which basically means continuing to dumb down public school curricula even more than before (if that was possible), just so that every little glue-sniffer will be able to get squeezed out out the ejamakashon system and right into reliable jobs in factories and fast food. And who knows? Even one day they could become President.

And while we're on the subject of the President and religion, take a look at this frightening article: http://www.thestranger.com/2004-06-10/feature2.html

The NCLB act is not bad at all; if you look at it, it would actually benefit our schooling system, but the problem is, that THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PUT MONEY TO MAKE THE FUCKING PROVISIONS WORK!

and that means TAXES! i'm more than willing to pay...are you?

Or it means cutting down on ineffective government programs, especially military ones. And I'm not talking about wars in particular. The government has needed to put an audit on base spending for a while now. How much is spent on chairs and everyday stuff, etc.

As if the government would dream of cutting back on the "defense" spending used to topple unpopular countries for purely ideological reasons! Let's just cut back the military to a bare minimum and put that money into social programs like education, social security, and the arts (and I'm not talking about the fucking NEA's conservative grants). And while I'm being naively idealistic, let's wipe out oil corporations.

Another problem with education is that parents need to start teaching their kids at earlier ages while the brain is still very malleable. Frankly the US does need some state sponsored preschool program starting at the age of two so that disabilities and learning disorders can be detected early on and dealt with. Frankly that would be the ideal rather than NCLB which deals with integrating special ed kids into regular ed. The US education system has been so fucked up for years that any attempts to change it will not likely succeed and end up costing gross amounts of money. The cheapest, I think would be to start providing, and maybe even enforcing, preschool to 2 year old kids. Some right brain/ left brain disorders can be "fixed" early on if detected early.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope As if the government would dream of cutting back on the "defense" spending used to topple unpopular countries for purely ideological reasons! Let's just cut back the military to a bare minimum and put that money into social programs like education, social security, and the arts (and I'm not talking about the fucking NEA's conservative grants). And while I'm being naively idealistic, let's wipe out oil corporations.

Oil corporations are our friends! Our international actions may be questionable, but nearly all of them (when we have used enough force, unlike casual bombings during Clinton) will serve for a good purpose for us in the future. The problems are in the casual costs of items on military bases, schools (million dollar landscaping projects that still make schools look like shit). There's still a lot of bureaucratic mess everywhere, in which we could funnel such wasted money for better needs, rather than increasing taxes.

I was happy to see someone from my neck of the woods (lowbranches), but then she wrote a little poem about Bill Clinton. Wow, people are still stuck on his coat tales. Oh well, glad to see he is gone and Bush is here to save the day.

Oh I almost forgot, if Bill Clinton would have taken Bin-Laden out when he was supposed to no one in New York or Washington would have had to pay the price. Did we forget? We were attacked.

Originally posted by Tristan Another problem with education is that parents need to start teaching their kids at earlier ages while the brain is still very malleable. Frankly the US does need some state sponsored preschool program starting at the age of two so that disabilities and learning disorders can be detected early on and dealt with. Frankly that would be the ideal rather than NCLB which deals with integrating special ed kids into regular ed. The US education system has been so fucked up for years that any attempts to change it will not likely succeed and end up costing gross amounts of money. The cheapest, I think would be to start providing, and maybe even enforcing, preschool to 2 year old kids. Some right brain/ left brain disorders can be "fixed" early on if detected early.

Tristan-- you're starting to sound like a lefty!!!

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope> As if the government would dream of cutting back on the "defense" spending used to topple unpopular countries for purely ideological reasons! Let's just cut back the military to a bare minimum and put that money into social programs like education, social security, and the arts (and I'm not talking about the fucking NEA's conservative grants). And while I'm being naively idealistic, let's wipe out oil corporations.

Oil corporations are our friends! Our international actions may be questionable, but nearly all of them (when we have used enough force, unlike casual bombings during Clinton) will serve for a good purpose for us in the future. The problems are in the casual costs of items on military bases, schools (million dollar landscaping projects that still make schools look like shit). There's still a lot of bureaucratic mess everywhere, in which we could funnel such wasted money for better needs, rather than increasing taxes.

Nevermind!

? that wasn't a poem about clinton; it was a excerpt from his speech at the DNC this wk. i was juxtaposing ann coulter's inflammatory article with clinton's speech - the excerpts spoke to my concerns of the perception of the U.S. by the global community. I'm among the growing number of citizens that aren't happy with either party - historically, my family has been republican - I've been a dem all my voting life. I believe there are components in the platforms of both parties that are valuable but both parties have enormous failings as well. so we all have to be able to discuss politics and not shout each other down; ann coulter is the part of politics that creates such extreme reactions that nothing productive emerges.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan> Another problem with education is that parents need to start teaching their kids at earlier ages while the brain is still very malleable. Frankly the US does need some state sponsored preschool program starting at the age of two so that disabilities and learning disorders can be detected early on and dealt with. Frankly that would be the ideal rather than NCLB which deals with integrating special ed kids into regular ed. The US education system has been so fucked up for years that any attempts to change it will not likely succeed and end up costing gross amounts of money. The cheapest, I think would be to start providing, and maybe even enforcing, preschool to 2 year old kids. Some right brain/ left brain disorders can be "fixed" early on if detected early.

Tristan-- you're starting to sound like a lefty!!!

Hey, I know there's a problem with our education system, but to fix it, does not mean we need to raise taxes. We'd just have to cut spending in certain areas.

Originally posted by Jeff Easley Oh I almost forgot, if Bill Clinton would have taken Bin-Laden out when he was supposed to no one in New York or Washington would have had to pay the price. Did we forget? We were attacked.

well...if reagan and bush had never backed bin laden, and his family, and then ignored (and then coddled) the taliban from the beginning, we might never be in this mess in the first place!

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Jeff Easley> Oh I almost forgot, if Bill Clinton would have taken Bin-Laden out when he was supposed to no one in New York or Washington would have had to pay the price. Did we forget? We were attacked.

well...if reagan and bush had never backed bin laden, and his family, and then ignored (and then coddled) the taliban from the beginning, we might never be in this mess in the first place!

The US backed the Mujahidin, not Bin Laden specifically. If we had known his future intentions, sure Reagan and Papa Bush would have done things differently in supporting the Mujahidin in their fight versus the Communists in Afghanistan. But destroying Communist nations was our first priority at the time and there were some consequences (the Taliban in Afghanistan arising straight from the Mujahidin fighters). The consequences appeared during Clinton's watch and nothing of any worth was done. In 93 Bin Laden tried to bomb the WTC, but we had to wait until 2001 before an American president would start to take action. Let's not start to mention the other numerous indicators of Bin Laden's intentions... Embassy bombings, USS Cole...

Sure Papa Bush had dealings with the Bin Laden family, but being in the oil business and not dealing with one of the most prosperous families in Saudi Arabia is hard to do. That family has many, many pro-Americans in it; it just happens that it only took one Bin Laden to hurt us.

The mess was created from shortmindedness from Reagan and Papa Bush in their fight against Communism, but when the consequences started to appear, Clinton did nothing of any worth, and he also cut intelligence and military spending.

C'mon Jeff, what were you gonna say?

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Jeff Easley> > Oh I almost forgot, if Bill Clinton would have taken Bin-Laden out when he was supposed to no one in New York or Washington would have had to pay the price. Did we forget? We were attacked.>

well...if reagan and bush had never backed bin laden, and his family, and then ignored (and then coddled) the taliban from the beginning, we might never be in this mess in the first place!

The US backed the Mujahidin, not Bin Laden specifically. If we had known his future intentions, sure Reagan and Papa Bush would have done things differently in supporting the Mujahidin in their fight versus the Communists in Afghanistan. But destroying Communist nations was our first priority at the time and there were some consequences (the Taliban in Afghanistan arising straight from the Mujahidin fighters). The consequences appeared during Clinton's watch and nothing of any worth was done. In 93 Bin Laden tried to bomb the WTC, but we had to wait until 2001 before an American president would start to take action. The mess was created from shortmindedness from Reagan and Papa Bush in their fight against Communism, but when the consequences started to appear, Clinton did nothing of any worth, and he also cut intelligence and military spending.

bush was aware of bin laden, and his place in the mujahedeen during the afghan war. also, when republicans blame clinton for sept. 11 (as i've seen in many regnery press books) why does blame for the 1993 bombing never fall on GHW bush? it was during his presidency that the plans were created for the bombing. hmmm.

as for the consequences appearing during clinton's administration, the top CIA man in afghanistan during the afghan war would disagree with you. he knew afghanistan was a hotbed for anti-americanism and he said the american government under george bush didn't do anything about it.

as for clinton doing nothing of any worth, bush is just as responsible. he knew from intel that bin laden was planning attacks in the US, but wouldn't listen. he was too busy formulating his plan against iraq (summer of 2001).

the fact is, whether a democrat was in office or a republican wouldn't have made any difference. this is the brilliance of terrorist strategy; remain under the radar and cause confusion, chaos, and cause internal strife. americans just haven't figured this out yet.

I have to go to Vons (Safeway) to buy some canteloupe, but I'll be right back after this commercial break....

Very good points Tristan. I just can't understand why Billy was too busy to take care of own national security. It just rubs me the wrong way. He was probably busy with Monica.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > > > > Originally posted by Jeff Easley> > > Oh I almost forgot, if Bill Clinton would have taken Bin-Laden out when he was supposed to no one in New York or Washington would have had to pay the price. Did we forget? We were attacked.> > >

well...if reagan and bush had never backed bin laden, and his family, and then ignored (and then coddled) the taliban from the beginning, we might never be in this mess in the first place!

The US backed the Mujahidin, not Bin Laden specifically. If we had known his future intentions, sure Reagan and Papa Bush would have done things differently in supporting the Mujahidin in their fight versus the Communists in Afghanistan. But destroying Communist nations was our first priority at the time and there were some consequences (the Taliban in Afghanistan arising straight from the Mujahidin fighters). The consequences appeared during Clinton's watch and nothing of any worth was done. In 93 Bin Laden tried to bomb the WTC, but we had to wait until 2001 before an American president would start to take action. The mess was created from shortmindedness from Reagan and Papa Bush in their fight against Communism, but when the consequences started to appear, Clinton did nothing of any worth, and he also cut intelligence and military spending.

bush was aware of bin laden, and his place in the mujahedeen during the afghan war. also, when republicans blame clinton for sept. 11 (as i've seen in many regnery press books) why does blame for the 1993 bombing never fall on GHW bush? it was during his presidency that the plans were created for the bombing. hmmm.

as for the consequences appearing during clinton's administration, the top CIA man in afghanistan during the afghan war would disagree with you. he knew afghanistan was a hotbed for anti-americanism and he said the american government under george bush didn't do anything about it.

as for clinton doing nothing of any worth, bush is just as responsible. he knew from intel that bin laden was planning attacks in the US, but wouldn't listen. he was too busy formulating his plan against iraq (summer of 2001).

the fact is, whether a democrat was in office or a republican wouldn't have made any difference. this is the brilliance of terrorist strategy; remain under the radar and cause confusion, chaos, and cause internal strife. americans just haven't figured this out yet.

In 1992 were the plans for the 1993 WTC bombing known by Papa Bush? Hell, I'd agree with you if you could tell me that, but I'm no sure you can.

Why did the American gvmt. not do anything under Reagan and Papa Bush against the radical Muslims in Afghanistan? It's because they wanted these people to finish the job in kicking out the Communists, which happened in 89. Then the Gulf War came in 1991, so did we have the resources to go deal with a possible threat which had not reared its ugly head of major terrorist bombings affecting the US yet.

In Bush's 9 months as prez before 9/11 I do hold him somewhat accountable for not dealing with Bin Laden, but hell Clinton had nearly 8 years, so I hold him much, much more accountable. Especially since Al Qaeda attacked American interests so many times during his presidency and with him not devoting enough attention to Bin Laden.

I believe politicians on both sides of the aisle are responsible, but the failures of Billy remain steadfast in my mind (WTC, our embassies, USS Cole).

As for Bush prepping for a war against Saddam, hell any presidential cabinet would have prepared for action against Saddam. The man funded suicide bombers, he liked to ignore sanctions, he enjoyed shooting at our planes, etc. Also much of our attention for a while was focused on China when they impounded the American plane that landed on their territory after a collision in April.

^ive never seen any evidence that he funded suicide bombers...

i have seen video of him presenting checks to the surviving family members of a few suicide bombers though..

Originally posted by Spenser Stone ^ive never seen any evidence that he funded suicide bombers...i have seen video of him presenting checks to the surviving family members of a few suicide bombers though..

Sorry, that is what I meant; he gave money to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Spenser Stone> ^ive never seen any evidence that he funded suicide bombers...> > > i have seen video of him presenting checks to the surviving family members of a few suicide bombers though..

Sorry, that is what I meant; he gave money to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

so do our friends the saudis. why aren't we going after them? instead, george I visits with the royal family and helps US companies accept their investments.

considering that 70% of IRA funds came from american citizens (not sure what the status has been since the good friday agreement), i wonder why our government never spoke up about that!

You knw what this thread needs? A few pictures of Simon Gallup. Just reading about politics and happening to look at pictures of Ann Coulter is enough to make anyone :barf:

Originally posted by Tristan

I love this.

Originally posted by Buffer Low > Originally posted by Tristan

I love this. Visiting the grave of her hero.

No way! that's just sad.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Spenser Stone> alot of this shite she talks is borderline fascist...> > "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity.." > > -in regards to islamic nations...> > ..I dunno if im the only one making the connection here.. blonde hair, blue eyes, anglo-saxon protestant background..> > > the woman is a closet nazi

If blond hair, blue eyes and being an anglo-saxon makes someone a Nazi, then nearly every WASP here, and many Brits must be Nazis. With Ann Coulter, one must take everything with a grain of salt. She is VERY sarcastic much of the time, and if you understand her, then she can be very humorous and enlightening at the same time.

Not really, she's merely yet another generic right wing nutcase, the US media is overrun with them (her USP is that she is, gosh, a _woman_!). Personally I am BORED with hearing about them. And everyone of the teeming hordes of them insists they are a lone voice kicking against the (mythical) 'liberal' media. I'm not aware she's ever said anything that made any sense or had any connection with reality (and sarcasm is the lowest form of with dontcha know). She did once say something I half agreed with, which was that John Walker Lindh should be executed in order to 'scare the liberals'. Not that I can make head nor tail out of her implicit argument that a right-wing religious fundamentalist like JWL is in someway a 'liberal', but it might be a good thing for US liberals to realise just how ruthless, and indeed murderous, the US right is in securing its own economic interests.

This one has some great points about O' Reilly and Matthews, but damn does she make some flawed assumptions...

Admitted War Criminal Cries Foul August 25, 2004

There are several methods of evaluating the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 254 of whom have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief.

There is the Bill O'Reilly method, which is to abandon independent thinking and simply come out in the middle, irrespective of where the two sides are. In response to Newt Gingrich's remark that the Swift Boat Veterans' independent ads were "the conservative movement's answer to Michael Moore," O'Reilly said, "I don't want either of them."

In Nazi Germany, O'Reilly would have condemned both Hitler's death camps and the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In Bill O'Reilly's world, King Solomon would have actually cut the disputed baby in half.

The O'Reilly method of analysis works well about once a century. The last time was when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.

Then there is the Chris Matthews method, which is to decide in advance that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are the lowest form of human life imaginable and then publicly excoriate them for consuming oxygen.

Matthews employs a logical calculus known as "begging the question," which goes something like this:

1. John Kerry claims to be a great war hero.

2. Maybe so, but legitimate questions have been raised about his combat record.

3. How can you say that about a great war hero like John Kerry?

When John O'Neill, author of "Unfit for Command," went on "Hardball," Matthews accused O'Neill of being a Republican operative and demanded that O'Neill detail for "Hardball's" six remaining viewers his voting history for the past 20 years in mind-numbing detail. (Completely destroying his case against Kerry, in 1988, O'Neill voted for George Herbert Walker Bush!) Apparently voting for a Republican presidential candidate 15 years ago is a credibility-destroyer, whereas being a former member of the White House staff under Jimmy Carter, as Chris Matthews is, enhances one's credibility.

Normally an interview on a newly released book consists of the author being asked questions about his book and the author answering the questions. With O'Neill, Matthews interviewed himself.

Also, erstwhile war protester John Hurley was interviewed along with O'Neill about "Unfit for Command." The fact that Hurley (1) didn't write the book, and (2) is a paid Kerry campaign worker raises no credibility issues. A colleague of Kerry's in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hurley's contribution to the interview about a book he didn't write consisted of his piping in periodically with insightful comments about O'Neill, such as "his book and his organization is built on lies and distortions."

O'Neill's contribution to a discussion about his own book consisted mostly of meaningless sentence fragments:

O'Neill: I don't believe that ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, I'm not here to ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: I think he is millions of steps behind, because he went over ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: His first Purple ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, the first ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: You're right. I'm saying ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, wait just a second. What you've done is ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: First of all ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

Finally, O'Neill proposed that he be allowed to answer questions and Matthews erupted with an indignant speech notable mostly for being slightly longer than anything O'Neill ever got to say:

Matthews: "One of the oldest tricks on this show is for somebody to come on the show after talking for 20 minutes and say they haven't had the chance to talk. I'll be glad to clock you, John, on how many minutes you spoke on the show. So don't try that old trick. It is a particularly conservative trick, OK? So let's move on here."

Let's review the transcript!

Total words by book author John O'Neill: approximately 1,150. (Complete sentences devoid of Matthews interruptions: about 2.)

Total words by paid Kerry flack Hurley: approximately 950.

Total words by Matthews, excluding host prattle ("Welcome back to 'Hardball'!"): approximately 2,290.

At least Matthews didn't physically throw O'Neill off his set as he did Michelle Malkin a few nights later while she tried in vain to discuss her new book. The lion-hearted Matthews reserves that level of rudeness only for girls. (Now that I think about it, compared to the average Democrat male, maybe John Kerry is manly.)

In lieu of the O'Reilly method (randomly coming out in "the middle" of every issue) or the Matthews method (deciding, ab initio, that any criticism of Kerry could come only from bottom-feeding, politically motivated whores), there is still another method of evaluating the evidence, which is to evaluate the evidence.

For starters, 254 swiftboat veterans say Kerry is a fraud; 14 say he's a hero. Partisan considerations aside, which would be more difficult to do: Get 14 liars to keep a secret, or get 254 liars to do so? As a student of recent history, I defer to any registered Democrat on this question.

Of course, the 14 in Kerry's camp are not necessarily lying, being bribed, or hoping for a position in the Kerry administration – possibilities the media will never raise, I note. But we're talking about 35-year-old memories here; 254 memories to 14 memories is what we used to call "evidence."

Why don't we just give both sides some swiftboats, a few machine guns and lots of ammo, put them on a river somewhere, and let them settle this whole thing like gentlemen once and for all?