posted April 11, 2008 11:36 AM            

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: A VAST SLEEPER CELL
January 3, 2007

Ann Coulter

Fortunately for liberals, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn't seem strange that Nancy Pelosi's flag was at half-staff. Also, Saddam's death made it less of a snub when Harry Reid skipped Ford's funeral.

The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.

More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" — all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies — exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents." Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men.

During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.

Now, as publisher of the Times, Pinch does all he can to help the enemy currently shooting at American soldiers.

After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam — with Kennedy ordering the assassination of our own ally in the middle of the war and Johnson ham-handedly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office — in 1969, Nixon became president and the world was safe again.

Nixon began a phased withdrawal of American ground troops, while protecting the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings of the North, mining North Vietnamese harbors and attacking North Vietnamese military supplies in Cambodia — all actions hysterically denounced by American liberals, eager for the communists to defeat America.

Despite the massive anti-war protests staged by the Worst Generation, their takeovers of university buildings and their bombings of federal property to protest the bombing of North Vietnamese property, Nixon's Vietnam policy was apparently popular with normal Americans. In 1972, he won re-election against "peace" candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.

In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace accords, which would have ended the war with honor. In order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam's throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South. But in return, we promised South Vietnam that we would resume bombing missions and provide military aid if the North attacked.

It would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented "Watergate," the corpus delicti of which wouldn't have merited three column-inches during the Clinton years, and hounded Nixon out of office. (How's Sandy Berger weathering that tough wrist-slap?)

Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democratic Party. In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete, the new Democratic Party would lose wars on purpose.

Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.

Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America's word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, "American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally." He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam — no troops, just money.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. Within a month of Ford's last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.

The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. It was the most demeaning image of America ever witnessed, until Britney Spears came along.

Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever these "Jeffersonian Democrats" come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast that none other than Sen. George McGovern called for military intervention to stop a "clear case of genocide" in Cambodia.

Five years after that, Islamic lunatics in Iran felt no compunction about storming the embassy of what was once the greatest superpower on Earth and taking American citizens hostage for 14 months. To this day, al-Qaida boosts the flagging morale of its jihadists by reminding them of America's humiliating retreat from Vietnam.

posted April 11, 2008 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

Seems a fair question to me but I never see you bouncing off the forum walls over their inflammatory rhetoric.

---

She probably doesn't listen to it, much like most of America doesn't listen to Coulter.

posted April 11, 2008 12:58 PM            

Is today the day you're going to admit "most" does not mean "almost all".

Is today the day you're going to start accepting dictionary definitions for common words...like everyone else.

Is today the day you're going to stop comparing apples to oranges?

Is today the day you're going to stop attempting to use visual aids respondents never see in phone polls?

Is today the day you're going to stop making up your own scales to advance your absurd argument?

posted April 11, 2008 01:09 PM            

FRANK RICH DECLARES IRAQ 'BOX OFFICE POISON!'
December 20, 2006

Ann Coulter

Last year, Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, wrote to the head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, telling him to "be ready starting now" for America to run from Iraq, reminding him how America cut and ran from Vietnam and the "aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam, and how they ran and left their agents."

Alas, Zarqawi never got to implement his Iraq takeover plan because the same troops that are allegedly losing the war right now killed him in June.

But al-Qaida in America isn't ready to quit, yet!

New York Times theater critic Frank Rich made headlines on the Drudge Report last week by announcing: "We have lost in Iraq." Of course, Rich was saying we had lost in Iraq more than six months before we went into Iraq.

In August 2002, he wrote that Bush did not have the support of the American people for war in Iraq and without that he would "mimic another hubristic Texan president who took a backdoor route into pre-emptive warfare."

In April 2003, one month after we invaded, Rich said the looting of Iraqi museums by Iraqis showed "our worst instincts at the very dawn of our grandiose project to bring democratic values to the Middle East."

About six months into the war he wrote a column about Iraq titled: "Why Are We Back in Vietnam?" You can imagine how writing those words must have brought back memories of Frank Rich's own valiant service in Vietnam.

In January 2004, less than a year after the invasion, he wrote: "The greater debate has been over the degree to which the follies of Vietnam are now being re-enacted in Iraq." Historians noted that this is the first time Rich ever panned something containing the word "follies."

A month later, he was again comparing Iraq to Vietnam, saying Bush had forced the comparison "by wearing the fly boy uniform of his own disputed guard duty" when he landed on the aircraft carrier. Did Frank Rich win three purple hearts in combat, or was it four? I always forget.

In May 2004, Rich accused Bush of throwing "underprepared and underprotected" American troops in harm's way in Iraq. OK, I was kidding before. The closest Frank Rich has come to serving in the military was reviewing a revival of "The Caine Mutiny." Though he does know the words to "In the Navy" by heart.

Even after transitioning from musical reviewer to hard-bitten military analyst, Rich couldn't resist tossing in a quick dance review. He gleefully described "pictures of Marines retreating from Fallujah and of that city's citizens dancing in the streets to celebrate their victory over the American liberators."

This too, reminded Rich of Vietnam. Right now I'm trying to think of something that doesn't remind liberals of Vietnam ... hmmm ... drawing a blank.

In September 2005, Rich wrote that the war in Iraq "resembles its Southeast Asian predecessor in its unpopularity, its fictional provocation and its unknown exit strategy" — interestingly, the exact same words he used years ago in his review of "Miss Saigon." He leeringly anticipated "a Tet offensive, Sunni-style" to tilt the election in Kerry's direction.

In October 2004, Rich said Bush had "bungled the war in Iraq and, in doing so, may be losing the war against radical Islamic terrorism as well." He didn't explain how killing tens of thousands of Islamic terrorists constituted "bungling" a war against them. Then again, what do I know about military analysis? I thought "The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?" was atrocious.

In May of this year, he said that "the public has turned on the war in Iraq" — the very war that he said the public opposed long before we ever went in.

And in June he said the public knows "defeat when they see it, no matter how many new plans for victory are trotted out to obscure that reality" — though I might be confusing this statement with Rich's comments on the Times' plan to charge readers for his column.

Liberals are like people with stale breath talking into your face at a party. You try backing away from them or offering them gum, but then they just start whimpering. They've been using the exact same talking points about how we're losing in Iraq since before we invaded.

It seems they've finally succeeded in exhausting Americans and, thereby, handing a victory to al-Qaida.

The weakest members of the herd are rapidly capitulating, trying to preserve a modicum of honor by prattling about how if their plans had been implemented, Iraq would be in tip-top shape and our troops would be home for Christmas.

Well, if my plans had been implemented, the anti-war crowd would be weeping about Iraqi civilian deaths so much they wouldn't have time to pretend they gave a damn about the loss of American lives.

posted April 11, 2008 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

Is today the day you're going to stop lying about what I said...about "most".

---

It's your belief that I misunderstand "most," so the only one of us lying about the other is you lying about me and my comprehension.

"All" and "most" don't specify equal quantities. I will grant that this being the case perhaps Pew should have worded it differently. Perhaps they should have combined the words into, "Almost," as "Believe Almost Everything" would have been an appropriate designation for Column 4. Still...I wouldn't let you get away with saying that "79% of respondents don't believe almost everything" as that would continue to be a misleading statement unsupported by the facts. Those 40% of respondents who chose Column 3 were giving a thumbs up to the general accuracy of these newspapers, and can't be included in your 79% by any logical measure.

quote:

---

Is today the day you're going to start accepting dictionary definitions for common words...like everyone else.

---

I'm the most frequent poster of what the dictionary says, Jwhop. I don't have an issue with definitions. I've disproven your belief on the definition of "lie" quite a few times now.

quote:

---

Is today the day you're going to stop comparing apples to oranges?

---

No, today is the day I'm going to continue to insist that you not make excuses or stall, and just come clean with the fact that you misunderstood the Pew chart. This is the only way I can see you dropping the subject once and for all.

What business the Times does, and how they struggle alongside a lot of publications that carry stories that are found for free online is irrelevent. The issue here is basic comprehension. I can read the chart. I can read the question used, and understand how the chart was put together.

As I said above, the chart certainly doesn't back your claim. I won't allow the semantic argument that technically you're telling the truth because you're just pointing out that 79% of people did not choose Column 4. If all you'd ever said was that 79% of people don't put their full faith and trust in the newspaper, I'd be fine with that. That is a reasonable statement, and it's backed by the chart. By similar percentages people feel the same about the other national newspapers. It would be naive to think that a newspaper was infallible.

quote:

---

Is today the day you're going to stop attempting to use visual aids respondents never see in phone polls?

---

The visual aid was for you, because it has seemed as though you can't account for how a question on a scale works. Your continued denial that the people who chose Column three were expressing their general support for the accuracy of the newspaper made it seem to me that you need some education on how scales work, and what regular people consider when asked to rate something on a scale.

quote:

---

Is today the day you're going to stop making up your own scales to advance your absurd argument?

---

I don't need to create scales to advance my argument. People interpret the scales themselves when answering the question. Most people don't want to give an outright endorsement. Nor do they want to give an outright condemnation. As such people tend to stick the the grey areas in between just like they did with the Pew survey. If you look at the chart columns 2 and 3 consistently account for 2/3 the total of respondents. Only a third of the respondents were willing to endorse/condemn outright (and a higher percentage outright endorsed the believabilty than condemned it).

quote:

---

Or, is today the day you stiffen your resolve to make words mean whatever you want them to mean to prove your absurd points?

---

posted April 11, 2008 02:58 PM            

Just above what I posted, you posted this.

quote:

---

Is today the day you realize that "All" doesn't equal "Most

---

posted April 11, 2008 03:14 PM            

The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.

Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism. They've started a runaway train and can't stop it now.

The Democratic base is at a fever pitch with visions of storm troopers listening to their phone calls and ruthlessly torturing innocent accountants at Guantanamo, where the average inmate has his own lawyer, his own prayer rug and is wondering what to do about that extra weight — known as the "Gitmo 20" — he's put on since being captured. They are oddly copacetic about actual storm troopers' daily harassment of actual citizens at airport security checkpoints. Liberals have no problem with government oppression as long as it's mandatory and applied equally to all Americans.

In a broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, NBC's Matt Lauer tried to nail down the Manhattan portion of his audience by aggressively questioning President Bush about the possible use of "waterboarding" against terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Lauer said ominously, "It's been reported that with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was what they call 'waterboarded.'"

At NBC, they apparently expected most Americans to react to this fact by exclaiming: They did WHAT to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Wait — are you sure about that? OK, that's it. I will never vote Republican again!

President Bush refused to discuss techniques used on terrorists, saying, "We don't want the enemy to adjust." But Americans "need to know," he said, "we're using techniques within the law to protect them."

While normal people would be happy if we were using cattle prods on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Lauer was testy about the possible use of waterboarding against him. "I don't want to let this 'within the law' issue slip," he said.

"I mean, if, in fact, there was waterboarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — and for the viewers, that's basically you strap someone to a board, and you make them feel as if they're going to drown. You put them under water. If that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why'd you have to go to a secret location around the world?"

In point of fact, we strap people to wooden boards and make them feel like they're drowning all the time in this country. Mostly at theme parks like Six Flags.

Bush again said he wasn't going to talk about techniques. But Lauer's relentless grilling was getting to him. If he'd been at Gitmo, at this point Bush would have demanded a lawyer, another copy of the Quran and a couple of chocolate eclairs.

Lauer continued to pester the president, demanding to know whether these "alternative techniques you use ... if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there's a blurring the lines of — between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"

Hey, I forget: When did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed use aggressive interrogation techniques against a known mass murderer in an effort to thwart another 9/11-style attack on thousands of innocent civilians?

There are few better examples of how out of touch liberals are. They go right to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and expect Americans to be outraged that he may have been waterboarded.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is believed to have played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the filmed beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a thwarted 2002 attack on a bank tower in Los Angeles, and Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 11 commercial airliners simultaneously. Oh, and he took home the coveted "world's craziest terrorist" prize at al-Qaida's end-of-season office party last year.

I think waterboarding should be a reward for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: OK, you've been good, Mohammed, we're only going to waterboard you today. Let's get you out of those cold electrodes and onto a nice, warm waterboard, OK?

posted April 11, 2008 03:17 PM            

quote:

---

If Pew had meant to say all or almost all that's what they would have said since one must assume the people at Pew are conversant in English. Instead they said all or most which totally blows your equally divided scale nonsense.

---

Think about what you're saying for a moment.

"All" and "Most" DO NOT mean the same thing...

...and yet they are used in a single category...

...so would you say that people who responded with "4" were saying that they believed "All," or would you say they were intending to mean that they believed "Most?"

People, as we're prone to do, heard the question, ["Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say."] and knew that this was a scale question just like the vast majority of ones they'd previously seen. On one side you have, [in the questions terms] "Believe almost nothing." On the other side, you have "Believe almost everything," except they worded it, "you can believe all or most." People understood that 4 was the most favorable opinion, 1 was the least favorable opinion, and 2 & 3 were variations of 1 & 4.

Why can't you understand such a simple thing?

quote:

---

Now acoustic stuff your passive/aggressive nonsense straight up your butt and drop this subject with me.

---

posted October 03, 2023 10:07 AM            

http://nypost.com/2023/09/07/ann-coulter-blasts-gigantic-***** -trump-after-he-slammed-her/

[URL=http://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-wants-trump-convicted-has-plan-punish-him-1817721]http://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-wants-trump-convicted-has-plan-punish-him-1817721[/UR L]

nypost.com/2023/09/07/ann-coulter-blasts-gigantic-***** -trump-after-he-slammed-her/