Reply With Quote
Who takes anything she says seriously anymore?
It's like she has a bad case of political Teret's syndrome.
Ann Coulter: Murtha and His Ilk are "Gutless Traitors"
By E&P Staff
Media InfoNEW YORK- When a Republican congresswoman from Ohio suggested on the floor of the House that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) was a coward for calling for the beginnings of a U.S. pullout in Iraq, she was roundly criticized by members of her own party, and had to retract her statement. When Vice President Cheney seemed to slam dissent on the war, President Bush said that war critics should at least be heard.
But columnist Ann Coulter is apparently having none of it.
Her latest column rips war critics such as Murtha as "traitors." Here are some highlights:
"It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal – or 'redeployment,' as liberals pointlessly distinguish – will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives....
...
"They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."
Time to send old Annie to Iraq
Who takes anything she says seriously anymore?
It's like she has a bad case of political Teret's syndrome.
That just needs to shut-up and go to an all-you-can eat buffet.
Skank.
it's a free country she can she what she wants... can't she... lol...
That's too far. Coulter needs a good spanking...
I think the vote result was enough to put it on paper and show that we ain't pulling out. No need to insult him. Let him loose his argument like a gentleman.
But I thought free speech was goo...no? Just shut up? Okay.
Military service is no teflon protection from cowardice on principles. If JOhn Murtha did cave in because of public polling and not principle, then he has no spine. I wish Democrats would stop sac riding veterans only when veterans are anti war.
I wish republicans would stop sac riding those who have never served.
"It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal – or 'redeployment,' as liberals pointlessly distinguish – will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives...."
Leaving out the "traitor" remarks....Is that not a true statement?
The insurgents will be there as long as the invaders/occupiers are there, at least.
The insurgents outnumber, out-crazy, and will outlast the occupiers (just like VN).
The insurgents have more than enough encouragement already, no matter what war dissenters do. If all the war dissenters shut up by midnight tonight, there would be no difference in the already sufficient sefl-encouragement in the insurgents.
The Repub war is really, really tough for the military, but the blame for that tough doesn't lie with war dissenters, but completely, exclusively with the phony war starters and horrendoulsly bad war managers, the Repubs.
As ordered by the WH, even the US generals are talking about "drawing down", "as the generals pointlessly distinguish", forces next year. Anybody who claims the generals alone decide what happens in Iraq is stupid. The generals do whatever they are told to by the WH, and try to do it with whatever ty levels of resources Rummy provides. The US miliatry is whipsawn by US politics (2006 elelection, which is much more important to the Repubs than Iraq) and Iraqi politics (parliamentary elections, Kurd/Shiite/Sunni conflics and eventual civil war).
The Repub victory is not inevitable. Failure is much more likely, due to the insufficient, on-the-cheap, no-domestic-sacrifice levels of military resources the WH has provided. Shinsheki was right, 400K, or more (600K to match Balkans-level resources), WH/Rummy were totally wrong.
2.5 years of 150K US military have been insufficient to provide public security. There's no way the Iraqis alone, even with the US as backup (whatever that means) will be able to do better.
Last edited by boutons; 11-28-2005 at 11:16 AM.
But what militarily are the "insurgents" accomplishing?
They lose FAR more solidiers (and ground) than the American forces.
They cannot hope to win this war in any traditional sense. If there were no dissent coming from America, and no indication that the American people/policitians were tiring of the effort, what purpose would there be in continuing their insignificant suicide & ied missions?
It seems they are doing what they do simply to make us tire of the effort - to make us quit first. If it were obvious we weren't going to quit, wouldn't they?
I think Vietnam taught the world a lesson about the U.S. - that we are basically wimps. Just don't quit, no matter how bad you get your asses handed to you - because we will.
I don't think there are enough forces to provide "public security" in Iraq. If you have people willing to strap bombs to themselves, who look like everybody else, and blow themselves up; there simply is no way to stop that. The people doing it have to see that there is not point in it. As long as the U.S. is hand-wringing (and talking about surrendering) and CNN is covering it all, that ain't gonna happen. It's having the desired effect.
It's all going according to the "how to beat America" script. GW & the WH misjudged the continuity of support they would get to stay the course - not enough tie in to 9/11, and no WMD are major components of that; but more than that is time - we just simply tire of the thing. This will be shown clearly when after we pull out of Iraq, the Sheehans and their ilk turn their focus on Afghanistan & begin harping on a withdrawal from that theater as well.
"insurgents" accomplishing?
They don't have to accomplish much or anything. That's the "out-crazy" part about the insurgents. I read where only 10% or less of the insurgents are non-Iraqis, and judging from the slaughter occurring mainly to Shiites, it must be the Iraqi Sunnis doing the insurging. Who knows for sure who the insurgents are and who knows what their objectives are? Who and Why is less imporant than "they" are continuing the insurgency, effectively, in spite of taking supposedly heavy casualties.
I don't think the US military was or is weak or wimpy after VN or after Repub Iraq war, and no shame on US military. (I NEVER understood the US public's anger and treatment of VN vets.)
But the US public need to be shown:
that progress is being made (NO falloff in Iraqi violence, against a much smaller opponent, after 2.5 years),
that the progress being made is at a cost the US public is willing to make, and finally
that the objective(s) are clearly defined (the clearly defined immediate WMD threat to USA is now seen to have been total bull ) and
and an exit/endpoint defined.
The reason that the Repubs didn't put "install democracy and freedom in Iraq" as their primary justification for invading Iraq was that they knew the US public knows that would have been, and still is, too damn nebulous, too uncertain of definite success on any predicted schedule. So the Repub lied about WMD and other BS.
The probable failure of US in Iraq will only prove how impotent the US is, again, in imposing its will by force on foreign countries, along with a whole list of negatives that apply to the US as result of the Repub Iraq bull .
Maybe the US, after VN and Iraq, should get out of that business?
Only if you believe it to be true. To me, no it is not.
There are other factors besides the number of troops we have in Iraq that are delaying our inevitable victory and costing more American lives.
And conservatives also, as you say, refer to it as "redeployment". It is not a liberal use of the word.
I don't think I get your post.
Do you believe that a congressman in this country calling for troop withdrawals emboldens the insurgents in Iraq?
No I do not. Of course the argument is there because I'm sure there are some insurgents who may feel "emboldened" by such statements but that should NOT be a reason not to speak out.
You don't think statments such as, "Bring 'em on!", emboldens the insurgents?
My point is that the insurgents can and will use any means to further their cause but it doesn't mean we should just "stay the course" because we don't want "emolden" the insurgents.
But hey, that is just me.
Do you think it is possible for a country comprised primarily of followers of Islam can be democratic?
What I find ironic about Iraqi war s is that from the begining dumbya said we face an 'army-less foe'. We invaded Iraq for (pick your reason) and now we are fed that we are going to stay the course by neocons everywhere. What is the course? If we cannot kill all of the terrorists then at what number do we withdraw our troops? when do we say is enough? If we are not sure who we are fighting then how will we know if we have won?The administration has said that they want to give Iraq a chance to fend for itself and if after we leave they fall into chaos or civil war then we can at least look back and say dumbya tried. Well then Murtha was correct in stating the obvious. We accomplished over throwing Saddam and now we have become an occupying force. Our troops are sitting ducks now. Wouldn't it be fair to say that terrorists will simply move away for now and then move back into Iraq when we do leave? Then what? Do we re-invade? I know for the war s they will say "then we must stay in Iraq" until when? We have no clear course yet we are fed " Stay the course" crap
"Do you think it is possible for a country comprised primarily of followers of Islam can be democratic?"
"followers of Islam" is a generalization. There are tons of Muslims, some middling, some devout, that get along just fine with democracy in the USA. I've heard the Koran can be interpreted so that the Muslim religion is not an hetical to democracy, nor to women.
But not all Muslims intrepret the Koran that way, just as not all Christian interpret Genesis as literally true and as invalidating science and rationalism.
Turkey is secular, recently democratic government (struggling, just like the US democracy in the 19th century) and predominantly Muslim. Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh are other examples.
It's when the Muslim clerics prey on and preach to ignorant, poor Muslims, they way "Christian" (TV) clerics prey on poor, ignorant Christians that the Muslim religion, like the creationisth/ID "religion" becomes inhuman and intolerant.
So, "yes" is your answer?
No terrorists force could overthrow a real government with a real military. I think the Administration's position (realistic or not) is that once the Iraqi govt. and military are self-sustaining, and can defend themselves, we can leave.
"yes" is your answer?
I gave examples of predominantly Muslim countries with democratic governments, can't you see that is a factually based YES!
This is all big gamble that bush's administration is taking. There is no definable(sp?) foe nor victorius outcome. We are left with "We will leave when we win". No one can define 'win' yet when A US Congressman says we have done enough and we need to start bringing our guys home he is attacked. He is attacked by the same people who cannot define 'win'.
It is pretty apparent that withdrawing now would leave Iraq in a state of civil war (might not change in the forseeable future, but nontheless, leaving now would mean we accept that outcome). The children of those untold thousands killed in that war, will hate us with as much vigor (and rightfully so) than any do now. That will leave us with another band of Jihadists (these definitely of our own creation) a generation from now.
If that is the case, we are what they say we are - people who create a mess, then run away.
BTW. I think that is ( ulatively) EXACTLY what we are, and that is what is going to happen.
Also, in this country we talk about the Democrats, or the Republicans or the Bush administration or the Clinton administration...to the rest of the world, we are simply "Americans".
If one president starts a war, and then another pulls us out prematurely....tomatoe, tomata.
"we are simply "Americans".
bull . While there is almost no news about foreign countries in the US, there is quite a bit of US news available in European countries.
Lots of Europeans know that the Repub war is a war exclusively by the Repug govt, and not by 300M Americans, that the US public votes in comparatively low numbers, about 50% of eligible voters, and only about 50% of them voted for dubya (and not 100% of those 25% dubya voters were/are pro-war), that there is majority of US public now AGAINST the war, etc, etc.
Common error to project your onn over-simplified, black/white, us/them ignorance and crudeness onto other countries, or even onto your fellow countrymen.
In most European countries, the majority of citizens are as disaffected by their political class as we are in the USA. And many major European elections are decided within a few percent of 50/50, just like in the US.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
