Post #95
Subject: Ann Coulter fights the War!
… from “’Hardball’ with Chris Matthews,” Tuesday, June 26, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MATTHEWS: Here‘s a question e-mailed to us from James Campbell from Fort Story, Virginia. “Why do you and many other conservatives preach and demand that we stay in Iraq as long as it takes? Why not lead by example and go to your local recruiting office or perhaps send one of your loved ones as a good sergeant? P.S., in case you didn‘t know, the Army has increased the enlistment age to 42.”
COULTER: For one thing, I would like our troops to win, so no, I don‘t think me being over there holding a tiny little gun is going to help.
MATTHEWS: You‘re not Private Benjamin, eh?
COULTER: And point two, I mean, all of this taunting about, Oh, why don‘t you sign up—I don‘t think Democrats want to go down that line. Overwhelmingly, the troops are right-wingers who support the views of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and that goes for military veterans, as well, even the older ones, who tend to get more liberal as they head towards Social Security.
[Um, what was the answer? Again, Ann, why not sign up? I’m sure that Jenna Bush would like some company! :p George W. Bush keeps asking for “sacrifice.” Who is he asking? C’mon, Ann, a little – how about helping Laura Bush tend that Victory Garden? Candy striping at Walter Reed? It’s called “Put up or shut up!”]
COULTER: I don‘t think we even need more troops. I think we need to be less worried about civilian casualties. I mean, are the terrorists—are Islamic terrorists a more frightening enemy than the Nazis war machine? I don‘t think so. Fanatics can be stopped. Japanese kamikaze bombers—you can stop them by bombing their society. We killed more people in two nights over Hamburg than we have in the entire course of the Iraq war.
MATTHEWS: Who should we bomb in Iraq?
COULTER: The insurgent forces. I mean, we did in Afghanistan last week hit Taliban. And what do we hear in “The New York Times”? Amnesty is crying because some civilians were hit. Well, that happens in a war, and I‘d rather have their civilians die than our civilians die!
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that we win the war on terrorism by killing lots of Arabs on international television? Do you think it helps the case?
COULTER: I don‘t know if it needs to be on international television.
MATTHEWS: Well, it is.
COULTER: I don‘t think it makes a difference. Look, I thought you were saying that was, like, one of the advantages. I don‘t think it needs to be on international television. But yes, you can destroy the fighting spirit of fanatics. We‘ve done it before. We know how to do it. And it‘s not by fighting a clean little hygienic war.
MATTHEWS: What do we do with teenagers now, who are, say, 15 years old now, who want to grow up to be terrorists? How do we stop them from growing up to be terrorists? How do we win the war against terrorism, in other words?
COULTER: I think I‘ve just said it. You cannot fight a clean, hygienic work. I mean, I think we either have to get rid of this secular religion of FDR, or we have to get rid of the idea of a hygienic war because that was not a clean, hygienic war, World War Two. We killed a lot of civilians, and we crushed the Nazi war machine. And the idea that Nazism, which was tied to a civilized culture, was less of a threat than the Koran, tied to a Stone Age culture, I think is preposterous! If we want to win this war, we absolutely could. And I think we‘ve been too nice so far.
MATTHEWS: Well, the Nazis—we defeated them rather well by going into Berlin, and certainly, the U.S. Army and the Soviet army did that job. Right now, we face an Islamic world of about a billion people. We face an Arab world of over 300 million people. We don‘t just face on country, we face a people. How do we convince them, the people who are open-minded about it, not to join the terrorists? How we do it?
COULTER: You destroy the will of fanatics. And it doesn‘t matter how broad it is, it can be destroyed. And yes, this is a trickier war because it‘s spread out. It‘s not just one country. ... we need to attack. But a lot of the things that we need to do, such as listening to terrorists in this country with—you know, on al Zarqawi‘s speed dial, we have liberals in this country screaming bloody murder about how we treat terrorists captured who are at Guantanamo, whether—whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being water-boarded? … If this is a country that is worried about that—and I don‘t think it is—then we may as well give up right now.
MATTHEWS: Do you worry that killing civilians, even accidentally as part of collateral damage or by the way things happen in war, friendly fire that that‘s going to encourage more young people to become...
COULTER: No.
MATTHEWS: ... enemies of the United States?
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no!
MATTHEWS: Why not?
COULTER: No! No. Because you are destroying the society that has produced these monsters. And you win by killing the other side and not allowing your side to be killed. Withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. We could definitely fight it a little bit harder. I mean, I understand why Rumsfeld wanted to have a small footprint. It is a little bit different since it wasn‘t a country attacking us, it is this ideology that has spread throughout the Middle East. Yes, that makes it a lot trickier. But the small footprint didn‘t really work. Americans are getting fed up. Democracies don‘t like to go to war, so we‘re going to have to wrap it up quickly and destroy the fighting spirit of the fanatics.
MATTHEWS: We‘ve been in this war, as you know, since ‘03. How many years do you think this president or any president can prosecute a war of this kind with the American people‘s support?
COULTER: Well, I mean, what‘s the alternative?
[Um, a withdrawal. Let us learn that our military is not the answer to every problem. Let us save what is left of our military and use it on missions appropriate to the military: Hunting down and destroying terrorists training camps and toppling the governments that harbor them. Let us be prepared to go back into Iraq if we have to.]
MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking a political question. How long can he stay in the field with this war? How long can he keep it up?
COULTER: I think—I don‘t—I do not get the sense that—your question—a long time because I do not think the country is burning with anti-war fervor. Except on your show,
MATTHEWS: Are you concerned that come September, when we have this report from General Petraeus out of the field in Iraq on how we‘re doing, that if it‘s not a conclusively positive report, that a lot of people like Susan Collins and Olympia Snow and John Sununu, Eastern Republicans, are going to split from the president? Are you concerned?
COULTER: I‘m not really one to add up votes or figure out who‘s going where or who‘s going to be voted out of office and become a former senator. I know Bush is going to become a former president. There‘s going to be a shakeup, and I hope it doesn‘t take another terrorist attack for Americans to realize the war on terrorism isn‘t going away just by saying, Oh, it‘s just a bumper sticker. They‘re still coming at us!
[Yes, they are. Even if we succeeded in turning Iraq into the 51st state or killing every Iraqi, would that translate into a “win” in the War on Terror? Do we need to swing bigger or smarter?]
Friday, July 27, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Post #94
Subject: Deluded or dishonorable?
Ah yes – that is the question. Once again, neo-cons are saying “The surge is working,” “The light is at the end of the tunnel,” “One more push” – pick your favorite Vietnam-era cliché. :p
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer
… from “Washington vs. The Surge,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, July 13, 2007:
“WASHINGTON -- Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, … the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq. … The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug."
Um, some Republicans have not “lost heart” but realize that playing an endless game of “Whack-A-Mole” is not in America’s interests.
“… Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial level with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy. … The costs are heartbreakingly high -- increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. … In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al Qaeda.”
Um, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not “the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost” – that is the Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden. Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view that George W. Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
To use the terms that Charles used in his column – ”Deluded or dishonorable” (which I used for this column, by the way) – it is deluded not to recognize the differences in our enemies. And it is dishonorable to continue to support what is so obviously a mistake just because you cannot admit you supported mistake. Why place your interests above America’s interests?
Subject: Deluded or dishonorable?
Ah yes – that is the question. Once again, neo-cons are saying “The surge is working,” “The light is at the end of the tunnel,” “One more push” – pick your favorite Vietnam-era cliché. :p
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer
… from “Washington vs. The Surge,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, July 13, 2007:
“WASHINGTON -- Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, … the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq. … The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug."
Um, some Republicans have not “lost heart” but realize that playing an endless game of “Whack-A-Mole” is not in America’s interests.
“… Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial level with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy. … The costs are heartbreakingly high -- increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. … In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost -- al Qaeda.”
Um, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not “the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost” – that is the Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden. Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view that George W. Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
To use the terms that Charles used in his column – ”Deluded or dishonorable” (which I used for this column, by the way) – it is deluded not to recognize the differences in our enemies. And it is dishonorable to continue to support what is so obviously a mistake just because you cannot admit you supported mistake. Why place your interests above America’s interests?
Friday, July 13, 2007
Post #93
Subject: Hot for Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8
Taryn Southern, the girl who is Hot for Hillary, has a MySpace, http://www.myspace.com/tarynsouthern and a blog, http://hott4hill.blogspot.com/ and an official 'site, http://www.taryn-southern.com/ ....
Subject: Hot for Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8
Taryn Southern, the girl who is Hot for Hillary, has a MySpace, http://www.myspace.com/tarynsouthern and a blog, http://hott4hill.blogspot.com/ and an official 'site, http://www.taryn-southern.com/ ....
Friday, July 06, 2007
Post #92
Subject: The sad tale of the rule of law and “Scooter” Libby
I am disappointed that George W. Bush “protected” his “friend” – not surprised, just disappointed. And that is what is sad.
Bush had a chance to stand for the rule of law, the idea that no man is above the law, the founding principle that this is a nation of laws not men. NO – he said that the penalty imposed by a Republican judge was “excessive.”
“Excessive!?!” Libby has already paid his debt to society, his $250,000 fine. I would have to sell my house, my car and my first born to BEGIN to pay that! :p
But Libby will have a hard time finding work, right? I mean, he is disgraced, right? I bet that there is already a set at Fox Studios for “The ‘Scooter’ Libby Show!” :p
Before the trial started, all I heard was “30 years;” after the trial, “10 years.” So, I thought 30 months was pretty Damn lenient – especially compared to what perjury and obstruction of justice will usually get ya.
Aaahhh – Bill Clinton did it! Despite Bush’s promise to restore honesty and integrity to the White House – that video clip is on YouTube, a favorite defense of Bush is that Clinton was involved with “controversial” clemency. That defense does not fly because Clinton never pardoned anybody who was being investigated for illegal activities within the White House. And that is the rub.
George W. Bush – a man of honor, integrity, high moral standards – your moral compass is broken! You violated your own DOJ guidelines and your claims to be “better” than Bill Clinton in deciding clemency. Why?
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Post #91
Subject: Happy B’Day!
In Post #1 of this blog, I offered responses and additions to the column, “Is defeat now an option?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ .
Pat said, “ We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
Yes, I said, we have three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
A year later, and how do things look now?
I am more convinced than ever that the Iraq War is not winnable – no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion. In my Post #88, I quoted Pat Buchanan, “We‘ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq. At the end of World War II, we had four million in Western Europe. We had 12 million under arms. We got an Army of 500,000 people. We do not have the ability to build a nation and deal with an guerrilla insurgency of the kind we confront with the armed forces we confront right now. We just don‘t have it!” Nor do we have the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
But even that will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not.
So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
Success – that’s what we want. The ultimate irony is that a withdrawal – or accepting defeat, as I’m sure neo-cons will say – is our best chance for success. Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war. We must not leave chaos behind. We must stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from London -- :p -- uh, Afghanistan.
Surging… again is nothing short of murderous. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.
Subject: Happy B’Day!
In Post #1 of this blog, I offered responses and additions to the column, “Is defeat now an option?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ .
Pat said, “ We may be at a crossroads in both Iran and Afghanistan, where he has three choices: Ratchet up the U.S. troop investment to stave off defeat. Endure in what appears to be another "no-win war." Cut America's losses and get out, risking strategic disaster.
Yes, I said, we have three options
1. Win the war. I opposed the diversion into Iraq to begin with, but it is/was winnable. Bush has lost it and probably cannot win it at this point.
2. Stay the course. More lying, more dying as Bush prays for a miracle.
3. Withdrawal. I personally favor #1, but, as that option gets farther and farther away, I favor #3. I find #2 to be morally reprehensible.
A year later, and how do things look now?
I am more convinced than ever that the Iraq War is not winnable – no matter how much money, no matter how many lives, no matter how many years, we will leave… as occupiers, not democracy’s champion. In my Post #88, I quoted Pat Buchanan, “We‘ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq. At the end of World War II, we had four million in Western Europe. We had 12 million under arms. We got an Army of 500,000 people. We do not have the ability to build a nation and deal with an guerrilla insurgency of the kind we confront with the armed forces we confront right now. We just don‘t have it!” Nor do we have the leadership required to ask us for what is so obviously necessary – an open-ended commitment… to turn Iraq into the 51st state!
But even that will not be enough. We need to address the causes of terrorism. In my Post #25, I said. “The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm.” If we did turn Iraq into the 51st state, will that calm Osama? Of course not.
So, a “win” in Iraq – at a cost way beyond anything our “leaders” have even dreamed of – does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
Success – that’s what we want. The ultimate irony is that a withdrawal – or accepting defeat, as I’m sure neo-cons will say – is our best chance for success. Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war. We must not leave chaos behind. We must stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from London -- :p -- uh, Afghanistan.
Surging… again is nothing short of murderous. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)