Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/9/2003 12:02:03 PM EDT
[url=www.sierratimes.com/03/06/09/article_jj.htm]Some of Us DO Care: A Response to Ann Coulter[/url] By J.J. Johnson Many conservatives may be making a grave political mistake as the 2004 election grows closer. Ann Coulter, like many others, has adopted the tactics of the previous administration by defending President Bush using comparisons, half-truths, and that tired-old weapon - "blame the other guys." As before, if these 'spin' policies are not looked into, Bush the son may follow the electoral path of his father. Before we dive into how G.W may regrettably follow in daddy's footsteps, let me first explain that this author would choose George W. Bush again over any of the democrats in the field today. I am clearly NOT a liberal. This does not mean that I, or any other conservative, should be denied the right to make note of broken promises, and an inconsistency of statements regarding foreign and domestic issues. And if this conservative can see them, don't think the liberals won't use it against him in the next election. Like Father After that 'stunning victory' in Gulf War 1, President George "Read My Lips - No New Taxes" Bush stopped listening to his political base and decided to go against that campaign pledge and a key part of the GOP platform. I remember those days. Those republicans who cried "this is a real bad idea" were told to sit down, shut up, go sit in the corner, and thank God Bush is not a liberal. This happened about the same time some unknown Arkansas Governor began to appear on the national scene. The result was a campaign that included a partial GOP defection to a third party, followed by 8 years of Hillary Clinton's husband. Like Son Ironic, as the above mentioned female is now being plastered all over the airwaves as God's gift to carpetbaggers everywhere, the Bush and Blair administrations are now dodging questions about those Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that seemed to have vanished. As well they should, but here's where the conservatives are taking that ride on the Clinton Spin Highway. In her article "We Don't Care", Coulter wrote: "...Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons - so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them..." She then closed the deal by stating: "..But that wasn't the Bush administration's position." This reminds me of the phrase. "Tell the people a (fill in the blank) long enough and they'll start to believe it. In the past, whenever the Clinton spin machine went to work, we conservatives could easily fire back with some damming quote made by the President himself. Such is the case here - in spades. A excerpt from Bush's 2003 State of the Union Speech: "..It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulin toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them..." George W. Bush before Congress - Jan 28, 2003 Bush then went on to say: "... We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him..." Hence, the Ann Coulters of the world will have trouble selling the line of "that wasn't the Bush administration's position. " unless he was reading someone's else's State of the Union speech. Fact is, that was the Bush position about Iraq in the days leading up to this latest war. Things like 'liberation' and democratization came late in the game, only when too many began to question the WMD angle. And it isn't a matter of IF Saddam had them, he MIGHT have had them, or we KNEW he had them. I don't mean to knock people from their psychosis, but possession of WMD's doesn't justify war, unless this nation would prefer to be at war with numerous countries at the same time, including some of our 'allies'. I have preached this before. Bush would have fared better pushing an "Saddam has direct ties to 9/11" angle. His administration would not have to deal with all these naggin WMD questions, and he probably would have gotten stronger support both at home and abroad. As a result, the next time our government says "nation 'x' should get rid of their WMD's else we'll invade", we'll have a credibility factor of about zero. And if nation 'x' or 'y' does have those gawd awful WMD's, the best way to avoid a U.S. led invasion is to make constant threats to unleash their use on American soil if their demands are not met. North Korea is doing a pretty good job at writing the book on this doctrine. If I were a democrat running a presidential election, I'd smile whenever Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz opened his mouth.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 12:02:58 PM EDT
(continued) But no, let us "Clintonize" the Bush Administration by telling everyone to lay off the current president because, after all, "He's not Clinton". Either conservatives quickly forgot about 8 years of constantly hearing 'During the 12 years of Regan-Bush...' or else they've chosen to adopt this Clinton strategy as their own. While many conservatives justifiably complained about the erosion of constitutional rights during the previous administration, they seem to ignore it when it happens with this administration. Those who may criticize are not all 'liberal Bush-haters', unpatriotic, or 'anti-American'. (NOTE" This tactic was used in the previous administration as well - back then it was called 'anti-goverment'). Many are part of that core constituency that was ignored the last time a republican president ran for reelection, and are making their grievances known based on principle - not partisanship. And it's not just Iraq either. The pro-gun crowd (solidly behind Bush during the last election) find themselves now scratching their heads over the pending renewal of the semi-auto ban. And since when did the 'liberation' of a nation include forcibly removing the people's own means of personal defense? Can Americans look forward to such a 'liberation' in their own country soon? Land Rights Activists (who reside in a large chunk of those red areas) are also taking it on the chin by half-measures concerning roadless initiatives, and the consistent deployment of predator animals into a 'prey' rich environment, putting the lives of both humans and livestock at risk. Even fiscal conservatives are crying foul over a tax cut which included no cuts in federal spending, and did include a program that hands out checks to people that don't even pay taxes. During Bush the Elder reign, we called this 'welfare'. But we are told by Fox News, Ann Coulters, et al: "sit down, shut up, and thank God he's not Clinton." So here's a frightening scenario for all you conservatives out there: It's January 20, 2005 and someone OTHER than George W. Bush is taking the oath of office. How wonderful will that "Patriot Act" look then? How happy will you be that Attorney General John Ashcroft requested the expanded federal powers remain permanent? How about the "Total Awareness Initiative"? That's right - Image a Hillary Clinton taking the oath of office with all these measures still in affect. You saw what her husband did during his tenure, and word has it she's got more 'testosterone' than the former president. Tell me you'll never worry about these federal powers being turned on someone's 'political enemies', or maybe that 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. Yes, the thoughts in your head should be equated to 'nightmares' right now. And if you say it can't happen, go talk to Bush's father. All the more reason that the GOP needs to stop acting like the last administration as well has his father's administration, and do something that has proven successful - start listening to the people who actually elected G. W. Bush president. In fairness to Bush, this author gives him high praise for waging a too-long-in-waiting war against terrorism. And I can't fault him for the economy since September 11, 2001 is having a long lasting effect. But I can and will fault him and any other administration if a war against terrorism suddenly puts all Americans in its crosshairs. We are supposed to be fighting for our freedom against the Jihad - not Washington. And like his father, history has proven republican voters WILL take issue with Bush the younger for not keeping his word on issues and principles. When it comes to Election 2004, the GOP should wake up, sober up, and take a good look in the mirror. Bush is president because of a majority of electors - not votes; and that was against a weak democratic candidate. Getting reelected means not losing any of those votes, and perhaps gaining a few. But that won't happen if neo-conservatives keep giving the democrats more and more 'read my lips' issues to run against. P.S. And before the world goes racing after Hilliary's new book, I have a better suggestion for a book purchase: "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton" by Barbara Olson - who perished on American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 12:49:40 PM EDT
Note to JJJ: Ann Coulter is not George Bush. Bush is still standing by his assertion that Saddam had WMD. He must have, since the UN had accounted for it, but Saddam had not given proof he had destroyed the toxins. So now we're in Iraq, and we can't find any trace of these weapons. This has prompted the usual suspects and Bush-haters to start hysterically accusing Bush of lying about the existence of the weapons to justify the war. You see, he's President of the United States! He knows exactly the current inventory of Iraq's arsenals, down to the last anthrax spore! The CIA evidence showed Saddam had completely disarmed, he just lied to all his allies, the American people, and the UN so he could get oil contracts! Never mind that most liberals and opponents of the president were rather blase whether Saddam had the weapons or not. "So what if he has them? Doesn't mean he'll give them to terrorists!" They themselves conceded he probably possessed these weapons, which just reinforced their position that we not invade "He didn't use WMD in 1991, but this time will be different! He'll use everything he has and thousands of Americans will die!" I believe I heard Ted Kennedy say that on C-Span in september 2002. Hans Blix said that a lot of anthrax that Iraq declared was not accounted for in his report to the UN in 2003. The world and the left wanted the inspections to continue as they had for a decade. The feeling of the UN was, "We want to keep Saddam Hussein and his regime in power, and we'll do everything we can to make sure that happens. We'll just do the nicey-nicey UN process to disarm him, and the Americans will leave him and other regimes like his alone, and we can go on pretending 9/11 never happened and the UN can get back to what it does best: enabling genocides." Leftists much preferred the old status quo as well, with Saddam diverting Iraq's wealth into the pockets of himself and his cronies, and torturing or killing anyone who thought that was somehow unjust. In the left's eyes, that situation was much better than ShrubCo "seizing" the oil and awarding Halliburton contracts to modernize the Iraqi oil infrastructure. Because you see, Bush is rich, mean and evil. But that's all neither here nor there. Where's the anthrax and gas? We know that Saddam did possess the weapons a decade ago. Could it be he destroyed everything, but just didn't tell us? Why in god's name would he do that? To have the deterrent threat of WMD without actually breaking the law? To make him look like a defiant tough guy to the Arabs? Who knows? All I am saying is that the world accepted, a priori, that Iraq possessed WMD before March 2003 and that he needed to be disarmed. The controversy was about how it was to be done: UN inspections (which entailed constant inspections and an embargo with an enormous enduring human cost) or regime change conducted unilaterally in a lightning quick war with neglible civilian casualties. And for Bush stabbing us in the back on assault rifles, he made his position known on this during the 2000 election. If you didn't know that Bush assumed the politically safe position against assault rifles, you weren't paying attention.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 12:53:02 PM EDT
My saltshaker is getting empty...
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 1:19:34 PM EDT
hmmm....Ann Coulter is good at exposing the hipocrasy of the left. She looks good and has quick wits. I don't understand why many liberals weren't for Gulf War II. Afterall, the original definition of 'liberal' was fighting and overcoming oppression and tyrany. Now it means just the opposite. Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US. Killing him as soon as possible was the best thing to do.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 1:20:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2003 1:25:57 PM EDT by Zaphod]
Well said, Raven.... Edited to add: So Imbroglio, what do YOU think, or is this just another of your drive-by I-hate-Republicans posts?
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 2:46:45 PM EDT
Imbro, go away. Please.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 3:12:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 3:16:28 PM EDT
if i wanted to read mindless drivel, i would visit DU [:K]
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 3:21:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunbert: Imbro, go away. Please.
View Quote
You can be assured he won't post again. He's a thread gigolo, in once and gone.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 3:29:33 PM EDT
I love seeing the rationalizations of neo-cons. It encourages me that they have been and are slowly embracing the policies and tactics of the democrat party.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 3:35:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2003 4:21:40 PM EDT by nightstalker]
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: I love seeing the rationalizations of neo-cons. It encourages me that they have been and are slowly embracing the policies and tactics of the democrat party.
View Quote
WHY?... as in why does it encourage you? You're not an anarchist are you? Larry Elder registered as a Republican. Rumour he may run against Boxer in CA Senate race.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 4:04:40 PM EDT
Why don't we have an icon for a long loud sigh?
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 4:18:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: I love seeing the rationalizations of neo-cons. It encourages me that they have been and are slowly embracing the policies and tactics of the democrat party.
View Quote
Heh, heh. It's because neo's have the same principles as the dems. Look at the AWB discussions, as an example. These clowns will still vote republocrat, even [s]if[/s] when it's reauthorized!!
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 4:23:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: I love seeing the rationalizations of neo-cons. It encourages me that they have been and are slowly embracing the policies and tactics of the democrat party.
View Quote
And how do you rationalize your own decision to side with the liberals and anti-American Euroweeny leftists? You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas, little man.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 5:09:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: I love seeing the rationalizations of neo-cons. It encourages me that they have been and are slowly embracing the policies and tactics of the democrat party.
View Quote
Heh, heh. It's because neo's have the same principles as the dems. Look at the AWB discussions, as an example. These clowns will still vote republocrat, even [s]if[/s] when it's reauthorized!!
View Quote
"Even if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq, "there is no doubt ... that if [Saddam Hussein] had been left alone, he would have continued to try to develop these weapons," said Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona last week. I guess he and Lugar are neocons? I love name-calling, it rivals analogies in wasted energy.
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 5:22:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Thomas_A_Anderson: Why don't we have an icon for a long loud sigh?
View Quote
Because that would give Imbroglio the chance to thieve even more oxygen than he already does...
Link Posted: 6/9/2003 5:24:32 PM EDT
Ann Coulter? I'd hit it!
Top Top