Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
igloo

WMD and the lost left by Ann Coulter

Recommended Posts

We Don't Care by Ann Coulter

June 4, 2003

SEETHING WITH RAGE and frustration at the success of the war in Iraq, liberals have started in with their female taunting about weapons of mass destruction. The way they carry on, you would think they had caught the Bush administration in some shocking mendacity. (You know how the left hates a liar.)

For the sake of their tiresome argument, let's stipulate that we will find no weapons of mass destruction – or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program.

Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What is liberals' point?

No one cares.

In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people.

The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.)

Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to hide!

But that wasn't liberals' position.

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.

But that wasn't the Bush administration's position.

Rather, it was that there were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein and none to keep him. When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours' notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Liberals kept saying that's too many reasons. The New York Times' leading hysteric, Frank Rich, complained: "We know Saddam Hussein is a thug and we want him gone. But the administration has never stuck to a single story in arguing the case for urgent pre-emptive action now." Since liberals never print retractions, they can say anything. What they said in the past is never admissible.

Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction – and with gusto – in order to argue against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory strikes, there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops would be hit with Saddam's chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire.

They said "all" we needed to do was disarm him. This would have required a military occupation of Iraq and a systematic inspection of the 1,000 or so known Iraqi weapons sites without interference from the Hussein regime. In other words, pretty much what we're doing right now.

Remember? That's why liberals were so smitten with the idea of relying on U.N. weapons inspectors. As their title indicates, "weapons inspectors" inspect weapons. They don't stop torture, abolish rape rooms, feed the people, topple Saddam's statues or impose democracy.

In January this year, The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof cited the sort of dismal CIA report that always turns up in the hands of New York Times reporters, warning that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." He said he opposed invading Iraq as a pure matter of the "costs and benefits" of an invasion, concluding we should not invade because there was "clearly a significant risk" that it would make America less safe.

In his native tongue, weaselese, Kristof claimed he would be gung-ho for war if only he were convinced we could "oust Saddam with minimal casualties and quickly establish a democratic Iraq." We've done that, and now he's blaming the Bush administration for his own idiotic predictions of disaster. Somehow, that's Bush's fault, too. Kristof says Bush manipulated evidence of weapons of mass destruction – an act of duplicity he calls "just as alarming" as a dictator who has weapons of mass destruction.

If Americans were lied to, they were lied to by liberals who warned we would be annihilated if we attacked Iraq. The left's leading intellectual light, Janeane Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war, saying: "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says, 'There will be up to a half a million people killed or wounded.'" Now they're testy because they fear Saddam may never have had even a sporting chance to unleash dastardly weapons against Americans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left's leading intellectual light, Janeane Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war, saying: "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says, 'There will be up to a half a million people killed or wounded.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by raver_mania

I really can't take any of her articles seriously...just too much "emotion" in them for me to trust any of it.

She does get emotional, but that is what makes her appealing...

But she often makes excellent points, but they get lost in the emotionalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

She does get emotional, but that is what makes her appealing...

But she often makes excellent points, but they get lost in the emotionalism

Where are you getting her articles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

She does get emotional, but that is what makes her appealing...

But she often makes excellent points, but they get lost in the emotionalism

she gets emotional for the weirdest reasons, a lot of her points are off base also. i am sure anyone with a right mind can put her in her place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

she gets emotional for the weirdest reasons, a lot of her points are off base also. i am sure anyone with a right mind can put her in her place.

She can definitely get flustered on shows, but to say anyone "can put her in her place" is a little ridiculous..

Irrespective if you agree with her views, she is highly intelligent.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

She can definitely get flustered on shows, but to say anyone "can put her in her place" is a little ridiculous..

Irrespective if you agree with her views, she is highly intelligent.....

i would have to disagree with the highly intelligent bit, but whatever floats your boat.....:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

i would have to disagree with the highly intelligent bit, but whatever floats your boat.....:rolleyes:

I wouldn't expect you to recognize intelligence....you really are a fool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The excessive emotion of normalnoises doesn't bother you when you defend some of the statements he makes, and most of the shit he says is way off base(ex. comparing the execution of terrorists to the gas chambers of nazi germany which killed mass amounts of women and childredn)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by skince55

The excessive emotion of normalnoises doesn't bother you when you defend some of the statements he makes, and most of the shit he says is way off base(ex. comparing the execution of terrorists to the gas chambers of nazi germany which killed mass amounts of women and childredn)

excellent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by skince55

The excessive emotion of normalnoises doesn't bother you when you defend some of the statements he makes, and most of the shit he says is way off base(ex. comparing the execution of terrorists to the gas chambers of nazi germany which killed mass amounts of women and childredn)

take it how you will. i don't care if he gets emotional. i usually look at the base of what he says anyways, as long as he can back up his words with something substantial, that's fine. but a great majority of people in here (no names, but i'm sure you know who you are :rolleyes: ) need to do the same thing, instead of talking smack.

and what's up with that name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
take it how you will. i don't care if he gets emotional. i usually look at the base of what he says anyways, as long as he can back up his words with something substantial, that's fine. but a great majority of people in here (no names, but i'm sure you know who you are ) need to do the same thing, instead of talking smack.

If you look at the base of what he says then you should not defend his position, but to each their own. For example the comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. Compare the Iraqi civilian death count to this;

"The total figure for the Jewish genocide, including shootings and the camps, was between 5.2 and 5.8 million, roughly half of Europe's Jewish population, the highest percentage of loss of any people in the war. About 5 million other victims perished at the hands of Nazi Germany. "(here is the site i got the information from if you are interested: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/camps.HTM)

Please tell me how the two are even comparable :confused:

And I'm sorry but the biggest name calling shit talker is normalnoises(from what I have seen this far, still new)

About the name, Why you don't like it?? For a short period of time my friends called me skince cause it rhymes with vince, and that happens to be the time when i was making my aim screename, so ever since i use that as my name. Happy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by skince55

If you look at the base of what he says then you should not defend his position, but to each their own. For example the comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. Compare the Iraqi civilian death count to this;

"The total figure for the Jewish genocide, including shootings and the camps, was between 5.2 and 5.8 million, roughly half of Europe's Jewish population, the highest percentage of loss of any people in the war. About 5 million other victims perished at the hands of Nazi Germany. "(here is the site i got the information from if you are interested: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/camps.HTM)

Please tell me how the two are even comparable :confused:

And I'm sorry but the biggest name calling shit talker is normalnoises(from what I have seen this far, still new)

Well done..

Especially: "If you look at the base of what he says then you should not defend his position,..."

But then again, that defines clueless Sassa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by skince55

If you look at the base of what he says then you should not defend his position, but to each their own. For example the comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. Compare the Iraqi civilian death count to this;

"The total figure for the Jewish genocide, including shootings and the camps, was between 5.2 and 5.8 million, roughly half of Europe's Jewish population, the highest percentage of loss of any people in the war. About 5 million other victims perished at the hands of Nazi Germany. "(here is the site i got the information from if you are interested: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/camps.HTM)

Please tell me how the two are even comparable :confused:

And I'm sorry but the biggest name calling shit talker is normalnoises(from what I have seen this far, still new)

About the name, Why you don't like it?? For a short period of time my friends called me skince cause it rhymes with vince, and that happens to be the time when i was making my aim screename, so ever since i use that as my name. Happy?

why is it dumb? because for you it's inconcievable? i don't think it's that far off. people always make the holoucast seem like that was the only kind of genocide to ever occur in history. that is only because the jewish lobby continuously has to market and advertise it every fucking chance they get. no wonder they gain so much sympathy and fear from people, no one would dare say anything against them, God forbid they would be labelled an anti-semitic, or even worse, a Nazi (which zionism is very close to anyways, they both preach the same bullshit).

it's not the numbers that he was probably referring to, but the treatment that both sides have gotten....:rolleyes: have a little common sense. besides, i'm sick of hearing about just the jews. countless millions of other people died in that war too, from americans, to brits, to polish, to czech, to homosexuals, to gypsies, to blacks and muslims, and so on.....why are they the only poor victims? why is it never mentioned that stalin killed FIVE TIMES the amount of people hitler did? or how about the other unnoticed genocides that have occured in nicaragua, vietnam, africa, the balkans? oh fucking please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

Well done..

Especially: "If you look at the base of what he says then you should not defend his position,..."

But then again, that defines clueless Sassa

you better watch your comments, i am really getting fed up with your crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sassa

you better watch your comments, i am really getting fed up with your crap.

:laugh: :laugh:

If i was you, I would watch my coments...your justification of those "nazi" statements set yet anotehr new low for you

What the fuck is wrong with you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why is it dumb? because for you it's inconcievable? i don't think it's that far off. people always make the holoucast seem like that was the only kind of genocide to ever occur in history. that is only because the jewish lobby continuously has to market and advertise it every fucking chance they get. no wonder they gain so much sympathy and fear from people, no one would dare say anything against them, God forbid they would be labelled an anti-semitic, or even worse, a Nazi (which zionism is very close to anyways, they both preach the same bullshit).

You have to be fucking Kidding me. We tried to remove a brutal dictator who tortured his people, supported terrorism and had a historty of trying to obtain WMD. In that process over 3000 innocent Iraqi's died, which that dictator purposely put in harms way. Nazi germany, Little different story here. They were trying to exterminate an entire race, sending them to gas chambers when they thought they were going to showers, lining them up in straight lines and putting a bullet to their heads to see how many can be killed with one bullet(Oh yea I forgot, we do that here in the United States too:laugh: )

You know what that I think of it youre right we are just like the nazi's , how could i not possibly be able to concieve how the two are similar. I am so closed minded:blown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by skince55

You have to be fucking Kidding me. We tried to remove a brutal dictator who tortured his people, supported terrorism and had a historty of trying to obtain WMD. In that process over 3000 innocent Iraqi's died, which that dictator purposely put in harms way. Nazi germany, Little different story here. They were trying to exterminate an entire race, sending them to gas chambers when they thought they were going to showers, lining them up in straight lines and putting a bullet to their heads to see how many can be killed with one bullet(Oh yea I forgot, we do that here in the United States too:laugh: )

You know what that I think of it youre right we are just like the nazi's , how could i not possibly be able to concieve how the two are similar. I am so closed minded:blown:

:blank:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by skince55

You have to be fucking Kidding me. We tried to remove a brutal dictator who tortured his people, supported terrorism and had a historty of trying to obtain WMD. In that process over 3000 innocent Iraqi's died, which that dictator purposely put in harms way. Nazi germany, Little different story here. They were trying to exterminate an entire race, sending them to gas chambers when they thought they were going to showers, lining them up in straight lines and putting a bullet to their heads to see how many can be killed with one bullet(Oh yea I forgot, we do that here in the United States too:laugh: )

You know what that I think of it youre right we are just like the nazi's , how could i not possibly be able to concieve how the two are similar. I am so closed minded:blown:

She is clueless and plain dumb....reason and common sense are foreign to her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

She is clueless and plain dumb....reason and common sense are foreign to her

if what you believe is considered to be reason and common sense, then i will be declared legally insane :rolleyes:

get off your high horse, you honestly don't know shit. and i wish you'd stop jacking these threads with your bullshit insulting. stick to the topic at hand and discuss it like a normal, respectful human being. or is that even too much to ask from you....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::blown::idea::blank:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×