Ann Coulter Revisited....

I know! I know!

 

So, how'd it go, hardsheller? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm struggling. I find that she writes like she talks - without breathing!

 

Oxygen deprivation might explain a lot of things about her writing.

 

Have you actually read the book Treason?
</font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Didn't even have her book in mind. I was talking about the occasions I have heard her speak on TV.

This we all know. There is no evidence available to conclude that Bush "lied", period. Could he have been lying? Of course. But if he was, it was a stupid act by the political operatives that surround him... and they aren't stupid people. No way would Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, et al. fail to calculate that such a lie would be caught and that its discovery would be politically costly.

BTW, my reading time and $$$ are almost exclusively directed toward Christian books.

 

In my opinion, Bush was doing what he apparently does a lot. He went with his "gut instinct", which told him that Saddam had WMD threatening the US.

He lied about knowing they existed. But his style is to reject any reality that doesn't fit his style.

As to his advisors contradicting him, the body count of former advisors who did that is sufficient caution to them not to do that when he's on a rip.

Cheney might have been able to do it, but remember Cheney had a substantial interest in having the war, which he knew would be highly profitable for
Halliburton.

 

"In my opinion, Bush was doing what he apparently does a lot. He went with his "gut instinct", which told him that Saddam had WMD threatening the US.

He lied about knowing they existed. But his style is to reject any reality that doesn't fit his style.

As to his advisors contradicting him, the body count of former advisors who did that is sufficient caution to them not to do that when he's on a rip.

Cheney might have been able to do it, but remember Cheney had a substantial interest in having the war, which he knew would be highly profitable for
Halliburton."

Are you jesting? Bush had the same intel report that the brits and russians had which all believed that Saddam had WMD, most intel agents believe that he moved most of them to neighboring countries or buried them. What body count are you speaking of?

And may I reminded you that Slick Willy issued a no-bid contract to Halliburton for his little war.

Bush has told the truth with the evidence he was presented, again not his fault that Slick willy cut the intel staff worldwide by 1/2.

Tough following a guy that hated the military.


Thanks,


Billy

 

Keep in mind that these writers are quite conservative:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2603.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/8/155013.shtml

 

He had something else. A summary of all the intelligence by the DIA which said that there was no reliable evidence for that.

If he had said "I have contradictory reports on this, but I believe they exist.", he would not be a liar. But he chose to hide that fact from us.

You've been had, my friend. Even Bush's guy who was assigned to look for them, now admits that he thinks they didn't exist.

And that makes it O.K.? Now I see. You're using Clinton as your moral compass.

Nope. Try again.

Turns out the DIA had enough information to make the right call. How about that?

Clinton raised the pay of our troops. He spent large sums making bases more livable.

Bush tried to cut the combat pay of our troops, cut the benefits of veterans and dependents, and even charged wounded troops for the meals they ate in hospitals.

Oh, and when Clinton's secretary of defense messed up and some people died as a result, Clinton asked for his resignation.

When Bush's secretary of defense did that, Bush endorsed him, and kept him on. Because Bush values his friends more than our troops.

Shameful as that is. Some pal. Go learn about it.

 

Funny. That seemed to be the gut instinct of virtually every intelligence agency in the world as well.

Really? We know now categorically with 100% certainty that Saddam was in possession of no illegal WMD's? I am impressed with your omniscience... however everyone acknowledges that we still haven't accounted for all of the weapons the UN said Saddam had. They may have been destroyed, they may be in a neighboring country, or they may be buried in some remote field.

What we know is that there is an imbalance on the inventory sheet suggesting that somewhere there are WMD's.

Oh please. That is completely baseless. My presumptions of Clinton's motives never reached that low.

 

Clinton raised the pay of our troops. He spent large sums making bases more livable.
</font>[/QUOTE]After Bush I had cashed in the peace dividend to the degree that military strategists said was prudent, Clinton cut 2 or 3 more whole divisions. This is why we have needed to call up so many reservists and guardsmen... we are paying for Clinton's "budget discipline" in spades.

 

Barbarian observes:
In my opinion, Bush was doing what he apparently does a lot. He went with his "gut instinct", which told him that Saddam had WMD threatening the US.

That's the point; it wasn't. In fact, his own agency told him otherwise. He just lied to us.

Barbarian observes:
He lied about knowing they existed. But his style is to reject any reality that doesn't fit his style.

Well, there was that gallon of Roundup in his palace... and one unusable shell, with some Sarin in it. Maybe more. How do you figure that was a threat, as Bush said it was?

Don't be so gullible. Where would you hide thousands and thousands of shells and bombs with this stuff? Imagination is a good thing, but facts are what make good decisions.

Barbarian observes:
Cheney might have been able to do it, but remember Cheney had a substantial interest in having the war, which he knew would be highly profitable for
Halliburton.

Nope. We've now learned that the fix was in for Halliburton before the war even started. Would you like some details?

Clinton was never CEO of a major defense contractor getting sweetheart deals. That does tend to limit things, um?

 

(Barbarian points out that Clinton provided pay increases and better conditions for our troops, while Bush tried to cut their combat pay , and cut benefits for veterans and their dependents.)

Horsefeathers. The Base closing commission did that, and it was a non-partisan group based on a law first pushed through by a republican. They didn't tell you that, did they?

And even more to the point, the reason Bush is in trouble with troops is because so many of them are getting out. Clinton never had to do a stop-loss involuntary retention, because he made sure the troops got what they needed.

Bush, on the other hand, has given them abundant reason to distrust him. And they are voting with their feet.

The answer isn't to blame Clinton for not having these problems; it's for Bush to have some regard for our troops and to treat them fairly.


This is why we have needed to call up so many reservists and guardsmen... we are paying for Clinton's "budget discipline" in spades.

 

I really believe the Rumsfeld factor of doing
this with a light and efficent force(doing it
on the cheap)combined with the fact neo cons
took the bait from people like Chalibi that it
would be a cake walk and roses and candy would
be poured down upon our soldiers in parade after
parade. I think it is getting old and time has
past to be pulling the "I blame Clinton" in fact
Clinton is the one who won a conflict more
precise and efficent than this current administration(Kosovo), you don't hear about
quagmire there and deaths of americans after
major operations.

Rumsfeld is really entrencehd and my gut
tells me he is staying and actually is the
power over the president ..Condi Rice wanted
his job..but he is sly he does not go easily
into the night...wil Bush take on his power
..doubt it.

 

[And even more to the point, the reason Bush is in trouble with troops is because so many of them are getting out. Clinton never had to do a stop-loss involuntary retention, because he made sure the troops got what they needed.

Bush, on the other hand, has given them abundant reason to distrust him. And they are voting with their feet.


Somebody is feeding you a bunch of garbage! I am a DAC presently working at the largest training base in the world. Soldiers are not leaving , majority are reenlisting and and many are asking to be sent back to Iraq. The US Army not only met but exceeded enlistment and relistment requirements.

The US military voted for President Bush to the tune of 80%. I think THAT speaks for it's self.


Billy

 

Bases needed to be closed. And it had to have a commission to take the politics out of it.

That is precisely NOT what I am talking about. It isn't bases but DIVISIONS that I am talking about. A division is about 12,000 deployables.

Not true in a number of ways. First, military morale feel to its lowest level since the period immediately after Vietnam under Clinton. Active duty unit readiness deteriorated to dangerous lows even before I got out of the Reserves in '94. Some units cut training and maintenance activites by close to half... even after Clinton and the Dems decided to deactivate the additional Divisions.

Increases in pay and funding were a direct result of the GOP election in 94. Clinton triangulated and moved from left to the right to keep it from being a vulnerable issue.

Stop gap is another undesirable effect of reducing the military too much... thanks for the reminder.

BTW, I disagree with the administration. One of Kerry's flip flops made sense. Our active duty military is too small for the threat we face.

When they went to the polls, how did they vote?

Every time you defend Clinton, you make your claim of support for the CP less and less credible.

Take a poll any day of the week and you will find that the troops prefer Bush over Clinton by a wide margin. It comes down to basic respect. They believe Bush has it for them and believed that Clinton didn't. The believe Bush has integrity and their belief that Clinton didn't was validated repeatedly.

Hillary basically spoke the truth when she slipped up and said "we loathe the military"- and the service members knew it.

 

There is no comparison between Kosovo and Iraq. The Balkans never required significant force nor had a significant battle.

"Quagmire"? That is ridiculous. What about the "quagmire" of the Civil War when Gettsburg alone resulted in 60,000 casualties?

How about the "quagmire" of WWII where about 6,000 Americans died in only a few days of battle?

How about D-Day where 3000+ died in one day?

The history channel had a special on the Nazi insurgency following WWII. It went on for years with a number of casualties. Should we have quit and turned Germany back over to them?

I would never discount the sacrifice of even one of our guys. However Iraq has not been a blood bath nor is it a quagmire. Casualty rates have been extraordinarily low compared to history. You have bought into liberal demagogury that is based on nothing but a willing press corps and political expediency.

The best historical comparison for Clinton concerning the war on terror is... Chamberlin.

I agree. One of the things most admirable about Bush is his loyalty. However Rumsfeld doesn't deserve that loyalty nor is he particularly effective at the job.

 

The hatred for Clinton some 4 years later

just amazes me...and Clinton is a believer

YOU will share heaven with him...the scapegoating

is way over the top and you are missing out

on holding the real culprits accountable it

blinds alot of peoples eyes to what is going

on here and now...amazing!

Actually the war in Iraq syphoned votes away

from Bush it was not enough but alot of

reservists voted against the backdoor draft.

 

Maybe. However his behavior calls his claim of being Christian very much into question.

Bush said that when he became a believer he stopped doing many of the things he had done before. He acknowledges that he did things that were wrong.

Clinton has said recently that he did nothing wrong and that all the fault for his problems lies with the Republicans.

Who do you consider the "real culprits"?

Clinton failed to act on actionable intelligence. He made shortsighted decisions regarding military size and readiness and reaped immediate political acclaim for producing a budget surplus. He promised on numerous occasions to "hunt down and punish" those who were responsible for terrorists attacks on US interests.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he made what he believed was the best decision at the time... turns out that he was wrong.

We are in a war. One theatre is Iraq. By defeating Saddam, his sons, and the Baath party, we may very well have prevented a much larger battle later as well as terrorism and WMD proliferation.

Before WWII, allied leaders appeased Hitler over and over. He rebuilt their military, they did nothing. He annexed neighbors, they did nothing. It was only when Poland was overrun and the fate of Belgium, Holland, and France were sealed that the allies finally took action.

A decision like that made by Bush would have probably resulted in a war with Germany in the mid-1930's or perhaps an insurgency following a quick allied invasion. Both would have resulted in 10's maybe 100's of thousands of casualties. However it would have prevented the deaths of about 60 million people.

Saddam was a threat. He had WMD ambitions. He had used WMD's on his neighbors and his own people. He had invaded two neighbors. He thought of himself as the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar... thus a conqueror.

He is now gone.

The proof is in the pudding and every poll I have seen says that Bush improved his margins with military voters. So unless you are contending that Bush would have beaten Kerry even worse in this group, you are mistaken.

BTW, my brother-in-law is a guardsman in Kosovo. He initially blamed Bush that he had to go and be separated from his family. After looking at the whole situation though, he became a strong Bush supporter... though he hadn't been very politically minded before.

 

Barbarian observes:
And even more to the point, the reason Bush is in trouble with troops is because so many of them are getting out. Clinton never had to do a stop-loss involuntary retention, because he made sure the troops got what they needed.

Bush, on the other hand, has given them abundant reason to distrust him. And they are voting with their feet.

Read and learn:

Under the program, tens of thousands of soldiers have been prevented from retiring or leaving the military upon completing their enlistment terms so that they may be deployed to Iraq. The petition asserts that the program is arbitrary, unfair, and unauthorized by law. The stop loss program has been widely criticized as a "backdoor draft."

Doe, a San Francisco Bay Area resident, served in combat during the invasion of Iraq last year, and has more than nine years of active service in the military. Doe currently serves as a reservist in the California Army National Guard under a one-year enlistment. He has a wife and two daughters, ages 6 and 3. The stop loss order could require Doe's return to Iraq for up to two years, and possible continued military service beyond that time."
http://counterpunch.org/stoploss08132004.html

"Army expanding 'stop loss' order to keep soldiers from leaving
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Army will announce as early as Tuesday new orders that will forbid thousands of soldiers from leaving the service after they return this year from Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war against terrorism, defense officials said Monday.
The "stop loss" orders mean personnel who could otherwise leave the military when their volunteer commitments expire will be forced to remain to the end of their overseas deployments and up to another 90 days after they come home. "Stop movement" orders also bar soldiers from moving to new assignments during the restricted period. The orders do not extend any unit's stay overseas.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm

The troops may be conservative, but they aren't stupid. Bush has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for them:

The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.

The Pentagon's support for the idea of rolling back "imminent danger pay" by $75 a month and "family separation allowances" for the American forces by $150 a month collapsed after a story in The Chronicle Thursday generated intense criticism from military families, veterans..."[/b[
San Francisco Chronicle August 15, 2003


ARLINGTON, Va. — Talk about adding insult to injury, said one U.S. Congressman.

Troops wounded in combat in the nation’s war on terrorism are being handed more than just discharge papers when they leave military hospitals — some also are getting a bill.

At a daily rate of $8.10, hospitalized troops, including those wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, are being charged for their meals.

“I was amazed. I couldn’t believe it when I heard it,” said Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, who has introduced a bill to repeal what he calls an “offensive” law."
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=16858&archive=true

You never read "Stars and Stripes" um?

A federal appeals court has ruled that the US government owes two elderly retired veterans free health care for life.

The court declared Feb. 8 that this obligation stems from the fact that recruiters promised the pair such a benefit when they enrolled-and that such a promise was, in essence, a contract.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2001/0401world.asp

It takes a lawsuit to get this president to fulfill his responsibilities to our veterans. Embarassing.

Suuurrre they are:
Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq

By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
September 16, 2004

COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.

Yeah, all they had to do was threaten to send them to Iraq if they don't re-up. Rumsfeld says, troops are "fungible." Know what that word means? Go look it up. Just expendable proles.

Voting with their feet is more persuasive. Clinton never had a problem like this. One reason is that whatever he thought of military life personally, he saw the sense in keeping our promises to the troops and veterans, and making their life a little easier.

And so they stayed. Bush has treated them shamefully, and so they are leaving.

You seem to be rather ill-imformed, not knowing about these issues. You do know what "Stars and Stripes" is, don't you?

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Veterans%20Vote.htm


I think Rassmussen was close...of course

an all volunteer force is going to vote

more for commander in chief...its a loyalty

thing to them...wether it be democrat or

Republican.

It is debateable if Iraq is a quagmire..but

I believe you would lose that debate right now

perhaps 12,000 more troops will help...even

Fox news who puts some posistive storys out

is having to keep up with naked truth more

and more...a prediction and you can hold me

to it...bush will pull out after elections

he will spin it and say we took out saddam

and iraq is now on its own..so long.

I kinda hope he does that it will save lives

and Iraqi people although a civil war will

really decide there course.Democracy! that

is a pipe dream and does not face reality.

kinda like franklin graham was going into

iraq to help iraqis...what ever happened to that

again reality catches up...Iraq really is

three countrys sunni...shite..and kurd..perhaps

we should think to bring iraqi christians to

american for protection since they will need

it I think they are a big target if we pull out

and leave...they need protective refuge status

and right to come to the United States it is

the least we can do for them...same for Sudan

Christians.