Friday, June 24, 2011
A Favor, Folks
As I said in a previous post, Ann Coulter is now saying that our main goals in Afghanistan were completed in six months, and that we never should have engaged in any form of nation-building over there. Please/I'm imploring, if any of you out there can find something, ANYTHING, in which she said something similar to this when Mr. Bush was in office, share it with me, O.K. (me - I can't seem to remember a blessed thing)? I'd really/truly like to be stood corrected on this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I suspect that you will have a hard time finding any conservative republican that said anything like that about the Afghan or Iraq war while Bush was in office.
The only three that come to my mind, Jerry, are George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Bob Novak. And Novak's dead.
Hey,like her or not,she's got another best seller.Whats that make about six?
Sorry. Her voice grates on me, and I tend to avoid her.
Jerry: It does sound like something that Ron Paul might say, and supposedly he's a conservative Republican, even though when it comes to foreign policy, he tends to always vote to let the terrorists run amok.
What Jerry said but include the near complete absence of panic about the deficit during the Bush years.
These conservative "best sellers" are usually frauds. What they do is get some Right-wing magazine to buy thousands of copies. Then the magazine gives them away (or sells them at a discount) to people who buy subscriptions. I know because I'm on quite a few of their mailing lists and have received the offers.
Sarah Palin used money from her PAC to buy her own book! In fact, her PAC spent more money buying her own book then donating to candidates.
According to a story titled The Conservative Best-Selling Book Scam, "Conservative books are often gobbled up in bulk by conservative organizations. ...These books are then handed out at fundraising events. They are warehoused... they are given away for free on websites like Human Events... etc".
For Example, "Mitt Romney... boosted sales of his book last spring by openly asking institutions to buy thousands of copies in exchange for his speeches".
A large percentage of these "best sellers" are probably never read. Ultimately many are likely destroyed (the copies they can't give away).
I'm with Ron Paul regarding the so-called war on terror. I'd also agree with his stance regarding the FED and the Patriot Act and his position on the legalization of drugs (I'm for ending the war on drugs and legalizing marijuana, although I'm not sure I'd go so far as to legalize harder drugs).
I'd say Ron Paul is wrong most of the time, but there are a few issues where he's got it absolutely correct.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Will: I'd really/truly like to be stood corrected on this.
Why? Because you're such a huge Ann Coulter fan that you'd be crushed if it was revealed that she's lying?
BTW, I very much doubt that Ron Paul ever said we should pull out of Afghanistan after six months because the mission was completed. Without bothering to look it up I'd guess he was against the invasion from the get-go.
I forgot about Ron Paul, dmarks. He's one of the few fellows on either side of the aisle who'd been at all consistent on this.............wd, I suspect that your analysis of Sarah Palin is spot-on. I do, however, think that Ann Coulter DOES sell books. At least from I can gather, there are a lot of love-sick twenty-somethings (men AND women) on Wall Street who love Coulter, and are more than happy to lay down an Andrew Jackson or two.
No, wd, I don't have a crush on Coulter. I was totally being sarcastic there. Picking out snippets 101 - you really ought to teach that.......I seem to recall Paul telling somebody that he was initially for the Afghan action. It might have been when he was on O'Reilly.
WD: There a some of these books that I'm sure are legitimate books, but so many are what you describe.
There's no need for so-called in front of war on terror. As for me, I am against the terrorists (and strongly against Paul for foreign policy and other reasons). Here, Paul has it wrong and shows great contempt for people of other nations. He might as well be cribbing notes from Pat Buchanan.
I have found one reference that Ron Paul DID vote to retaliate against the party (the Afghanistan government) which attacked us on 9/11. So he's not totally irresponsible on foreign policy.
dmarks, it sounds to me that, instead of being "against the terrorists", you're FOR the military industrial complex making billions in profit from the war machine, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and installing corrupt governments in the countries we illegally invade. I oppose all these things.
Also, in regards to your claim that the Afghan government attacked us on 9/11... you're wrong. It was al Qaeda that did that. The Afghan government wasn't involved in either the planning or the funding of that operation.
WD said: "dmarks, it sounds to me that, instead of being "against the terrorists", you're FOR the military industrial complex making billions in profit from the war machine, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians"
Not at all. For one, the claim of killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians is a flat-out lie.
I oppose the terrorists.
"Also, in regards to your claim that the Afghan government attacked us on 9/11."
It is completely true. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were closely allied at this time. It's been a strong alliance.
"...The Afghan government wasn't involved in either the planning or the funding of that operation."
By promoting, hosting, and supporting their close allies, they were obviously involved in funding all of their operations.
WD said: "and installing corrupt governments in the countries we illegally invade"
This is a double-lie that needs its own comment:
For one, the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan were installed by the Iraqi and Afghan people through their own election choices. Since they are not puppets of ours, not governments we installed, were are stuck with the choices they have. Even if they are lousy and corrupt like Karzai. As long as they don't attack us like the previous Afghan government did, there's no reason to overthrow Karzai.
On to the next one, both retaliations were completely legal and justified. Despite the uninformed opinions of armchair attorneys who have no authority or knowledge of the matters.
Will, do you know anyone who owns Coulter's books? Maybe it's not a media quote found on the internets. Might require some reading.
I see Coulter's books for sale and featured prominently at a local bookstore (non-conservative). That is a fair indicator that they are real books.
dmarks said... I see Coulter's books for sale and featured prominently ... That is a fair indicator that they are real books.
Another dmarks Straw man! Nobody said Conservative books weren't "real", just that they pumped up sales using trickery. Of course, when these books debut on the NYT Bestseller list some people are fooled into thinking the book must be "hot" and so they buy it (being on the NYT Bestseller list certainly cannot be bad for sales).
I never used the word "straw man" during the Bill Maher debate, but now that I think of it -- I should have. That is what the entire dmarks case against Mr. Maher was... a straw man.
Another straw man is his insistence on calling people who say bush's invasions were illegal "armchair attorneys". He continues to do this even though I pointed out that actual attorneys have said the invasion was illegal.
Law professor and president of the National Lawyers Guild Marjorie Cohn believes the invasions were illegal. In an article titled End the Occupation of Iraq -- and Afghanistan she writes, "The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan".
dmarks: the claim of killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians is a flat-out lie.
No, it's the truth that even bush admitted. Although bush lied and low-balled the number, he still copped to least 30K innocent civilians being killed.
It sounds like you're justifying, wd. And it isn't at all becoming. Passifying a bunch of knuckle-dragging Southern racist rednecks isn't a tough decision at all. It's a cowardly, weaselly decision that Harry S. Truman never would have made. I simply cannot believe that you're defending him (FDR).
WD: "Another dmarks Straw man!"
Caught you in another lie. I used no straw man.
I was pointing out the fact that some of these books are presented and sold (and sell in a hot fashion) in real bookstores. Thus many of them are real books with real sales. You are flat out lying if you are claiming that ALL conservative books rely on bogus sales figures.
"I never used the word "straw man" during the Bill Maher debate, but now that I think of it"
Thinking during this debate? You've hardly been thinking, nor debating. And you have built a straw man based on what you think Maher said, instead of what he actually said.
Thanks for quoting the UN charter, which destroys your case, because:
1) The Hussein regime attacked peacekeeping patrols hundreds of times, which means that the retaliation is justified self defense.
2) The united Al Qaeda/Taliban government of Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 and vowed to attack us more, so this retaliation was also justified self defense.
Those who make bogus claims that it is illegal to retaliate are just flapping their jaws. They ARE armchair attorneys: pikers who have no authority and no knowledge of the matters. Real qualified attorneys involved in the situation simply don't repeat your lie.
"He continues to do this even though I pointed out that actual attorneys have said the invasion was illegal."
Actual attorneys, yes, but people unqualified to claim something is "illegal".
Come on, Mark Levin is an actual attorney. He says that just about everything Obama does is illegal. But like your armchair attorneys, he has no authority to say so. Do you believe him also?
"Law professor and president of the National Lawyers Guild Marjorie Cohn believes the invasions were illegal."
Any pundit can get a law degree, and your example shows that any such pundit can lie. Ms. Cohn has no authority to make any of these claims
As for deaths in Iraq, the vast majority have been killed by the terrorists through "human sheild" policies" and direct executions. Even with this, the # of annual deaths in Iraq is lower now, and has been for a while, compared to pre 2003 when the terrorists ran the nation. The death rate went down. Bush told the truth and saved lives.
By the way, the "National Lawyers Guild" is not anything like the ABA. Unlike that real professional organization of high standards, they are a political pressure group.
About as good as Mark Levin's "Landmark Legal Foundation". So are you ready to agree that the ravings of another armchair attorney, Levin, are as good as Cohn's?
Or do you only agree with punditry from partisan hacks with law degrees, when it agrees with your own views?
(By the way, I suggest dispensing with the straw men you have created, and argue actual points).
Will, good news is Coulter puts an index in her books, so I checked the two that I own (Slander and How to Talk to A Liberal (If You Must)) for references to Afghanistan. Not exactly what you're looking for but...
"Democrats are channeling their frustration with America's imminent military victory in Afghanistan into hysterical opposition to reasonable national security measures at home. (Incidentally, the war in Afghanistan ought to prove once and for all what a bunch of paper tigers the Russians were. What were they doing over there for ten years? It hasn't taken us ten weeks.)"
-Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal, 5-Oct-04
HR, I didn't mean to imply that everybody who buys Ms. Coulter's books is deranged, etc.. I'm just not a big fan of this good guy, bad guy stereotyping that people like her, Maddow, Olbermann, Hannity, etc. do. At the very least it's divisive.......That's a good quote but it still doesn't say that we should have been out of there. That only came when Obama got elected.
dmarks: Caught you in another lie. I used no straw man.
Your straw man is that I suggested conservative books are not "real books with real sales". I never said anything close to that.
In my previous comment I said, "These conservative best sellers are usually frauds". I didn't say they were always frauds. I only implied that the "best seller" title was not earned (a lot of the time). Also, I never said copies were not sold to actual customers.
So, of the two of us it is YOU who is lying. I would suggest YOU dispense with the straw men (and the lying)... but that would be futile.
dmarks: Thanks for quoting the UN charter, which destroys your case, because...
The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan disagrees with you. Concerning the Iraq invasion he said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal".
dmarks: The united Al Qaeda/Taliban government of Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 and vowed to attack us more...
Actually, we threatened them and they immediately caved and offered to turn over bin Laden. The entire war was completely unnecessary. BTW there is no such thing as "al Quaeda SLASH Taliban" (nor was there ever). They were never allies waging war against the US in concert.
dmarks: ...annual deaths in Iraq is lower now, and has been for a while, compared to pre 2003 when the terrorists ran the nation.
Another of your lies. al-Qaeda in Iraq was founded after bush ordered the country illegally invaded. They never "ran" the country. They moved in AFTER the illegal invasion.
dmarks: And you have built a straw man based on what you think Maher said, instead of what he actually said.
The straw man was constructed by YOU, based on what YOU think Bill Maher said. He never said any of the horrible things you attribute to him. Check the transcript. To suggest otherwise is delusional in the extreme.
dmarks: Bush told the truth and saved lives.
bush lied and tens of thousands died. IMO he is responsible for mass murder and should be put to death for his crimes (after a trial, of course).
Post a Comment