NationStates Jolt Archive

N.Y. TIMES, BROKEN CLOCK: BOTH OCCASIONALLY CORRECT
by Ann Coulter
March 29, 2006

The New York Times has been urgently warning Congressional Republicans to abandon the Iraq War or face ruination in the November elections. Of course, for three years now, the Times has predicted that all world leaders who supported the war would be thrown out of office on their ears.

However embattled they are, I don't think Republicans are at the point of taking advice from the mainstream media, but let's look at the facts.

Four major world leaders who sent troops to Iraq have faced elections since the war's inception — Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.

Only in Spain did voters capitulate to savagery and vote in an al-Qaida-friendly government in response to their trains being bombed the week before the election. Unaware that there is NO CONNECTION between al-Qaida and Iraq, al-Qaida's European spokesman explained that the terrorist attack was intended to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war. Spanish voters duly complied, making terrorist attacks in the rest of the world more likely. Muchas gracias, Spano-weenies.

But in the three other elections, Iraq war-supporting prime ministers won historic victories. During the run-up to each of these elections, The New York Times described them as referendums on the war and predicted defeat for any leader who had supported war in Iraq. Only when the war-supporting leaders won did the Times change its mind and decide these elections were really about the economy, privatizing the post office, Tony Blair's tie, "The Sopranos" — anything but the war.

In the run-up to Australian Prime Minister Howard's re-election, the Times noted that he had "made the alliance with Washington a key element of his tenure." The Times was hopeful that Australia would be as pathetic as Spain, noting that "with al-Qaida threatening reprisals for the country's support of the United States in Iraq — a war that most Australians opposed — is Australia poised to become the next Spain? Will it become the next country to abandon President Bush?"

On the eve of Howard's re-election bid in October 2004, the Times ran an article titled: "War in Iraq Plays a Role in Elections in Australia," saying Howard's opponents promised to "have the troops home by Christmas."

When Howard walloped the opposition in the election a few days later, becoming only the third prime minister of Australia ever to be elected to a fourth term, the Times headline was: "Australians Re-Elect Howard As Economy Trumps the War."

As Blair approached British elections in April 2005, the Times ran an article titled: "With 10 Days to British Vote, War Emerges as Top Issue." As the Times cheerfully reminded its readers: "The prospect of war drew huge street protests here in early 2003, and in the aftermath Mr. Blair was — and is still is — accused by many people of misleading Britons about the legality and the rationale for the invasion." The war had "damaged Mr. Blair's credibility and left many Britons mistrustful of him."

The Times cited "many Britons" who said "their vote will be swayed by the fact that, while Mr. Blair spoke so forcefully of a threat from Iraqi unconventional weapons, none were ever found."

And then Blair went on to win the election, becoming the first Labor Party candidate to win a third term in the party's 100-year history. It was almost as if "many other Britons" believed in the cause the British military was fighting for in Iraq! The Times took solace in the fact that his margin was lower than in previous elections — "reflecting his unpopularity over the war in Iraq."

One year before elections in Japan, the Times was predicting defeat for Koizumi, a loyal friend to President Bush and an implacable supporter of the war in Iraq.

Reporting on the unpopularity of the Iraq War in Japan, the Times said "polls indicate that the population is against an extension" of Japanese troops serving in Iraq and that the opposition vowed to withdraw troops. Indeed, "some members of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's own party have been calling for the troops' withdrawal."

And then in September 2005, Koizumi's party won a landslide. The Times described this as mainly a victory for the prime minister's idea to privatize the post office, explaining that Koizumi had won "by making postal privatization — an arcane issue little understood by most voters — a litmus test for reform," thus confirming the age-old political truism, "Most elections hinge on arcane, obscure issues voters don't know or care about."

As congressional Republicans decide whether to take the Times' advice and back away from the war this election year, they might reflect on a fourth world leader who won re-election while supporting the Iraq war. Just about four months before Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Times put this on its front page: "President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks."

Maybe it was his support for the post office.


She is totally right! I mean.. the war is a great thing and we should have leaders who spend uber amounts of money on it. So we lose a few soldiers along the way.. In the end there will be peace and calm! She really knows what the people want, what they support. Results are nevvvvver wrong. Don't you see all the people who love Bush? Those left-wing scums are just trying to create drama!

Sure Tony Blair is Bush's bitch.. but he ROCKS! He is doing a great job over there in GB and will continue to do so.

Bush can't let those anti-war liberal hippies get in the way of world domination.. errr, I mean.. he can't let them get in the way of oil deposits.. err... the war on terror..? Yeah! The war on terror is justified and supported by the majority, the smart people.

Ann, I love ya! Keep up the good work! Oh My God.. I am going to HELL.

So how many people in the US actually listen to her?

Because some of those things are just plain lies (the whole Spanish election thing).

So how many people in the US actually listen to her?

Because some of those things are just plain lies (the whole Spanish election thing).
I guess that depends on your point of view. In the grand scheme of things, not very many. And yet, that number seems to be extrardinarily too high to me. :D

So how many people in the US actually listen to her?

Because some of those things are just plain lies (the whole Spanish election thing).

I've noticed a lot of people in the US seem to be ignorant about the Spanish elections and seem to think that government lost because of the attacks, which is of course bollocks. That election was very close even into the end, and very few people who knew anything about Spanish politics were surprised to see the incumbents lose, especially after the lies about ETA.

It's also fun to see the ignorence of the British elections - yes, labour won, but they lost a huge chunk of their mandates in parliament and saw their power substantially diminished, and they didn't end up winning so much because of a support for the war in Iraq, but because the Tories were hopeless this time around.

All in all, the few things I've read by this person have convinced me she knows very little about the internal affaires of Europe, and basically the rest of the world, and uses sophistry and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies on which she contructs a very polarised, and not to mention belligerent, anti-democratic (and to the USians out there, notice that this term has nothing to do with that other right-wing party you have to choose from in your "elections") and down-right irresponsible and juvenile, rhetoric that is as close to a real life troll as one can find, except, of course, the fact that she actually seems to take herself seriously.

I guess that depends on your point of view. In the grand scheme of things, not very many. And yet, that number seems to be extrardinarily too high to me. :D
WHAT?!?! Please tell me you did not just put Ann down.

Ugh...you should see some of the trolls on the Yahoo discussion boards for her columns. Those people are INSANE!

Luckily, I think most people, no matter what political persuasion they happen to be, tend to ignore Ann. Or deny her existence. Whichever comes first.

I've noticed a lot of people in the US seem to be ignorant about the Spanish elections and seem to think that government lost because of the attacks, which is of course bollocks. That election was very close even into the end, and very few people who knew anything about Spanish politics were surprised to see the incumbents lose, especially after the lies about ETA.

It's also fun to see the ignorence of the British elections - yes, labour won, but they lost a huge chunk of their mandates in parliament and saw their power substantially diminished, and they didn't end up winning so much because of a support for the war in Iraq, but because the Tories were hopeless this time around.

All in all, the few things I've read by this person have convinced me she knows very little about the internal affaires of Europe, and basically the rest of the world, and uses sophistry and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies on which she contructs a very polarised, and not to mention belligerent, anti-democratic (and to the USians out there, notice that this term has nothing to do with that other right-wing party you have to choose from in your "elections") and down-right irresponsible and juvenile, rhetoric that is as close to a reall life troll as one can find, except, of course, the fact that she actually seems to take herself seriously.
You've nailed her (semantically, that is). And frankly, I don't know if she's lying or ignorant when she spouts her drivel, and don't really care. She's a cancer, and if I saw her in polite company, I would find it difficult not to spit on her.

Ugh...you should see some of the trolls on the Yahoo discussion boards for her columns. Those people are INSANE!
Link? Please? Pretty Please?

Ugh...you should see some of the trolls on the Yahoo discussion boards for her columns. Those people are INSANE!

Luckily, I think most people, no matter what political persuasion they happen to be, tend to ignore Ann. Or deny her existence. Whichever comes first.

You'd be surprised. she spoke at my college recently, and there are a fair amount of people who think she's funny and consider her to represent the right.

Words can not describe my complete disgust and hatred for her. Ugh. Steam is coming out of my ears just thinking about her.

One year before elections in Japan, the Times was predicting defeat for Koizumi, a loyal friend to President Bush and an implacable supporter of the war in Iraq.

Reporting on the unpopularity of the Iraq War in Japan, the Times said "polls indicate that the population is against an extension" of Japanese troops serving in Iraq and that the opposition vowed to withdraw troops. Indeed, "some members of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's own party have been calling for the troops' withdrawal."

And then in September 2005, Koizumi's party won a landslide. The Times described this as mainly a victory for the prime minister's idea to privatize the post office, explaining that Koizumi had won "by making postal privatization — an arcane issue little understood by most voters — a litmus test for reform," thus confirming the age-old political truism, "Most elections hinge on arcane, obscure issues voters don't know or care about."

Funny...Koizumi is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party...which has been in power in Japan for 50 of the last 51 years.

How does a party so entrenched NOT win in a landslide???

It's also fun to see the ignorence of the British elections - yes, labour won, but they lost a huge chunk of their mandates in parliament and saw their power substantially diminished, and they didn't end up winning so much because of a support for the war in Iraq, but because the Tories were hopeless this time around.


It's not like you need anything close to the majority of votes to win an UK general election anyway.

Four major world leaders who sent troops to Iraq have faced elections since the war's inception — Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.What? If I recall correctly, one of the reasons why the conservatives didn't win the elections in Britain was the fact that they had supported the war too. Or did that election really center around the Iraq war?
The impression I got from the Japanese election was that Koizumi was putting his reform agenda to vote. Or am I mistaken, and that election really did center around the Iraq war?

Only in Spain did voters capitulate to savagery and vote in an al-Qaida-friendly government in response to their trains being bombed the week before the election. Unaware that there is NO CONNECTION between al-Qaida and Iraq, al-Qaida's European spokesman explained that the terrorist attack was intended to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war. Spanish voters duly complied, making terrorist attacks in the rest of the world more likely. Muchas gracias, Spano-weenies.Ah, I see. Now there's no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida all of a sudden...
But in the three other elections, Iraq war-supporting prime ministers won historic victories. During the run-up to each of these elections, The New York Times described them as referendums on the war and predicted defeat for any leader who had supported war in Iraq. Only when the war-supporting leaders won did the Times change its mind and decide these elections were really about the economy, privatizing the post office, Tony Blair's tie, "The Sopranos" — anything but the war.Ah, well, so the NYT was attempting to sell its newspapers to Americans by making them feel important.

On the eve of Howard's re-election bid in October 2004, the Times ran an article titled: "War in Iraq Plays a Role in Elections in Australia," saying Howard's opponents promised to "have the troops home by Christmas."That's good to know. I wouldn't vote for someone that proposed American withdrawal. I didn't, either.

<snip irrelevant whining>Like I said before, the NYT was attempting to sell newspapers. I see they succeeded in getting Coulter to get a couple, which, essentially, is all that the business is about.

As congressional Republicans decide whether to take the Times' advice and back away from the war this election year, they might reflect on a fourth world leader who won re-election while supporting the Iraq war. Just about four months before Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Times put this on its front page: "President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks."

Maybe it was his support for the post office. Who knows? Maybe president Bush will be the first President to serve a 3rd term since WWII!

What? If I recall correctly, one of the reasons why the conservatives didn't win the elections in Britain was the fact that they had supported the war too. Or did that election really center around the Iraq war?
The impression I got from the Japanese election was that Koizumi was putting his reform agenda to vote. Or am I mistaken, and that election really did center around the Iraq war?
No, you're correct and Ann is full of it. The election in Japan had NOTHING to do with Iraq and everything to do with the reform agenda. It wasn't even supposed to happen, Koizumi called a snap election when his postal reform bill got defeated in the upper house and wanted to prove his point.

No, you're correct and Ann is full of it. The election in Japan had NOTHING to do with Iraq and everything to do with the reform agenda. It wasn't even supposed to happen, Koizumi called a snap election when his postal reform bill got defeated in the upper house and wanted to prove his point.I think that comes from her watching Fox. I swear there was an article I saw that left you with the impression that the United States played a bigger role in the last German election than Turkey.

I think that comes from her watching Fox. I swear there was an article I saw that left you with the impression that the United States played a bigger role in the last German election than Turkey.

I saw that claimed on fox. Something about Schroder losing because he was anti US.

Fox obviously haven't realized that elections are usually won or lost over things like the price of beer &c. (Though to be fair, this fact seems to escape most politicians too).

I'm half-Brit, and I was in England during the election. I can't vote (having citizenship only by descent, and not being a permanent resident), but I did follow the campaigning with some interest.

The notion that Blair won because of alleged support for the invasion or Iraq is, of course, laughable. He won despite people's opposition to the war. Many people didn't vote Lib Dem because they felt the "third party" didn't stand a chance, and the Tories simply were not a credible alternative. What transpired again and again during the run-up to the election was that people were saying they would vote Labour despite it being led by Blair, because there was no other choice.

Many Labour candidates (prospective MPs) also tried to distance themselves from Blair in voters' minds, often quite openly.

What an awesome peice! Anne is so freakin insightful, it would be great if she could be president someday. I love Anne, its too bad I cant marry her or her have my babies, shes hot and smart, its a win/win. Bottomline is no matter what spin the media trys to put on it, when Governments support the Iraq war, they re-elected. This is because people understand its the right thing to do.

Ugh...you should see some of the trolls on the Yahoo discussion boards for her columns. Those people are INSANE!

Luckily, I think most people, no matter what political persuasion they happen to be, tend to ignore Ann. Or deny her existence. Whichever comes first.
where should I be looking for those discussion boards, cause I tried to find it and i cant

I saw that claimed on fox. Something about Schroder losing because he was anti US.

Fox obviously haven't realized that elections are usually won or lost over things like the price of beer &c. (Though to be fair, this fact seems to escape most politicians too).Actually, it was more because people were fed up with the big parties.
Schröder losing because he was anti US fails to explain why the people voted the Linke instead, which is even more anti US (if both parties could be considered anti US in the first place).
It also fails to explain why Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU was so victorious if they couldn't enter their desired coalition with the Liberals (and the Liberals were the most successful third party of the election, so it wasn't their fault).
Seriously, the US needs a multi-party system, if only for the common American to understand politics.

What an awesome peice! Anne is so freakin insightful, it would be great if she could be president someday. I love Anne, its too bad I cant marry her or her have my babies, shes hot and smart, its a win/win. Bottomline is no matter what spin the media trys to put on it, when Governments support the Iraq war, they re-elected. This is because people understand its the right thing to do.You spelled "Ann" wrong. :D

You spelled "Ann" wrong. :D
damn, my bad your right. I dont know why I put it with an 'e', its getting late

Seriously, the US needs a multi-party system, if only for the common American to understand politics.

heh, that just might work

Seriously, the US needs a multi-party system, if only for the common American to understand politics.

There are more than two parties in the US; it's just candidates are allowed to run for more than one party at once, so you'd never know it because the little parties always end up running either the democrat or republican candidate on their ticket usually.

Also, there are not enough seats at the federal level to really allow third parties to ever hope of capturing any electoral districts. They are all just too big.

Vermont's congressman is an independant. (Though I've heard it said that he is really a socialist that doesn't have the balls to admit it).

There are more than two parties in the US; it's just candidates are allowed to run for more than one party at once, so you'd never know it because the little parties always end up running either the democrat or republican candidate on their ticket usually.

Also, there are not enough seats at the federal level to really allow third parties to ever hope of capturing any electoral districts. They are all just too big.

Vermont's congressman is an independant. (Though I've heard it said that he is really a socialist that doesn't have the balls to admit it).I know there's more than two parties, it said so on my ballot when I cast it. ;)
The problem is that they are well blocked from making a significant difference.

damn, my bad your right. I dont know why I put it with an 'e', its getting lateI don't think she'd marry you if you can't spell her name right. Good spelling is your friend :)

This must be the most retarded rant I've ever read.

I know there's more than two parties, it said so on my ballot when I cast it. ;)
The problem is that they are well blocked from making a significant difference.

That's why there should be at least 3,000 reps.

Words can not describe my complete disgust and hatred for her. Ugh. Steam is coming out of my ears just thinking about her.


I feel you man.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet- bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." –Ann Coulter: Columnist, TV Pundit, author, constitutional lawyer.

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."– Ann Coulter

Anne is so freakin insightful, it would be great if she could be president someday.President Ann Coulter? Good luck with that...

President Ann Coulter? Good luck with that...

Stranger things have happened. It's not like she snatched anyone's milk or anything.

Btw, nice sig The UN abassadorship.

I though you were libertarian lefty.

This particular reactionary demagogue lacks even the thinnest veneer of sense and decency, and time spent paying serious attention to what she has to say is time utterly wasted.

She is open and unapologetic about her fascistic tendencies, is utterly and unembarrassedly bigoted, and completely lacks any capability for serious analysis.

This particular reactionary demagogue lacks even the thinnest veneer of sense and decency, and time spent paying serious attention to what she has to say is time utterly wasted.

She is open and unapologetic about her fascistic tendencies, is utterly and unembarrassedly bigoted, and completely lacks any capability for serious analysis.
She is just trying to do whats right for America

She is just trying to do whats right for AmericaExcept that she confuses the definitions of the term "right". :D

She is just trying to do whats right for America

That may be, but it does not change the truth of what I said.

Acting according to what is "right" for an abstract, undefined entity like "America" may be at the root of her problem, actually. Veneration for such an elusive concept is at the heart of ultra-nationalist tendencies, at least genuine ones.

I though you were libertarian lefty.
haha, used to be. A while ago. I have seen the light that is conservativism and I cant be aynthing else. Conservatives come up with ideas and solutions to fix the world, others well, Im not sure what others do.

So how many people in the US actually listen to her?

Because some of those things are just plain lies (the whole Spanish election thing).

I think firstly, Americans knowing where Spain is? most have difficulting knowing what states surround their own or whether GWB signed the Kyoto agreement.

haha, used to be. A while ago. I have seen the light that is conservativism and I cant be aynthing else. Conservatives come up with ideas and solutions to fix the world, others well, Im not sure what others do.

So in the days of your left-libertarianhood, how many times a day did you genuflect before the altar of John Walker Lindh?

Like all real leftists I usually do so around ten to fifteen times a day. Perhaps your problem was insufficient piety?

Because some of those things are just plain lies (the whole Spanish election thing).

Yeah, well, they were lies the US media repeated ad nauseum for quite a while afterward. Not only extremists like Coulter, either; "moderate" pseudo-intellectuals like New York Times columnist David Brooks engaged in the same superficial chauvinist stupidity and contempt for democracy.

haha, used to be. A while ago. I have seen the light that is conservativism and I cant be aynthing else. Conservatives come up with ideas and solutions to fix the world, others well, Im not sure what others do.Ma'am, you are the most confusing person I've ever met. :headbang:

Go take socials studies.

haha, used to be. A while ago. I have seen the light that is conservativism and I cant be aynthing else. Conservatives come up with ideas and solutions to fix the world, others well, Im not sure what others do.

Babe, you need to learn what the definition of conservative is; I'll give you a hint, it isn't galavanting around the middle east, installing favourable regimes so that the US can get a nice, cheap, ready supply of oil to keep the plebs with their gas guzzling SUVs motoring along.

Reading that piece of drivel nearly made my eyes bleed…

I really really really hope that most Americans do not share her opinion. No, scratch that. I hope that they don’t even bother listening to it…


Ah, I see. Now there's no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida all of a sudden...


Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Didn’t GWB claim that Saddam had close connections to Al-Qaida…?

What an awesome peice! Anne is so freakin insightful, it would be great if she could be president someday. I love Anne, its too bad I cant marry her or her have my babies, shes hot and smart, its a win/win. Bottomline is no matter what spin the media trys to put on it, when Governments support the Iraq war, they re-elected. This is because people understand its the right thing to do.
That is sooooooo sig-worthy. :D

That's good to know. I wouldn't vote for someone that proposed American withdrawal. I didn't, either.
The Australian election was primarily decided by the "mortgage belt" - a whole class of people who took up mortgages too big for them during the recent property boom.

Anything to do with interest rates scares the shit out of them.

And so it was convenient that the last labour government, now almost 10 years ago, I believe, was in power while the economy went through tough times and interest rates were very high (above 10%).

So, believe it or not, the Liberal Party ran an election campaign on that: The last time, Labour had high interest rates. Ergo, if they come to power, we will have higher interest rates, and your mortgages will cost you more!

I was vomiting my internal organs out, being an Econ student and all, but people actually believed it. I am absolutely dumbfounded and will be for all eternity.

And by the way: when Howard was treasurer back in the eighties, interest rates reached 17%, I believe.

The Australian election was primarily decided by the "mortgage belt" - a whole class of people who took up mortgages too big for them during the recent property boom.

Anything to do with interest rates scares the shit out of them.

And so it was convenient that the last labour government, now almost 10 years ago, I believe, was in power while the economy went through tough times and interest rates were very high (above 10%).

So, believe it or not, the Liberal Party ran an election campaign on that: The last time, Labour had high interest rates. Ergo, if they come to power, we will have higher interest rates, and your mortgages will cost you more!

I was vomiting my internal organs out, being an Econ student and all, but people actually believed it. I am absolutely dumbfounded and will be for all eternity.

And by the way: when Howard was treasurer back in the eighties, interest rates reached 17%, I believe.

na, na, na, babe, nothing beats this; when Peter Costello claimed that through some voodoo magic, if he kept a surplus of 2.5billion, interest rates wouldn't go up!

Funny, when interest rates go up, whats the excuse? well, Peter Costello jumps out and says, "thats because our economy is going gang busters!" <shakes head>

But hey, your average pleb is a moron who couldn't work the basics of economics out, even if it were manually implanted into their brain.

Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.

So that's why Oona King lost to George Galloway. We loved the war so much we killed off her political career to vote in that dick.

(For the record, King was very pro-war, Galloway as we all know, was anti).

Not to mention that we don't do elections for PM. Though she probably doesn't know that...

Unaware that there is NO CONNECTION between al-Qaida and Iraq

:eek:

Whoa! I must have been hiding under a rock - since when are rightwingers acknowledging that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq???

And how, when she admits that, does she justify the war in Iraq?

Those are actually serious questions, so if anyone cares to enlighten me, I'd be grateful (although chances are I don't really want to know...).

:eek:

Whoa! I must have been hiding under a rock - since when are rightwingers acknowledging that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq???

She was being sarcastic.

Her argument is that because al-Qaeda responded to the US aggression against Iraq, there must indeed have been such a connection, and only evil treasonous liberals would deny it.

She was being sarcastic.

Her argument is that because al-Qaeda responded to the US aggression against Iraq, there must indeed have been such a connection, and only evil treasonous liberals would deny it.

OMG, let me read it again and preemptively say that I honestly just woke up.
*winces*...

:eek:

Whoa! I must have been hiding under a rock - since when are rightwingers acknowledging that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq???

And how, when she admits that, does she justify the war in Iraq?

Those are actually serious questions, so if anyone cares to enlighten me, I'd be grateful (although chances are I don't really want to know...).According to her, the war in Iraq is justified because the Iraqis need to be converted to Christianity and because everyone not American hates the American way of life anyway, connection to AQ or not. (In fact, she's convinced that most Americans hate the American way of life too)

She was being sarcastic.

Her argument is that because al-Qaeda responded to the US aggression against Iraq, there must indeed have been such a connection, and only evil treasonous liberals would deny it.
Yeah, um, hehehe, what can I say? I actually had to read the paragraph several times, because that way of thinking is almost too far out for me to grasp. What an illogical reasoning, gah.

Plus, I only just woke up. :p
Maybe in the future I should start my day with things that bear less potential for embarrassment. Like having a cup of coffee. Or staying away from the keyboard...

Plus, I only just woke up. :p
Oh, the luxury...:rolleyes:

Ann Coulter; And why I love her.
Ann Coulter, while entertaining and funny at times, is a political gadfly of the first order. If Ann said it was snowing, I would run outside naked just to prove to myself it was in fact, true. :)

What an awesome peice! Anne is so freakin insightful, it would be great if she could be president someday. I love Anne, its too bad I cant marry her or her have my babies, shes hot and smart, its a win/win. Bottomline is no matter what spin the media trys to put on it, when Governments support the Iraq war, they re-elected. This is because people understand its the right thing to do.
You're getting funnier. Keep it up!

She is totally right! I mean.. the war is a great thing and we should have leaders who spend uber amounts of money on it. So we lose a few soldiers along the way.. In the end there will be peace and calm! She really knows what the people want, what they support. Results are nevvvvver wrong. Don't you see all the people who love Bush? Those left-wing scums are just trying to create drama!

Sure Tony Blair is Bush's bitch.. but he ROCKS! He is doing a great job over there in GB and will continue to do so.

Bush can't let those anti-war liberal hippies get in the way of world domination.. errr, I mean.. he can't let them get in the way of oil deposits.. err... the war on terror..? Yeah! The war on terror is justified and supported by the majority, the smart people.

Ann, I love ya! Keep up the good work! Oh My God.. I am going to HELL.

So... I am sitting in Iraq right now and I almost had a stroke when I read this, and my reply was going to be brutal, but then I re-read it and realized the sarcasm spilling from your words, and the relief that rushed over me was unfathomable. Awesome!

What an awesome peice! Anne is so freakin insightful, it would be great if she could be president someday. I love Anne, its too bad I cant marry her or her have my babies, shes hot and smart, its a win/win. Bottomline is no matter what spin the media trys to put on it, when Governments support the Iraq war, they re-elected. This is because people understand its the right thing to do.
oh god i know what you mean

http://home.ec.rr.com/djacksonjr/acgreen.jpg

i look at that prominent adam's apple and i immediatly start to fantasize about pseudo gay sex with a man pretending to be a woman while i <censored for decency> and "s"he screams "spank me momma ive been bad"

oh god i know what you mean

http://home.ec.rr.com/djacksonjr/acgreen.jpg

i look at that prominent adam's apple and i immediatly start to fantasize about pseudo gay sex with a man pretending to be a woman while i <censored for decency> and "s"he screams "spank me momma ive been bad"


LMAO... I am glad i didn't have liquid in my mouth, cuz i would have spit it laughing...:D

oh god i know what you mean

http://home.ec.rr.com/djacksonjr/acgreen.jpg

i look at that prominent adam's apple and i immediatly start to fantasize about pseudo gay sex with a man pretending to be a woman while i <censored for decency> and "s"he screams "spank me momma ive been bad"
Thats not an adams apple, its just bad lighting. Ann Coulter is hot, and you cant tell me Im the only one who has fanatized about her tying me to a leash and making me bark. Im not the only one right?

Thats not an adams apple, its just bad lighting. Ann Coulter is hot, and you cant tell me Im the only one who has fanatized about her tying me to a leash and making me bark. Im not the only one right?No. I hear Cheney had a chapter on his fantasies with Coulter in his memoirs.

I hate people sometimes.

So in the days of your left-libertarianhood, how many times a day did you genuflect before the altar of John Walker Lindh?

Like all real leftists I usually do so around ten to fifteen times a day. Perhaps your problem was insufficient piety?
maybe that was my problem, because even when I was 'liberal' I hated the guy. If I were the Army, I would have shot that guy on site.

Howard won because he targetted marginal seats and we saw, for the first time a religious party in Australia that supported Howard. He also ran a scare campaign about interest rates. Mark Latham was also a volatile candidate that did not appear to be the statesman that Howard was. It wasn't about the war.

I don't think she'd marry you if you can't spell her name right. Good spelling is your friend :)

Nah, if you can spell properly that just means you're an Educated Commie Liberal Traitor in her eyes.