GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
9,456 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
17 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
42 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: A Coulter piece to offend everyone (except Michael Steele) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Eric Knauer
United States
Heathrow
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176033


Bill Kristol must resign
By Ann Coulter



Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.

It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" – as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that – even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.)

Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.

Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.

Having some vague concept of America's national interest – unlike liberals – the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."

By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.

If Saddam Hussein had been a peach, it would still be a major victory in the war on terrorism to have a Muslim Israel in that part of the globe, and it sure wasn't going to be Afghanistan (literacy rate, 19 percent; life expectancy, 44 years; working toilets, 7).

But Iraq also was a state sponsor of terrorism; was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain – thanks, liberals!); nurtured and gave refuge to Islamic terrorists – including the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; was led by a mass murderer who had used weapons of mass destruction; paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers; had vast oil reserves; and is situated at the heart of a critical region.

Having absolutely no interest in America's national security, the entire Democratic Party (save Joe Lieberman) wailed about the war in Iraq for five years, pretending they really wanted to go great-guns in Afghanistan. What the heck: They had already voted for the war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 when they would have been hanged as traitors had they objected.

The obsession with Afghanistan was pure rhetoric. Democrats have no interest in fighting any war that would serve America's interests. (They're too jammed with their wars against evangelicals, Wal-Mart, the Pledge of Allegiance, SUVs and the middle class.) Absent Iraq, they'd have been bad-mouthing Afghanistan, too.

So for the entire course of the magnificently successful war in Iraq, all we heard from these useless Democrats was that Iraq was a "war of choice," while Afghanistan – the good war! – was a "war of necessity." "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan!" "He got distracted by war in Iraq!" "WHERE'S OSAMA?" and – my favorite – "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!"

Of course, neither did Afghanistan. But Democrats were in a lather and couldn't be bothered with the facts.

The above complaints about Iraq come – nearly verbatim – from speeches and press conferences by Obama, Joe Biden, and Obama's national security advisers Susan Rice and Richard Clarke. Also, the entire gutless Democratic Party. Some liberals began including them in their wedding vows.

(By the way, Democrats: WHERE'S OSAMA?)

Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.

At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.

In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.

Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.

As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its a-- handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.

Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.

There's even talk of giving soldiers medals for NOT shooting people, which I gather will be awarded posthumously. Naomi Campbell is rougher with her assistants than our troops are allowed to be with Taliban fighters.

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's often hard to know whether she's trying really hard or not at all.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mb
"She" has an Adam's Apple. Tee-hee
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hasn't her 15 minutes timed out yet?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wray Cason
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
What a strange, unfocused rant.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wray Cason
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
DCAnderson wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
What, exactly, do you find incorrect about the substance of that piece?


That there isn't any.
That is going to far.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
What a strange, unfocused rant.


This is the most appropriate description of Ann Coulter. Ever.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wray Cason
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Koldfoot wrote:
What, exactly, do you find incorrect about the substance of that piece?
I don't fault many constituent elements of the piece. I have a hard time telling what the substance is though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Jones
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
What a strange, unfocused rant man.


Fixed that for you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
What, exactly, do you find incorrect about the substance of that piece?


I'll put it in two buckets.

First there's the description of events that hovers on the fine line between "distorted beyond reason" and "utterly false":

Coulter wrote:
Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.


We'd scattered the Taliban but certainly not defeated them. The "American-friendly government" was semi-functioning at best. It's entirely possible that our best strategy in Afghanistan would have been to withdraw once the initial military victory occurred because going for a larger and more lasting win is either impossible or too costly. Coulter goes well beyond serious debate when she paints Afghanistan as a victory that would have worked out just fine if only we'd left it mostly alone.

Quote:
So for the entire course of the magnificently successful war in Iraq,


Precious few people call the war in Iraq "magnificently successful". If you're one of them, we can discuss it -- if not, then count that as another incorrect piece of substance.

Quote:
"Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!"

Of course, neither did Afghanistan.


The organization that attacked us was in Afghanistan and the ruling Taliban was allied with them and either unable or unwilling to give them up.

There's also the standard "liberals/Democrats aren't just wrong, they actually want America to be destroyed and only their fear of righteous retribution stops them from coming out and saying so":

"even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks"
"Having some vague concept of America's national interest unlike liberals "
"Having absolutely no interest in America's national security, the entire Democratic Party"
"Democrats have no interest in fighting any war that would serve America's interests."
17 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Very legal & very cool
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
I have a hard time telling what the substance is though.


You didn't catch it? It was subtle, like a ninja in the bamboo trees overlooking the corrupt lord's compound, but here's the summary: "Liberals are the source of every ill known to man and beast"

Quote:
But Iraq . . . was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain – thanks, liberals!)


This is amazing, some M#%^&#$*ing rhetorical jiujitsu - she takes an effective, reasonable counter against Democratic attacks (that bipartisan commissions accepted substantial bits of Bush's case for war) and wields it like a weapon, implying that those nasty old liberals "endlessly" pushed the idea of Saddam's nukes.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another one would be this particularly sleazy gambit of using the military's (read: Marines') own strategy of counterinsurgency, developed by Mattis and Petraeus, to bash Obama:

somebody who never got enough attention wrote:
At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.

In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.

--snip--

Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.


Based on a rather thoughtful, in-depth profile of Mattis here, I can only conclude that Coulter is making convenient hay out of something the military has been putting into action for quite a while now. And she's also factually wrong about the "medals for NOT shooting people", if Mattis is any indication -- not that she's unwilling to truck in argument by rumor and assertion to begin with.


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
You guys are missing the point of the article.

(Which makes sense, I guess, as liberal/moderate Democrats aren't the target audience.)

What Coulter, and other conservative columnists like Pat Buchanan are doing is having a public spat with the Neo-Con wing of the GOP- Bill Kristol and Charles Kruthammer, to be specific.

Pat Buchanan describes the background for what is going on behind Coulter's article here.

Pat Buchanan wrote:

William Kristol's demand for Steele's resignation was echoed by Charles Krauthammer and Liz Cheney, daughter of the vice president. From Afghanistan, Steele was attacked by Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who suggested he think again about his capacity to lead the Republican National Committee.

Behind the swiftness and severity of the attacks on one of their own by Republican pundits and politicians are motives more serious and sinister than exasperation at another gaffe by Michael Steele.

The War Party is conducting this pre-emptive strike on Steele to send a message to dissenters. In Krauthammer's phrase, it is now a "capital offense" for a Republican leader not to support the Obama troop surge and the Obama-Petraeus policy.


Pat Buchanan, "The Real Sin of Michael Steele" 7.06.10 http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100706/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3314610

In essence, this spat over the War in Afghanistan is just the symbol over which a greater argument over who is going to set the direction of the GOP.

The neo-cons feel the need to continue on in Afghanistan at any price for the sake of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and building up democracy (or, at least, a better version of neo-Tribalism). The paleo-cons argue that there aren't any inherent national interests for the US at stake in Afghanistan, and that the idea that the US can make Afghanistan better is naive.

The neo-cons are willing to ally with Obama for the sake of continuing a war they feel is more important. The paleo-cons feel that a pullout is inevitable, the blame for the 'failure' will be easily be laid at the feet of Obama, and so, the GOP should NOT ally with Obama on Afghanistan policy. Better to hang him with the war, in order to win the election in 2012.

Many neo-cons, like Bill Kristol, bolted from the GOP when Obama became the Democratic candidate. Most paleo-cons, like Buchanan, held thier noses for McCain and have been vociferous in thier dismay for Obama ever since.

The neo-con wing sees McCain as the senior 'head of the GOP'. The paleo-cons see McCain as a senator who had his chance and lost, and are unwilling to back him again.

The neo-cons are more 'technocratic'- they focus on pragmatic solutions to policies over ideology, or at least they claim- forgetting that they never really examine the biases that base many of their policies. (In this, they aren't much different from 'progressive' Democrats'.)

The paleo-cons are fiercely 'ideological'- they feel that the reason McCain lost in 2008 was that the GOP didn't 'stand' for anything, much less any of the 'values' that made the GOP great.

The neo-cons look back to William H. Buckley and to Ronald Reagan- many of them 'Reagan Democrats' who left the Democrats in 1980 and never left. They see Reagan's ability to attract Democrats as the key to his success.

The paleo-cons look to Pat Buchanan and to Ronald Reagan- many of them were Reagan 'shock troops' who survived the GOP's Valley Forge years of the Post-Watergate era. They see themselves, and their values, as the keys to Reagan's success.

What you're seeing, in this article by Coulter and in Buchanan's article is the first open volley of a divide within the GOP that has been growing ever since 2009- what direction is the GOP going to go?

The Tea Party helped mask this for a time. But now, as the congressional elections are coming up, the basic fundemental divisions between the disparite factions that were papered over in Hawaii can no longer be ignored.

Darilian
20 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
perfalbion wrote:
Wrayman wrote:
What a strange, unfocused rant.


This is the most appropriate description of Ann Coulter. Ever.

She has always reminded me of someone in particular I used to work with who earned from others the nickname "the crazy lady". Sadly I think it was too literally accurate.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Very legal & very cool
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
You guys are missing the point of the article.

(Which makes sense, I guess, as liberal/moderate Democrats aren't the target audience.)


I thank you - this article is much more interesting (and less infuriating) thanks to your analysis.

Sadly, it's no less batshit crazy
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:

The neo-cons are more 'technocratic'- they focus on pragmatic solutions to policies over ideology, or at least they claim- forgetting that they never really examine the biases that base many of their policies. (In this, they aren't much different from 'progressive' Democrats'.)

The paleo-cons are fiercely 'ideological'- they feel that the reason McCain lost in 2008 was that the GOP didn't 'stand' for anything, much less any of the 'values' that made the GOP great.

Dar;

I was with you up to this point.

Recognizing that there are no vital US interests in Afghanistan and that the US should cut its losses and leave is inherently pragmatic, not ideological. The US oughtn't have gone in and is just wasting men and materiel as long as they are there. The ideological stance is the non-sense keeping the US there, not vice-versa.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Take it up with Pat Buchanan, not me! I'm only giving the gist of what Pat, as the crustiest paleo-conservative out there, has been saying for the last two years.

Essentially, Pat argues for foreign policy 'realism' (as oppossed to what he sees as neo-con 'idealism'.) This doesn't mean, however, that he doesn't have a very coherent ideology in how he feels the US 'should' be- read his opinions about how the identity of the US is being subverted by illegal immigration, for instance.

I have no dog in this fight- as a 'Whig-Con', there are very few in the GOP in that truly represent my interests. Not this is preventing me from backing individuals (mostly state level) that I prefer.

Darilian
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
You guys are missing the point of the article.


Not really. I get the power-struggle that's going on -- that doesn't make the article less fact-challenged.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Darilian wrote:
You guys are missing the point of the article.


Not really. I get the power-struggle that's going on -- that doesn't make the article less fact-challenged.


Yes, but Coulter's standard hyper-ventilation's were targeted towards someone else for a change....and I wanted to point that out.

If you read her column carefully, she's using her standard 'Liberals are idiots' spiel to imply that Republicans who want to work WITH 'Liberals' must be even BIGGER idiots. Its actually a pretty good piece of polemic.

Pat's article is a better read, in my opinion. He states his case a lot more clearly- and convincingly.

Darilian

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Yes, but Coulter's standard hyper-ventilation's were targeted towards someone else for a change....and I wanted to point that out.


Not really, no. She's just building a "guilt by association" argument for anyone that supports the war in Afghanistan. Which is very humorous, considering she's basically calling neo-cons liberals on this.

Quote:
Pat's article is a better read, in my opinion. He states his case a lot more clearly- and convincingly.


Clearer and more convincing than Ann Coulter? Impossible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carlton
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Did some Liberal somewhere set Coulter's tampon on fire once or something?

The venom and bile just obscures anything she ever says. Not that I suspect there's much worth listening to underneath it all but you'd have difficulty absorbing Shakespeare if the actors performing it routinely doused the audience with flamethrowers during the play...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What offends me is that people love to hate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Nothing in that opinion piece offended me. Hell, I'm not even offended by the typical RSP reaction to anyone who is female and conservative... derision and pre-pubescent joking not too far removed from "She farted! Ha.Ha."

Having never before read a Coulter opinion piece, actually having never read anything by her, I took the time to read the OP twice. Chad and all the other RSP regulars can argue till they're blue in the face about shit that wasn't actually the intent of the article. Nobody cares. Her intent was clear... and while Darilian summed up some of the salient points, he made it overly complicated. In short - she supports Michael Steele and feels like her interpretation of the chronology and the nuance of inter-party politics justified her suggesting that it's Cristol, not Steele, who has gone off the reservation.

One thing I do understand and don't need Anne Coulter's help on is that Afghanistan is mere politics for Barry Obama. He's easily the most ineffective leader in modern times and his military "policy" is identical to his domestic policy - vague, meandering, prone to 180 reversals on poor polling numbers and almost certain to kill extra Americans and make life more expensive, dangerous and desperate for us all.

I really do wish Zombie Elvis would rise and run in 2012. He'd certainly be my choice.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
DWTripp wrote:
.. and while Darilian summed up some of the salient points, he made it overly complicated.


I didn't write the post for you, Tripp-
I wrote it for the lefties who prefer to read academic-ese.


Darilian
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
I really do wish Zombie Elvis would rise and run in 2012. He'd certainly be my choice.


The current zombie isn't enough for you?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.