Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote: I would be interested though to see if you would accept the same challenge I offered OE. Take a paragraph from any of the columns Tico posted today--a paragraph that the content is not modified by other content in the column--and explain why you think it is hate filled/disgusting/offensive/or objectionable.
I'm hesitating for three reasons. For one thing, I'm on A2K for fun, and it's no fun for me to read Anne Coulter. Moreover, pretty much every paragraph in any column by any author is modified by other content in the column. That gives you a loophole whatever I come up with. Finally, while I do find Anne Coulter's rhetoric objectionable, I didn't say it's hate filled, disgusting and offensive. Why should I let you challenge me on something I haven't said? Nevertheless, in the name of accepting challenges, here are three examples:
I don't put stuff out there as bait for an attack. I leave those kinds of tactics to others. If I put it up there, it is to participate in the discussion and/or it is an invitation to discuss a particular point of view. I do appreciate your response and respect it entirely as your perspective.
As a point of clarification, when I write "hate filled/disgusting/offensive/objectionable" I am using a mosaic of the terms that have been applied to Coulter. It would have probably been clearer to have written it "hate filled and/or disgusting and/or offensive and/or objectionable" but that just takes more space and energy. I knew full well that any attempt at defending, where warranted, and explaining, where possible, Ann Coulter would invite the usual stupid stuff from the trolls and spammers, but I consider you to be neither. And I find the subject interesting, so. . . .
Quote:Anne Coulter wrote:These new linguistic conventions -- like going from "winning" to "losing" in Iraq -- simply spread like an invisible bacterial invasion.
To be sure, last month the Democrats did win a narrow majority in Congress for the first time in more than a decade. And it cannot be denied that for the past 50 years, Democrats have orchestrated humiliating foreign policy defeats for America. So it is understandable that some might interpret their midterm gains as a mandate for another humiliating defeat.
Unsubstantiated stab-in-the-back legend.
Well let's review.
It was Democrats who were in power and who demanded the draw down and cease fire in Korea which was the first war in which the U.S. chose not to win.
It was Democrats who were in power during the ill advised and most embarrasing failed Bay of Pigs operation.
It was Democrats who were in power when we chose to not win but rather tuck tail and run and abandon our allies in Saigon. (Yes, I know President Ford was in office then, but the Democrats held Congress and refused to fund any more of the war.)
It was Democrats who were in power when all our American diplomats and staff were taken hostage and held for more than a year in Tehran. After a botched rescue mission, we did nothing but bluster about it.
It was Democrats who were in power when we cut and ran in Somalia and never looked back when a foray into that country turned out badly.
And it is mostly Democrats now, many who are in Congress, who are saying we have lost in Iraq and are clamoring for us to draw down our troops and leave in the wake of a great celebration of victory - by the terrorists.
Now you probably think that's what we should do--I'm just speculating on that--and you may not like the way she expresses it. But if you're an Ann Coulter who does believe we should win any war we get into and that we should not hand the terrorists a victory which will only embolden them, how off base is she?
Quote:Anne Coulter wrote:In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect -- who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."
Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.
Unsubstantiated smear masquerading as fact
Okay, the account of the deal with Korea is mockingly paraphrased and again I don't ask you to enjoy or appreciate that. But Carter did broker a deal with North Korea that Clinton signed off on. What was the deal? That North Korea would not develop nuclear weapons and they would have five years to dismantle any nuclear weapons program they had with no expectation that this be verifiable. We all know now how that turned out.
And Clinton did cheat on Hillary. Was that an unnecessary jab? Maybe. But for at least some of us who think it inappropriate for a sitting president to be cheating on his wife, especially with White House interns in the Oval Office while conducting State business, we understand the reference expressed in an exaggerated humorous way.
So a smear? You could look at it that way. Unsubstantiated? Within the framework of satirical humor, not in the least.
Anne Coulter wrote:As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
Quote:This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
"The war on Iraq as war on terrorism" lie again, together with an unsubstantianted smear of those who tell the truth: That Iraq hadn't attacked the United States, that it hadn't funded any terrorists who did, and that Iraq became a stronghold of terrorists only after Donald "Bring Them On" Rumsfeld had screwed up the occupation. Coulter uses such lying and smearing a lot in her writings.
I accept that you don't think the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror and I accept that you think Iraq hadn't funded any terrorists and that there were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. I personally think you're dead wrong about that on all counts. So that's one of those things we'll probably have to agree to disagree on. (Germany hadn't attacked us either but had declared war on us. So had Saddam who, according to the 9/11 Report and Duelfer report would have resumed all WMD programs the minute the inspectors were pulled out and the sanctions lifted. Meanwhile tens of thousands of truly innocent Iraqis were sick, starving, and dying as a result of the sanctions and Saddam enriching himself while not allocating the oil for food monies intended to help them. How moral would it have been to have kept that going on for years and years more?)
There are many millions of us here in America who do consider the war in Iraq as a legitimate part of the war on terror, who do believe that Saddam was funding and probably orchestrating terrorism right up to his capture, and this is substantiated at least in part by terrorists converging to defend their turf against those who think terrorism is worth defeating. A lie is an intentional and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. I think Ann Coulter believes Iraq to be a legitimate part of the war on terrorism and has not lied in any way.
Quote:I hope this gives you some impression of why I pity every tree that died to make paper for Coulter's writings to be printed on.
Yes I accept and respect your opinion on that. Can you understand why some of the rest of us see it differently?
(Also thanks to those friends and worthy opponents capable of having reasonable discussions even when there are broad differences in points of view.)
