The Evil Genius Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Not to answer for Jimbo, but wasnt she saying that its the liberal media who is using this term disproportionately? The fact that the Times (a reputed leaner to the Right) does it - and wasnt mentioned - does not support Coulter's argument. This is what Jimbo said earlier... What she doesn’t say – or had no interest in finding out – is that an identical search of the Washington Times produces identical results. So it appears that everybody, liberal and conservative, uses the terms in pretty much the same way. Doesn’t necessarily mean her conclusions are invalid - but it unquestionably means that her highly-touted research is sloppy and designed to twist results to fit her agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 no argument there TEG....unless they're spending nights in the Lincoln room....once they start influencing public policy because of access induced by wealth - sound familiar?.... - then I take issue. and, in significant matters such as this, if they influence the security of my family....then I'm very concerned and demand accountability downstream if things go awry...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Coulter selected this phrase as proof that the NYT is a liberally biased newspaper. In fact, using Coulter's chosen yardstick, there is no difference between the NYT and the Washington Times. Obviously there are MAJOR differences between the two papers. I'm just illustrating that Coulter's assertions are not to be trusted, she will tell you only what she wants you to know. I know it reads well. She sold a ton of books and became famous with this stuff. But I don't hold any more creedence in her statements than I do Rosie or Babs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 24, 2003 Author Share Posted February 24, 2003 Actually, she used that as an example that the media was left biased. That the NYT is leftist doesnt need to be debated, I think we can all agree, as we can all agree that the Wash Times is right leaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just skins baby Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Alec Baldwin is absouletly a non-factor. Anybody remember his last couple of movies? Even Kim Basinger left him! He get's on these shows only for face time and to let Hollywood know he is still out there. Personally, If I ever got millions of dollars, it sure would'nt go to any political party. I am Joe Average and my money would stay with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Jimbo.........ok........one in the plus column........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 I am a conservative (classical liberal) and I find Ann Coulter rhetoric to be downright scary at times. However like Art said I would bang the hell out of her. Here is a column by her which really turned me off. To say I was shock is an understatement. The national review fired her for this column. This column was right after 9/11. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20010914.shtml Barbara Olson kept her cool. In the hysteria and terror of hijackers herding passengers to the rear of the plane, she retrieved her cell phone and called her husband, Ted, the solicitor general of the United States. She informed him that he had better call the FBI -- the plane had been hijacked. According to reports, Barbara was still on the phone with Ted when her plane plunged in a fiery explosion directly into the Pentagon. Barbara risked having her neck slit to warn the country of a terrorist attack. She was a patriot to the very end. This is not to engage in the media's typical hallucinatory overstatement about anyone who is the victim of a horrible tragedy. The furtive cell phone call was an act of incredible daring and panache. If it were not, we'd be hearing reports of a hundred more cell phone calls. (Even people who swear to hate cell phones carry them for commercial air travel.) The last time I saw Barbara in person was about three weeks ago. She generously praised one of my recent columns and told me I had really found my niche. Ted, she said, had taken to reading my columns aloud to her over breakfast. I mention that to say three things about Barbara. First, she was really nice. A lot of people on TV seem nice, but aren't. (And some who don't seem nice, are.) But Barbara was always her charming, graceful, ebullient self. "Nice" is an amazingly rare quality among writers. In the opinion business, bitter, jealous hatred is the norm. Barbara had reason to be secure. Second, it was actually easy to imagine Ted reading political columns aloud to Barbara at the breakfast table. Theirs was a relationship that could only be cheaply imitated by Bill and Hillary -- the latter being a subject of Barbara's appropriately biting best seller, "Hell to Pay." Hillary claimed preposterously in the Talk magazine interview that she discussed policy with Bill while cutting his grapefruit in the morning. Ted and Barbara really did talk politics -- and really did have breakfast together. It's "Ted and Barbara" just like it's Fred and Ginger, and George and Gracie. They were so perfect together, so obvious, that their friends were as happy they were on their wedding day. This is more than the death of a great person and patriotic American. It's a human amputation. Third, since Barbara's compliment, I've been writing my columns for Ted and Barbara. I'm always writing to someone in my head. Now I don't know who to write to. Ted and Barbara were a good muse. Apart from hearing that this beautiful light has been extinguished from the world, only one other news flash broke beyond the numbingly omnipresent horror of the entire day. That evening, CNN reported that bombs were dropping in Afghanistan -- and then updated the report to say they weren't our bombs. They should have been ours. I want them to be ours. This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson. We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week. The nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or "religious" profiling. People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty. "All of our lives" don't need to change, as they keep prattling on TV. Every single time there is a terrorist attack -- or a plane crashes because of pilot error -- Americans allow their rights to be contracted for no purpose whatsoever. The airport kabuki theater of magnetometers, asinine questions about whether passengers "packed their own bags," and the hostile, lumpen mesomorphs ripping open our luggage somehow allowed over a dozen armed hijackers to board four American planes almost simultaneously on Bloody Tuesday. (Did those fabulous security procedures stop a single hijacker anyplace in America that day?) Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. 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. She has since denied she wrote this column Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Here is a good read - appears that FoxNews interviewed the wrong celebrity. Ms. Garofalo kindly took off her kid gloves.. News Sunday, Feb. 23, 2003. TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: A group of activists, including many Hollywood stars, has formed an outfit named Win Without War. They argue that it's possible to neutralize Saddam Hussein peaceably. Joining us from New York to discuss war, peace and Saddam Hussein is actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo, a leader of Win Without War. Ms. Garofalo... JANEANE GAROFALO, ACTRESS: Oh, I'm not a leader of Win Without War. SNOW: OK, well, you're... GAROFALO: I'm just in Win Without War, which is 32 million people. A very, very, very small portion of them are actors. SNOW: All right. Well, there. We've got that straightened out. GAROFALO: Yes. SNOW: Let's try to walk through issues of war and peace. Let me first begin with a question about pacifism. Do you believe there is such a thing as a just war? GAROFALO: God, that's a tough one. I guess everybody always looks toward World War II being the definition of the ultimate just war. I suppose, but I absolutely would not say that this war in Iraq is a just war. The Anglo-American war in Iraq has been going on for many years. I mean, we can go back as far as the Carter doctrine, when in the Mideast they started nationalizing their own oil, thereby strengthening OPEC, and we decided to do something about that. And then in the '90s, the Anglo-American war really revved up against Iraq. SNOW: OK, well, the reason -- I just want to try to establish a philosophical base line. GAROFALO: Sure. SNOW: Let's talk about factual matters. Saddam Hussein, has he been a mass murderer? GAROFALO: Yes, there's been a lot of people who have been mass murderers. And I think Turkey also, who we've been negotiating with, has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Also, the sanctions, you could say, have been responsible for mass murder. SNOW: OK. Well, just I want to tick through these and then we can go through them. GAROFALO: And he was also a human rights violator when he was our ally, don't forget. SNOW: You're absolutely right. GAROFALO: He was our ally and a bad guy until August 2, 1990. SNOW: And I think you will agree that that was a mistake, was it not, to have him as an ally? GAROFALO: Oh, sure, yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. SNOW: Good, OK. A threat to neighbors, a man who has waged war twice on neighbors, correct? GAROFALO: Yes, but I don't know that his neighbors think he's a threat now. In fact, I think a lot of people would say his dastardly deeds peaked in the late '80s. SNOW: Well, Kuwait and Iran both beg to differ, and they've both been on the record recently saying that they'd prefer not to have him in. GAROFALO: Well, they definitely prefer not to have him in. And nobody's arguing that Saddam should be removed, nobody's arguing that the Iraqi people deserve to be liberated. But I don't think they're too happy about the Turks coming in, the Kurds. I don't know that that's going to be too liberating for them. SNOW: Well, we'll get into predictive -- again, let me just tick through these and then we can get to the other things. GAROFALO: Sure. SNOW: Eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction, do you think he is? GAROFALO: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that question. SNOW: Do you think he is eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction? GAROFALO: Yes, I think lots of people are eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But there's no evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction. There's been no evidence of him testing nuclear weapons. We have people that are in our face with nuclear weapons. We've got Iran and North Korea. We've got a problem with Pakistan. You know, I don't know what to say about that. There's a whole lot of people that are going nuclear. And I think that Saddam Hussein is actually, with the evidence, the least able to use nuclear weapons and the least obvious offender in that area at this moment. SNOW: OK. All right, so we've now laid this down. You argue that we should not go to war because of unilateralism, correct? GAROFALO: Yes and no. And I also argued the Clinton administration was big on unilateralism, and I think the Clinton administration's Iraq policy was despicable. SNOW: Why didn't you protest it then? GAROFALO: I absolutely did. I did not support Operation Desert Fox, it's just that you didn't know me very well back then. Nobody, really, was interested in listening to me back them. (LAUGHTER) It wasn't very hip to... SNOW: Well, perhaps let me change the question, then. Why wasn't there an organized anti-war movement under Bill Clinton? GAROFALO: Oh, there was, and Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were at the forefront. You know, the thing is, this Hollywood thing is such a straw man, it's such a waste of people's time. But... SNOW: Well, that's why we're not talking Hollywood. GAROFALO: I know, and I thank you for it. I thank you for it. SNOW: You're responding to arguments I haven't made. GAROFALO: I thank you for not bringing it up. SNOW: OK. GAROFALO: But Operation Desert Fox, there was a lot of protest, just as there was a lot of protest for the first Gulf War. SNOW: OK, now, here's the question. You've said that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer, he's somebody who has gone after weapons of mass destruction. You agree that the world would be better off without him in power. Why do you think a regime of inspections would unseat him? GAROFALO: Well, actually, I think -- well, I think it's been abundantly clear that whether he complies to inspections or not is irrelevant. As it was to the Clinton administration, it's irrelevant here. This particular administration, as the Clinton administration did, they wanted into Iraq. Diplomacy last, war first. But I think that... SNOW: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. GAROFALO: Yes. SNOW: I mean, the Clinton administration did not go into war with Iraq. GAROFALO: They... SNOW: The Bush administration has been engaged in, I think you would concede, a pretty furious round of diplomatic negotiations. GAROFALO: I absolutely would not concede that at all. I would not concede that at all. SNOW: Well, how do you get 18 European nations on your side without picking up the phone and making some calls? GAROFALO: Well, yes, I guess it's a lot of coercion and arm- twisting. I would say -- I would say that it has been the idea since 1990, '91 to go into Iraq and to have hegemony over the region, redraw the map. Oil is a part of it, not all of it. But 9/11 has been a way to reinvigorate the plan that the right- wingers and the ideologues and people like the people at the American Enterprise Institute and... SNOW: Well, OK, whoa, whoa, whoa. This seems highly fanciful. Go in, occupy the region and redraw the map? GAROFALO: Yes. Oh, don't pretend that this is like some crazy conspiracy theory and I'm... SNOW: Well, but it strikes me as a little far-fetched. I mean, the British tried to do it in the beginning of the century. GAROFALO: Well, what is far-fetched... SNOW: But you... GAROFALO: What is far-fetched about wanting hegemony over the region? Since the 1940s, American diplomats and government people have been very vocal about the fact that there is a lot of wealth to be obtained in that area and it behooves anyone to be in charge of that area. SNOW: Well, wait, wait, wait. GAROFALO: And it behooves anyone -- yes. SNOW: No, I'm just curious about it, because again, the idea of hegemony -- trade relations are a way to build wealth. GAROFALO: Sure. SNOW: Hegemony is a way to build trouble. And the United States has no record... GAROFALO: Yeah, absolutely, hence my problem. Oh, I just spit. Sorry. (LAUGHTER) Hence my -- I'm foaming at the mouth, Tony. Hence my problem with it. I also... SNOW: I'm happy I've been able to get you so passionate about this. GAROFALO: You've gotten me all flumoxed. But I also resent Rick -- you know, Senator Santorum's assertions that this won't be particularly costly or lengthy. This is going to be economically devastating for us. And also, the assertion that inaction breeds terrorist strikes, that is ridiculous. Action in Iraq will make us decidedly less safer. SNOW: OK. A lot of the case that you and others have made are built on predictions, that there will be an uprising in the Arab street, for instance. GAROFALO: Yes. SNOW: Well, how will this be the case? There was no uprising in the Arab street after the Gulf War. There was no Arab uprising in the Arab street after Afghanistan. You've got Saddam Hussein, who is the foremost killer of Muslims on Earth. He's killed a million Muslims. Osama bin Laden, even in trying to rally people to his side, has called him an infidel. I've been in the region twice in recent months. I've spoken to five heads of state and numerous foreign ministers, all of whom who have no love for the guy. Why on Earth would the Arab street rise up in favor of one of its worst enemies? GAROFALO: They're not in favor of one of its worst enemies. They have as much distaste for Americans as they do for Saddam. They're not happy about the sanctions. They're not happy about the Palestinian question. They're not happy about the military installations near sacred sites. And to say that there's been no uprising since the Afghanistan, with about 6,000 or 7,000 Afghani civilians dead, that is ridiculous. There are 2 million pilgrims at the hajj who have no love for the American idea of going into the heart of the Arabian world in Iraq. SNOW: You know this for a fact? You're... GAROFALO: What are you -- I know as much for a fact as you guys know for a fact. I know as much as anybody who has access to information on the Internet, a library, satellite dish, international news. SNOW: The information seems to be, in many cases -- and now I'll see if you'll concede this -- that people in that region, like you, want Saddam Hussein out of power. They just want to make sure if we do it, A, we do it, and B, the United States stays the course and provides economic aid so that we can put democracy in the region. GAROFALO: That would be great if they stayed the course and provided economic aid. They apparently left out budgeting money for Afghanistan, which was a bit of a blunder. I think Afghanistan has not proved to be successful right now. You have mercenaries protecting Hamid Karzai 24 hours a day. You've got extremists on the border of Afghanistan and in Pakistan, who could very well get their hands... SNOW: So you think they're better or worse off than when they were under Taliban rule? GAROFALO: No, I think that they're basically in sort of the same position in the rural regions right now. I think, obviously, democracy is ideal. You know, it would be wonderful if they could live free and have sovereignty. I don't think making Iraq a U.S. military garrison is going to accomplish that. I don't think they're going to be happy after getting -- you know, Hans von Spanik said prior -- Hans von Spanik, who used to be head of the oil-for-food... SNOW: Program, that's right. GAROFALO: ... program, said that it's going to cost at least $100 billion right now to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. That's not even counting what's going to happen after the war. SNOW: OK. Two quick questions. GAROFALO: Yes. SNOW: If people are dancing in the streets of Baghdad after a war... GAROFALO: OK, what are you going to say? "Are you going to apologize?" Everybody asks me that... SNOW: No, I'm not asking you if you're going to apologize. Are you just going to say, "Well, I guess I was wrong"? GAROFALO: I would love to be wrong about this, Tony. SNOW: OK. GAROFALO: There's no glory in being right about catastrophe. SNOW: And final question: If U.S. troops are called into battle, will you support them? GAROFALO: I support them now, and I supported them then, and I support them safely all the way home. SNOW: All right. Janeane Garofalo, thanks for joining us. GAROFALO: Thanks, Tony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Why did Fox interview the wrong celebrity, TEG? That is a perfect example of the uninformed stance of the left. Make wild accusations and statements and pretend as if they are somehow tangible. She says.... -- Sanctions may be a cause of mass murder. Actually, the murderer is the cause of mass murder and sanctions can't kill. People kill. -- His dastardly deeds peaked in the late 80s she says. True enough. But why did they decline? Because we kicked his rump. . -- Nobody is arguing that the people of Iraq don't deserve to be liberated from Saddam. Fascinating. She's just asking that no one actually bother to do the liberating. This is JUST the right celeb TEG. -- There's no evidence he has weapons of mass destruction. I hate when liberals call liberal Hans Blix a liar . Of course there's evidence of his weapons of mass destruction. There's no evidence he destroyed those weapons or even acknowledges them though. That's true enough. -- It's clear that we just want into Iraq. Clear under Clinton. Clear under Bush she says. Then why aren't we in Iraq? We already have permission from Congress to go. Why didn't Clinton go since it was clear we wanted to be in there? This is the weakest lefty argument. If it's so clear why hasn't it long been done? -- War first, diplomacy last. That's why we went to Congress to get permission. That's why we went to the U.N. and got a resolution. That's why eight nations of Europe wrote a letter thanking the U.S. for saving the world. That's why we've been having this conversation for some eight months. Talk, but no war. Don't concede the point though. It's so clear you can deny it and it still remains clear . -- We want their oil and to redraw the map. Yet, when we were IN Iraq and kicking them out from attacking a neighbor we did none of this and yet had the same charges levied at the time as well. Mindless then. Mindless now. It goes on and on. The rise of the Arab Street. Scary. The economic devestation this war will bring. War has always previously brought good economic times. This war will just be different. We've just had eight years of Clinton in which we did little to respond to the increasing provokations of terrorism against us as it continued to grow. Yet, pointing out that inaction has caused terrorism to increase the best response the left can come up with is that action will make it worse. Maybe. We just happen to already know inaction does make it worse. It's almost boring hearing the same rhetoric without any real contemplation or understanding being displayed. This celeb is PRECISELY the one you want to expose. Snow is an abject idiot, so, perhaps you were just confused by his complete lack of readiness, but that doesn't mean the flimsy and baseless position of this celeb was powerful. It was as damaging as any to her own side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Art....a few other thoughts....... 1) As a serviceman...I don't want Garofalo's support. I have contempt for her, her moral ambiguity, her ignorance, the threat she represents to the lives of my fellow servicemen. And she is a threat....if we are going to go in and clean things up in Iraq, then the service people have a right to expect that it be done in circumstances that are optimum for success and minimize the risk to life. delays increase risk. she will be indirectly responsible for increased body counts if this drags on........ 2) The interview is larded with the typical sorts of generalizations that cannot be nailed down with any sort of practical policy statements: - the Arab streets are unhappy? what does that mean? how should that be interpreted into policy? is it a "feel bad" unhappy? is this a "we hate America in every instance" unhappy? is this a "we wish to express our empathy with the suffering" unhappy? it's a meanigless assertion and claims a homogeneity of opinion in the Arab world that doesn't exist. - the sanctions are responsible for mass murder? as you point out, her logic suggests that we are the perpetrators. as a moral statement it is hideously bankrupt - to put more teeth to what you are stating: as a policy perscription it leads nowhere. we implement a punitive policy and the Iraqi government exacts a tole on its citizens in response to the policy. who, exactly is culpable here? again...more moral ambiguity.....or is it self-hatred (hard to tell with Hollywood types). - this is a point bearing further emphasis...these anti-war folks have a very nasty habit of qualifiing all their statements with "Americans don't support this"....or..."Americans believe that..."....they don't speak for all Americans....in fact...they probably don't speak for even a majority. that part they do "speak for"....are a mix of anti-war types, anti-globalists, anarchists, socialists, etc., etc., they claim a unanimity and singleness of voice that simply doesn't exist. it is important for them, however, to cloak themselves in this rhetorical self-deceit because it is the only way to confer any semblance of legitimacy to their cause. 3) It is rife with rhetoric and empty of any practical solutions. Well, yes, those uninformed few in Kuwait and the other Gulf states want Saddam removed. And yes, not to appear as too wild an ideologue, we all think he is evil and needs to be removed. And your solution is? a deafening silence.......tolerate more murders and risk escalation while we figure this one out...."we'll get back to you on this one" is the tacit answer. This amounts to an intellectual raincheck many of us are not prepared to allow them to cash in at some "undetermined future date". What they are essentially doing is body count trade-offs: they are cynical in the extreme. 4) Her mindset is absolutely void of any strategic thinking. There is no recognition of "the larger picture". She has some peremptory comments (and implicit social condemnation in the finest Hollywood fashion: I'll **** on the rest of you while benefitting immensely from the same system) on the greedy/immmoral pursuit for oil profits and control as the underlying cause for this war. No discussion at all of the threat. The administration has presented one view. What is hers? what are the risks to America in the current world situation? she has absolutely nothing to say on this. and because she has nothing to say....she has no ideas on what we should do. These people are morally bankrupt. they are against war. ok.....great. what risks should the rest of us shoulder to reach a democratic compromise with these folks? the garofalos of the world won't be there to fight the battles when things go awry.....when the next embassy attack occurs, when the next barracks are blown to smithereens, when the next 17 sailors are killed, when the next 3000 citizens are burned to death, when the next airliner is bombed, when the next technicians are shot on the way to work, when the next presidential assination plot is aired, when the next disco is torched.....where the *uck will these people be? nowhere...they will be cowering in Hollywood because they are cowards whose self-loathing is exceeded only by their ignorance and barrenness of ideas........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 The left didn't protest actions of war under President Clinton? Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I don't know....they were too busy camping out in the Lincoln room or entertaining Chinese money funnelers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 Because they arent protesting the war. They are protesting Bush and the GOP. Garafolo claims she and Sarandon et al protested Clintons war, but I bet nobody has any film of those "protests" In her own words "It wasnt hip" I hope they all go and act as human shields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Sounds like they might just be hypocrites right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Yes (I'm the 1st one to answer the question! ) As Garofalo said: "Nobody, really, was interested in listening to me back then" So why should we listen to you now? Same thing with celebrities. No one cared what these people had to say before they became famous, they get a couple mil and now we should adhere to every word they say? I don't think so. Their words are just as weightless as they were before they were celebs. Too bad no one seems to realize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 OK it seems those on the left who didn't protest during the Clinton years are now labeled hypocrites. Let's see would you equally be a hypocrite if you now support war on Iraq but during the Clinton years you were against it? Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 There was no war against Iraq during the Clinton years. Just alot of missles being thrown about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by rskin24 There was no war against Iraq during the Clinton years. Just alot of missles being thrown about. Well than how could those liberals have been hypocrites? I'm starting to get lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by JackC OK it seems those on the left who didn't protest during the Clinton years are now labeled hypocrites. Let's see would you equally be a hypocrite if you now support war on Iraq but during the Clinton years you were against it? Hmmm. Yes. I expect those who called Clinton a political opportunist when our bombing of Iraq coincided with his impeachment would be leveling the same critisicm at Bush today. If Garafolo did so, as she claims, then at least she's consistant. I don't know one way or the other, though. Personally, I supported Clinton's decision then, and Bush's now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I have trouble understanding how Garafalo is "a perfect example of the uninformed stance of the left" but Coulter is just a (bangable) nitwit. Why is her brainless kneejerking not representative of the right? Henry, it sure seems to me that those screaming "wag the dog" loudest during Clinton's little war are first in line to accuse any and all dissenters today of hating America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 I think the issue with Clinton was twofold. 1- Timing 2- It wasn't enough. My personal beef was that he didnt do enough. He lobbed a couple of missiles and made some veiled threats, but he never dropped the hammer like he should have the MOMENT Saddam kicked the inspectors out. If someone opposed Clinton because the disagreed with the war/bombings based on philosophy and now support Bush, THEY would be hypocrites, but opposing the timing or the strength of CLinton is a different matter. Coulter is a polical analyst, Garafolo is an actress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 If someone opposed Clinton because the disagreed with the war/bombings based on philosophy and now support Bush, THEY would be hypocrites, but opposing the timing or the strength of CLinton is a different matter. I have no problem with that distinction, Kilmer. But I don't think that's what Jack was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 But what if you agreed with Clinton's measured response that was short of war because it was short of war and now oppose Bush because he favors war and regime change along with nation building. Maybe you're not a hypocrite either right?(left ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Jimbo...you made your case on Coulter...but you're stretching things here.......the parallels you suggest aren't there.... -- Coulter is a professional polemicist...that's how she makes a living; Garafolo is an entertainer (giving her the benefit of the doubt) -- Coulter isn't organizing/participating in protests, modem anti-war spamming, etc If Coulter is your only bogeywoman...then you need to go back and think this through again......throw in a bogeyman like Rush for goodness sake! I walk most of the byways around the Capitol on my way to/from work every day. There's a fair number of homes now that have placards in the window asking Garofalo-like "What about the Iraqi Children?" where were these placards 6 months ago? 1 year ago? 2 years ago? 5 years ago?...........seems like Folger's 5 minute instant humanitarianism to me......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 That would also be true Jack, but they arent saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.