Anne Coulter is a laugh riot!!!

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Nothing brings a belly laugh like genocide...if you're an Anne Coulter fan, that is:

These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever – and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=27725

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Which is worse; making a point about the left supporting intervention in one civil war while chastising involvement in another (liberals claim Iraq is in a civil war...not my words) or pulling out of a conflict and leaving millions to die in the aftermath (which is what will happen in Iraq and happened after our pullout from Vietnam).

They seem to be one and the same to me. As Jonah Goldberg stated in National Review, let's start calling Iraq a humanitarian crisis and maybe the left will truely get behind our troops in the fight.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Which is worse; making a point about the left supporting intervention in one civil war while chastising involvement in another (liberals claim Iraq is in a civil war...not my words) or pulling out of a conflict and leaving millions to die in the aftermath (which is what will happen in Iraq and happened after our pullout from Vietnam).

They seem to be one and the same to me. As Jonah Goldberg stated in National Review, let's start calling Iraq a humanitarian crisis and maybe the left will truely get behind our troops in the fight.

Yeah, I guess fat Jonah knows better than this guy:

The Few, the Proud, the Disillusioned

Posted on 04/07/2007 11:56:26 AM PDT by World_Events

Mike Ergo is a 23-year-old honorably discharged Marine who fought in Fallujah. A tattoo on the inside of his left forearm depicts the first insurgent he killed in Iraq. A tattoo on his right arm reads: "Born to Fight." He loves the Marines, is proud of what he and his colleagues did overseas and is on inactive ready reserve through July 2009.

Yet a few weeks ago, the Walnut Creek native marched near the front of the anti-war demonstration that rolled through San Francisco. Yeah, he said, it felt odd to march among the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and socialists. Still, Ergo said he'd march again to underscore his opposition to U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and would try to bring more than the handful of Iraq War veterans who demonstrated with him last month.

But Ergo knows that the number of soldiers who publicly oppose the war is likely to remain small for now. A chief reason: Unlike the men drafted into military service during the Vietnam War, those fighting in Iraq are volunteers and feel obligated to be patriotic defenders of post-9/11 soil.

Yet a few signs of dissent are appearing in the military aside from conscientious objectors and newly realized pacificists. Last month, a career chief master sergeant in the Air Force wrote an opinion piece in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes opposing the war, and a busload of retired veterans and civilian activists toured military bases in the South, hoping to coax more support from active duty soldiers. Over the past month, more than 1,700 soldiers have signed an online Appeal for Redress -- www.appealforredress.org -- a legally sanctioned way for members of the military to oppose the war.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813691/posts

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Fat Jonah? That's a little petty, wouldn't you say?

For every veteran you find speaking out against the war, I can find 10 or more that will offer an opposing voice. Not because they feel obligated to take that stance, but rather because they know what is at stake and they know there is some good going on over there.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Fat Jonah? That's a little petty, wouldn't you say?

For every veteran you find speaking out against the war, I can find 10 or more that will offer an opposing voice. Not because they feel obligated to take that stance, but rather because they know what is at stake and they know there is some good going on over there.

Petty only begins to describe Jonah and his disgusting mother.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I assume this angst you have for the entire Goldberg family stems from the advice she supposedly gave Linda Tripp in regards to Monica Lewinsky's steamy phone calls?

We're getting to be a pretty long way from Darfur and Baghdad.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

I assume this angst you have for the entire Goldberg family stems from the advice she supposedly gave Linda Tripp in regards to Monica Lewinsky's steamy phone calls?

.

She has a much longer, shadier history than that. And Jonah has never really worked a day his life-- just sits on his fat ass pontificating b/c right wing publications would give him job even though he hasn't accomplished anything, b/c of momma. My favorite, though, is Jonah describing why he doesn't join in the battle he supports so much for everyone else:

I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05...hive.asp#055419

And this differs from soooo many other people, how? They don't have kids? Don't need money? So lame.

Admit, Jonah's the kid in school who got on your nerves.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I assume this angst you have for the entire Goldberg family stems from the advice she supposedly gave Linda Tripp in regards to Monica Lewinsky's steamy phone calls?

.

She has a much longer, shadier history than that. And Jonah has never really worked a day his life-- just sits on his fat ass pontificating b/c right wing publications would give him job even though he hasn't accomplished anything, b/c of momma. My favorite, though, is Jonah describing why he doesn't join in the battle he supports so much for everyone else:

I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05...hive.asp#055419

And this differs from soooo many other people, how? They don't have kids? Don't need money? So lame.

Admit, Jonah's the kid in school who got on your nerves.

Hell he sounds just like Kerry, or any of a number of Kennedys to me. If he was a Democrat, he'd be a God!

[TexasTiger 13,016]

I assume this angst you have for the entire Goldberg family stems from the advice she supposedly gave Linda Tripp in regards to Monica Lewinsky's steamy phone calls?

.

She has a much longer, shadier history than that. And Jonah has never really worked a day his life-- just sits on his fat ass pontificating b/c right wing publications would give him job even though he hasn't accomplished anything, b/c of momma. My favorite, though, is Jonah describing why he doesn't join in the battle he supports so much for everyone else:

I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05...hive.asp#055419

And this differs from soooo many other people, how? They don't have kids? Don't need money? So lame.

Admit, Jonah's the kid in school who got on your nerves.

Hell he sounds just like Kerry, or any of a number of Kennedys to me. If he was a Democrat, he'd be a God!

Or Bush. The funny thing is, if Teddy were a Republican with the same past, you'd blame it on the libruls somehow and he'd be your hero.

[Ranger12 46]

I see nothing funny about genocide at all. But what I find even more sickening is the hypocrisy that politicians show about which ones to get involved with just because of politics.

What is worse, when an administration dedicates troops to a humanitarian mission, but then does not have the guts to let the troops actually get involved and do their job. Then that administration, after US soldiers have been killed, lets that same evil warlord/leader that you were going after go free after flying him back and forth during "talks". Thus embolding Bin Laden even more to carry out his plans against the United States because he saw the whole episode as an example of the "cowardice" of the United States military. In case you are drawing a blank, try to remember 1993 in a country called Somalia and a POS named Mohammed Adid.

So the dems just want us to tuck tail and run again.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I assume this angst you have for the entire Goldberg family stems from the advice she supposedly gave Linda Tripp in regards to Monica Lewinsky's steamy phone calls?

.

She has a much longer, shadier history than that. And Jonah has never really worked a day his life-- just sits on his fat ass pontificating b/c right wing publications would give him job even though he hasn't accomplished anything, b/c of momma. My favorite, though, is Jonah describing why he doesn't join in the battle he supports so much for everyone else:

I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05...hive.asp#055419

And this differs from soooo many other people, how? They don't have kids? Don't need money? So lame.

Admit, Jonah's the kid in school who got on your nerves.

Hell he sounds just like Kerry, or any of a number of Kennedys to me. If he was a Democrat, he'd be a God!

Or Bush. The funny thing is, if Teddy were a Republican with the same past, you'd blame it on the libruls somehow and he'd be your hero.

Goldberg, Kennedy, Kerry, and Bush. The American Ruling class....

[TexasTiger 13,016]

I see nothing funny about genocide at all. But what I find even more sickening is the hypocrisy that politicians show about which ones to get involved with just because of politics.

What is worse, when an administration dedicates troops to a humanitarian mission, but then does not have the guts to let the troops actually get involved and do their job. Then that administration, after US soldiers have been killed, lets that same evil warlord/leader that you were going after go free after flying him back and forth during "talks". Thus embolding Bin Laden even more to carry out his plans against the United States because he saw the whole episode as an example of the "cowardice" of the United States military. In case you are drawing a blank, try to remember 1993 in a country called Somalia and a POS named Mohammed Adid.

So the dems just want us to tuck tail and run again.

Well, since you're intent on avoiding the topic, and making partisan attacks, how about a little reality. Republicans were eager to leave Somalia, too, btw.:

It's often forgotten, but Reagan's eight years in office witnessed a marked increase in acts of international terrorism. In fact, terrorists killed far more Americans during the 1980s than during the 1990s. In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63. Later that year, in October, a 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans--the most deadly terrorist strike against the United States until September 11. In March 1984, Islamic terrorists kidnapped, and eventually killed, a CIA officer. The following month, Hezbollah killed 18 American soldiers in an attack on a restaurant near an airbase in Spain. Two U.S. military personnel were killed by another truck bombing in Beirut in September 1984. Terrorists hijacked an airliner, TWA 847, in July 1985 and killed one American, Navy diver Robert Stethem, whose corpse was thrown out of the plane and onto the runway. In October came the Achille Lauro incident, in which Palestinian terrorists commandeered a cruise ship and executed Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American tourist. In December, Abu Nidal terrorists attacked travelers simultaneously at airports in Rome and Vienna. In March 1986, terrorists killed four Americans in Greece. In April, Libyans bombed a West Berlin disco, killing two American soldiers and injuring dozens more. The Libyan attack finally elicited a military response from Reagan, who sent U.S. bombers to attack Tripoli and Benghazi. Commenting on the years of passivity preceding the Libya bombing, Reagan's biographer, Lou Cannon, observed, "For five years of his presidency, Reagan talked tough about terrorism but did virtually nothing in the way of retaliatory action to stop it."

here seems to be a bipartisan consensus today that Reagan's uncertainty in the face of these devastating blows from Islamists bolstered the nascent Al Qaeda's confidence in the early '90s. Reviewing Reagan's response to terrorism, Norman Podhoretz penned a withering critique in Commentary in 2002. Podhoretz wrote that, upon Reagan's inauguration, terrorists may have "feared that the hawkish new President might actually launch a military strike against them. Yet, if they had foreseen what was coming under Reagan, they would not have been so fearful." Richard Clarke, who served in the Reagan administration, notes in his new book, Against All Enemies, that Reagan's departure from Lebanon "gave terrorists the impression they could attack the United States with relative impunity." Even Bush administration officials have repeatedly noted how the terrorism policies of the Reagan era fed a belief that the United States would not sacrifice blood or treasure to fight Islamic militants. In her testimony before the 9/11 Commission, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice mentioned the retreat from Lebanon and the hijacking of the Achille Lauro before noting, "For more than twenty years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient."

Reagan's failures in Lebanon have long been seen as one of the worst blots on his record. Cannon noted, "If measured in loss of American lives abroad, Lebanon was the greatest disaster of the Reagan presidency." It was "a case study of foreign policy calamity" and the best illustration of "the naïveté, ignorance, and undisciplined internal conflict characteristic of the Reagan presidency." Sent on an ill-defined peacekeeping mission to restore order to the turbulent country, Reagan repeatedly pledged to stay the course. Four days after the devastating car bombing of the Marine barracks, he said "Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism?" Four months later, we got out of Lebanon. (It was left to Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's Middle East envoy, to visit Lebanon's president in his palace bunker and explain that, despite Reagan's promises, the Americans were leaving.) The message this sent to terrorists became clear in 1996, when Osama bin Laden tauntingly declared war against the United States: "We say to the Defense Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! [A]nd shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983? You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly Marine soldiers were killed."

After the TWA 847 hijacking in 1985, the administration had been racked by so much terrorism that Reagan appointed Vice President Bush to a special commission to study the problem. But Reagan's advisers, divided along the same hawk/dove rift that defines Bush 43's administration, couldn't reach a consensus on how to respond to terrorism. The Washington Post called the disagreement "one of the most profound of Reagan's presidency" and noted that disputes "often paralyzed the administration after a terrorist attack." The split was not settled by Bush's report. When it was released in 1986, it endorsed a less aggressive response to terrorism than Reagan's rhetoric had promised. Asked about the commission's internal squabbling, Bush told reporters, "We haven't been able to solve that problem, and I wish we could have."

The one recommendation Reagan officials did agree on was being violated literally as the terrorism report was being printed in 1986. "The U.S. government," the task force concluded, "will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism." Reagan violated that policy by paying a ransom of missiles to the Iranian mullahs in exchange for American hostages.

Ultimately, Reagan hit upon precisely the approach to terrorism that many conservatives condemn today and that John Kerry is often erroneously accused of advocating. That is, the Reagan administration began to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Speaking at a conference in 1988 reviewing the administration's policies, L. Paul Bremer, then ambassador at large for counterterrorism, explained, "We are working to impose the rule of law on terrorists for their criminal actions. Good police work is catching terrorists, and they're being brought more and more to trial."

Finally, it is impossible to survey Reagan's record on terrorism without looking at Afghanistan, where U.S. policy, no matter how instrumental in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, also helped accelerate the rise of Al Qaeda. There remains a pernicious myth that Reagan's CIA specifically funded bin Laden in Afghanistan. As Peter Bergen's Holy War, Inc. and, more recently, Steve Coll's incredible chronicle of spycraft in Afghanistan, Ghost Wars, both point out, there is no evidence that the CIA had any dealings with bin Laden. But, as Clarke notes in his book, the Reagan administration either encouraged or acquiesced in the recruitment of Arabs to Afghanistan, and it looked the other way as the Saudis financed bin Laden and helped him set up his training camps. No thought was given to what would happen to all these aggrieved young Arabs from across the Middle East once the war was over.

The billions of dollars that went to the mujahedin, almost all of it by way of Pakistan's intelligence service, had other costs. Perhaps Reagan's biggest mistake was to allow Pakistan to funnel a disproportionate amount of anti-Soviet aid to the brutal Islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was close to bin Laden, instead of the relatively more moderate, and militarily more effective, Ahmad Shah Massoud. Even after Hekmatyar's virulent anti-Americanism became clear, Reagan did nothing to pressure the Pakistanis to cut off aid to him. (Hekmatyar is still alive and today bedevils U.S. forces in Afghanistan.) Even worse, Pakistan's newly empowered intelligence agency helped create the Taliban and eventually helped integrate Al Qaeda into the Taliban structure.

In Afghanistan, the Reagan administration was brilliant at helping deliver a devastating blow to the Soviets on the battlefield. Unfortunately, it was abysmal at thinking through what the long-term consequences of its actions might be once the war ended. Sound familiar?

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&s=lizza062104

[Ranger12 46]

Tex, trust me, you don't want to debate with me about Somolia bro. There ain't nothing you can pull out of some damn article that gets even close to the truth of the FUBAR of the mission. That administration had us handcuffed, so when Irene Day happend, of course every damn body wanted us out then. But if Bill freakin' Clinton would have had some guts he would have let us do our damn job the right way to begin with instead of just keeping us over there for PR reasons! Freakin' idoit Bill Clinton was too busy getting serviced instead of doing his damn job!

Avoiding the issue my ass. Brother I am punching you right in the mouth with the issue. If you can't handle the fact I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal pukes, then that is your problem. I am going to stop there becasue I am getting really f%^&* pissed off now and I may say something that will make me the first moderator to ever get suspended for a week.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Tex, trust me, you don't want to debate with me about Somolia bro. There ain't nothing you can pull out of some damn article that gets even close to the truth of the FUBAR of the mission. That administration had us handcuffed, so when Irene Day happend, of course every damn body wanted us out then. But if Bill freakin' Clinton would have had some guts he would have let us do our damn job the right way to begin with instead of just keeping us over there for PR reasons! Freakin' idoit Bill Clinton was too busy getting serviced instead of doing his damn job!

Avoiding the issue my ass. Brother I am punching you right in the mouth with the issue. If you can't handle the fact I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal pukes, then that is your problem. I am going to stop there becasue I am getting really f%^&* pissed off now and I may say something that will make me the first moderator to ever get suspended for a week.

The issue of THIS THREAD is Coulter making a joke out of genocide in the Sudan. You're "punching" me in the mouth on Clinton in Somalia.

You state this:

What is worse, when an administration dedicates troops to a humanitarian mission, but then does not have the guts to let the troops actually get involved and do their job. Then that administration, after US soldiers have been killed, lets that same evil warlord/leader that you were going after go free after flying him back and forth during "talks". Thus embolding Bin Laden even more to carry out his plans against the United States because he saw the whole episode as an example of the "cowardice" of the United States military. In case you are drawing a blank, try to remember 1993 in a country called Somalia and a POS named Mohammed Adid.

Clinton didn't "dedicate troops" to Somolia. Bush did.

In December 1992 as President George H. W. Bush was preparing to leave office, he proposed to help under the restriction that the US Combat troops would lead the operation. After the UN accepted this offer 25,000 US troops (mostly US Marines from I MEF) were deployed to Somalia and the mission was renamed to Operation Restore Hope and became UNOSOM II.

The Senate vote to cut funding for the mission. The Republicans, led by McCain, tried to ammend that vote to make the cut in funding immediate:

Today, some supporters of the Iraq war suggest falsely that efforts to cut funding for the war are a threat to our troops in the field. But in 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. Defenders of the Iraq war pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops, and raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. And every member of Congress should know that we can do that while at the same time ending funding for a failed military mission. That was clearly understood in October 1993, when 76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.

None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/...ource=whitelist

And from these facts you reach this PARTISAN conclusion:

So the dems just want us to tuck tail and run again.

and say this:

Thus embolding Bin Laden even more to carry out his plans against the United States because he saw the whole episode as an example of the "cowardice" of the United States military.

You ignore the fact that Republicans did not support the mission in Somalia. You IGNORE the fact that 10 years before Somolia, 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon, REAGAN did nothing, but TUCK TAIL AND RAN. You want to make this a purely partisan issue, when it isn't. The facts show Republicans and Democrats supporting leaving such missions. Criticize that all you want, but your attention is VERY selective and unfair.

Reagan cuts and runs, and he's a God to Republicans. The hypocrisy is palpable.