Here's my Cut & Paste; Ms. Coulter addresses your "weaselese" liberal whinings quite well: WE DON'T CARE Wed Jun 4, 8:02 PM ET - Ann Coulter By Ann Coulter Seething with rage and frustration at the success of the war in Iraq (news - web sites), liberals have started in with their female taunting about weapons of mass destruction. The way they carry on, you would think they had caught the Bush administration in some shocking mendacity. (You know how the left hates a liar.) For the sake of their tiresome argument, let's stipulate that we will find no weapons of mass destruction -- or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program. Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his winsome sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What is liberals' point? No one cares. In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people. The United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton (news - web sites) said he did.) Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to hide! But that wasn't liberals' position. Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons -- so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them. But that wasn't the Bush administration's position. Rather, it was that there were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein and none to keep him. When President Bush (news - web sites) gave the Hussein regime 48 hours' notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near." Liberals kept saying that's too many reasons. The New York Times' leading hysteric, Frank Rich, complained: "We know Saddam Hussein is a thug and we want him gone. But the administration has never stuck to a single story in arguing the case for urgent pre-emptive action now." Since liberals never print retractions, they can say anything. What they said in the past is never admissible. Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction -- and with gusto -- in order to argue against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory strikes, there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops would be hit with Saddam's chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire. They said "all" we needed to do was disarm him. This would have required a military occupation of Iraq and a systematic inspection of the 1,000 or so known Iraqi weapons sites without interference from the Hussein regime. In other words, pretty much what we're doing right now. Remember? That's why liberals were so smitten with the idea of relying on U.N. weapons inspectors. As their title indicates, "weapons inspectors" inspect weapons. They don't stop torture, abolish rape rooms, feed the people, topple Saddam's statues or impose democracy. In January this year, The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof cited the sort of dismal CIA (news - web sites) report that always turns up in the hands of New York Times reporters, warning that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." He said he opposed invading Iraq as a pure matter of the "costs and benefits" of an invasion, concluding we should not invade because there was "clearly a significant risk" that it would make America less safe. In his native tongue, weaselese, Kristof claimed he would be gung-ho for war if only he were convinced we could "oust Saddam with minimal casualties and quickly establish a democratic Iraq." We've done that, and now he's blaming the Bush administration for his own idiotic predictions of disaster. Somehow, that's Bush's fault, too. Kristof says Bush manipulated evidence of weapons of mass destruction -- an act of duplicity he calls "just as alarming" as a dictator who has weapons of mass destruction. If Americans were lied to, they were lied to by liberals who warned we would be annihilated if we attacked Iraq. The left's leading intellectual light, Janeane Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war, saying: "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says, 'There will be up to a half a million people killed or wounded.'" Now they're testy because they fear Saddam may never have had even a sporting chance to unleash dastardly weapons against Americans.
Whatever happend to all that bogus evidence that Powell presented to the UN? The "intercepted phone call" was the best.
Do you have some proof that it was "bogus" or are you the one who's being dishonest, implying that you know something you don't?
Ha! I was wondering when would the crap pile come back. On Guardian. It appears they tried to explain the story in such way that fits you and your buddies twisted logic.. At least they made an effort to admit some wrong (if any) and do it fast. I saw the retracted page, but you have already posted here with your piles again. I would like to see the same from the OilShrubMafia & Co on all the lies and deceits they have pumped our public so far. You completely and very conveniently discount all the rest that's coming out, including direct quotations repeated daily for months. I'm not expecting any less of you or your cronies. Kurds...could you care to substantiate that and assure the credibility of your sources? Or do you just blow smoke as usual? Or is it that Iran did them first then Iraq did them depending what serves our interests at the time? Remember Iran Contra and the Iran Iraq war?. Please go read then come back and talk about what we did to them for Oil. I think you should take your own recommendation and go over to Iraq and have a look at what is going on as a result of this war. A war completely unprovoked, against a country that is one of the weakest on earth and posed no threat to us. REMEMBER THAT WE PUT that saddam in power!. Apparently Iraq has no wmd's and had complied with UN. saddam must disarm! remember? Rummy admitted that the weapons were destroyed before the war. So WHY THE Fu^king attack?Ahhh backtesting now to remove him so we can get the oil. You and your buddies, need to get a patent on the crapola you lay out: that anyone who questions the administration's motives and actions needs to be automatically attacked. I would think you would do the same if bubba was there and roles were reversed. Lynch? we will find out soon enough unless the shrub keep the video tapes under wraps like just about all the evidence on this whole mess. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-03-kucinich-lynch_x.htm casualties of war needs a new thread but feast on this for now: IRAQ BODY COUNT DATABASE multiple sources http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm as of today minimum reported 5531 max 7203 won't even touch the wounded. SO SHUT your friggin face up with all the elegant bul$hit. Just because fox news is not reporting them you assume they are not there? Ahh yes but when fox says anything else, lets attack and kill. And I will not even touch the FACT that one of the first buildings we secured were the Ministry of Oil. But let four thousands years old priceless artifacts get looted. So much on respect for their culture. "Iraqi officials here say that they asked American military leaders as early as a month ago to help protect major archaeological sites from looters, but that for the most part, their pleas were ignored and artwork and relics from ancient Babylon are still being stolen from many locations" http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?U.../05/27/international/worldspecial/27LOOT.html Red Cross Denied Access to PoWs Up to 3,000 Iraqis - some of them civilians - believed to be gagged, bound, hooded and beaten at US camps close to Baghdad airport by Ed Vulliamy in Baghdad http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0525-02.htm Victims of the peace decide Americans are worse May 23, 2003 UK Times Onlinehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/login.php?grid=15&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2C5944-689414%2C00.html%3Fgavalidate&gareason=login Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html US troops kill merchant defending shop against looters Fri Apr 11,11:52 AM ET The photographer saw the covered body of Mohammad al-Barheini, 25, lying on a shelf of his shop, his head in a bag, on the Al-Rashid commercial street in the capital http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto..._war_baghdad_loot_shop_030411155239&printer=1 Horrific wounds among U.S. soldiers Officially, the USA lists 75 war dead; Britain, 27 that was on April 7th http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_826092,00.html Red Cross horrified by number of dead civilians Red Cross doctors who visited southern Iraq this week saw "incredible" levels of civilian casualties including a truckload of dismembered women and children, a spokesman said Thursday from Baghdad. Roland Huguenin, one of six International Red Cross workers in the Iraqi capital, said doctors were horrified by the casualties they found in the hospital in Hilla, about 160 kilometres south of Baghdad. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049413227648_10/?hub=Specnd so that you don't act like a jacka$S again Hey! no posts from that guardian news, and used no faces just for you. Ahhh yes complex issues we have to deal with. We have largely created these complex issues. Many threads back there were lists and lists of what we have done to third world countries for power $$$ and control not to mention diversion from domestic issues. Please go back and re-read not that I expect you to. Look man. I don't give a rats ass if the administration is full republicans democrats or green spacemen. They are supposed to uphold the law and follow the constitution. We are a democratic nation for crying outloud. Not to be sold to few in power, get inwars and $$$ flows in their pockets. This time the crimes involve killings of thousands, and have raised hate against us to the highest level. HOW MANY terrorists have our actions created.? Sadly enough I understand were you come from and respect the right to your opinions. But do take a look at your logic, and apply what we are supposed to do and what we have been doing. Well it's catching up with us and fast.. But again, we are the strongest who's going to stop us? and so the story goes on.... max401 post something original of your own thinking, instead of cutting and pasting the same old chickehawk regurgitation. It was explained who the chickenhawks are, but you keep forgetting. Do check my posts on this war business the last few months. See your and your buddies backsteping on the issues.
Oh great - the C$#t who made a career exploiting the "lies" of President Clinton over a personal indiscretion now tries in vain to mask the lies of an entire administration to the American people with a shrill screed of name-calling. Not very convincing is it?
Wake up... That's quite the M.O. of the NYT's liberal heroine Maureen Dowd. You put "lies" in quotes, christ, Slick Willy lies about his golf game.
You align yourself with Anne Coulter and you're telling ME to wake up? That's rich. For once I'd like to see one of you spineless right-wingers stand up and call the lies of this administration out, as you all seem so obsessed with the "dignity of the office" and the moral imperative of absolute truth in all matters. Hypocrites all of you.
Oh where to begin......Jan Schakowsky summed it up nicely: "....Let's fact it. They're liars. They lied about the reason they took our sons and daughters to war. They spend millions of dollars in campaign ads saying they are for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. They call their dirty air legislation "Clear Skies" and their plan to give the timber companies our trees "Healthy Forests." They call their job killing economic program a jobs program. They say they are for peace when they are for war. Millions of children are left behind under their miserly "No Child Left Behind" education bill. They tout a child tax credit and then silently drop it in favor of more tax cuts for millionaires." -Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky Remarks at the conference of the Campaign for America's Future Where will it end?