Friday, November 25, 2005

Ann Coulter & Facts

You've got to love someone so craven that they lie as easily as they breath. Oh, excuse me. They intentionally measure their words, shade the true facts to their perspective, smile at the camera, and do their best to mislead. Millions of sheep too busy or too self absorbed or too comfortable with what Fox News tells them are all too willing to sit there, grab their beer, and go "yup, a yup, a yup. Damn Liberals!" This is the world Ann Coulter lives in, and the ignorance she counts on as she smiles glibly and serves up her talking points with pride.

Wake up sheeple! As a guy with a blog and a bare minimum of reading, even lowly little ol' blogger me can take her apart. Let's take this example from her CNN interview today:
ROMANS: What about the legitimacy of the debate? The debate about talking about time lines. It was not very long ago we were saying time lines weren't very nice. Wasn't nice to our guys there. Was only helpful to terrorists.

COULTER: Right. Well, I think this is -- I think this is a monumental development, this vote last Friday. I mean whether, of course, on principle you have a right to say timetables, war isn't going well, bring the troops home. Americans are against it.

Yes, in principle you have a right to say that. But there's no question. It's simply a fact that that is going to encourage the enemy and will demoralize our side.

Oh, I love when Ann tells me what the unquestioned facts are! A flood of questions fill my mind. Where, oh where, do I start. How about, who says it's a fact? Why is it a fact? Did I miss the Insurgent Montly Newsletter with the story on page three "Timetables really piss us off infidel scum!" No, sorry Ann. Talk to those who know something about what happens when an occupying force leaves the country they're trying to hold. Like maybe an expert on terrorism and terrorism tactics like Robert Pape:
The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?

Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.


The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.


Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

So according to Ann, if we leave we embolden the enemy. According to the experts, terrorism is a tool, not an enemy, and leaving removes the motivation for their terrorism. Don't know about you, but I'm going with the expert here.

Then there's this gem:
Now we know from the vote last Friday the Democrats don't even believe it. They voted -- in the vote in the House was 403-3 against withdrawing the troops. So why do they keep saying it's not going well, bring the troops home, Americans have turned against it? I mean, you're down to the only rationale being that they want to demoralize our side and encourage the enemy.

That's right Ann, the Democrats voted against a resolution put forth by REPUBLICAN lawmaker Duncan Hunter that said the following:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

That's the whole resolution people. Didn't anyone tell Ann that this attempt to embarrass Rep. Jack Murtha backfired? This was the Republicans voting for an immediate withdrawal. What did Murtha's resolution say? Here's just a small part of it:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

That doesn't say anything about immediate withdrawal. "Earliest practicable date" is legaleaze for structured withdrawal. Keeping forces in the region isn't cut and run. Working with the Iraqi government - remember those guys all the purple fingers elected - to establish security in their own country isn't bugging out.

But how many people do you think have actually read these resolutions. Hell, how many people know there were two of them - a Democratic one and a Republican bastardization of it meant to embarass a war hero advocating withdrawing our troop?

Nope. Ignorance is king, and Ann is his chief spokeswoman. Now get off the blog and go throw somebody to the ground at your local Wal-Mart to get 10% off some cheap crap from China that you don't need.