Author Topic: Ya gotta love Ann Coulter (Read 1343 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #30 on:** January 10, 2003, 07:48:22 PM »

Don't be an idiot. If Gore and been President when 9-11 happened, of course troops would have gone to Afganistan. You partisan tools are funny sometimes.

The problem I have with N. Korea and Bush's statement is this:

If I were the "Dear Leader" and I had just seen my nation listed as one of the "Axis of Evil", and had then seen the USA's march towards war with Iraq irregardless of any puplished information, I'd be scrambling for nuclear weapons as fast as I could. Those weapons are the only way that we could protect ourselves from a US led war.

So my question is, did Bush's rhetoric lead to N. Korea's actions?

If the answer is yes, then all "points" made about the previous administrations efforts being hopless are wrong. If we caused the change in their policy by the change in our policy the that article is just so much garbage.

Kieran · « **Reply #31 on:** January 11, 2003, 08:39:21 AM »

I don't think I'm being an idiot at all. We all knew who bombed the WTC in '93, didn't we? What'd we do about it? We knew about the Cole, Yemen, and more. We (Clinton/Gore) didn't send troops in, did we?

N. Korea has already admitted to immediately breaking the treaty in '94. Bush's statement in 2001 had little or no impact on a path that was already set. Somebody might be an idiot on the issue, but it isn't me.

Erlkonig · « **Reply #32 on:** January 11, 2003, 02:37:47 PM »

It seems pretty clear to me that the ambiguous threats tossed towards NK are what got us here in the first place. You push a reactionary like Kim Jong Il around, and sooner or later, he's gonna push back. The administration's fumbling over policy vis a vis NK (specifically the dissolution of the hardliner stance) recently suggests they didn't have any idea how to handle the situation once tensions peaked. It's resulted in a state of affairs that is not just embarassing, but dangerous. Silly, reckless rhetoric hasn't helped this situation one bit.

Sandman · « **Reply #33 on:** January 11, 2003, 02:43:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
I don't think I'm being an idiot at all. We all knew who bombed the WTC in '93, didn't we? What'd we do about it? We knew about the Cole, Yemen, and more. We (Clinton/Gore) didn't send troops in, did we?

N. Korea has already admitted to immediately breaking the treaty in '94. Bush's statement in 2001 had little or no impact on a path that was already set. Somebody might be an idiot on the issue, but it isn't me.

Hmmm... technically, wasn't that an agreement and not a treaty?

Kieran · « **Reply #34 on:** January 11, 2003, 03:46:28 PM »

Ok, take out the word "treaty" and substitute "agreement", it doesn't change the situation much at all. Fact is N. Korea never intended to follow the agreement, and ignored it years before Bush took office. And can anyone really suggest the last administration did a terrific job of handling things, when it is clear NK has been developing a bomb throughout the entire time of the agreement? Take your heads out of the sand! Bush just called a spade a spade, maybe impolitic, but he was right.

Sorry gang, you can't blame that one on Bush.

Sandman · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2003, 05:54:08 PM »

Well... to you and me, there really isn't much difference between the words treaty and agreement.

In the political arena, the difference is distinct.

Kieran · « **Reply #36 on:** January 11, 2003, 06:01:07 PM »

What I am talking about is Erlkonig's and Karnak's assertions Bush precipitated NK's defiance of the agreement. The facts are clear NK never abided by the agreement to begin with. Bush could have complimented the country up one side and down the other and it wouldn't have mattered a bit.

Shuckins · « **Reply #37 on:** January 11, 2003, 06:44:51 PM »

The North Koreans aren't "scrambling" to build nuclear weapons because of the threat of George Bush. They've been working steadily toward that goal for more than a decade, all "agreements" to the contrary.

Shuckins

StSanta · « **Reply #38 on:** January 13, 2003, 01:41:00 AM »

Kieran with regards to what actions Clinton didn't take militaril.

I distinctly remember Republicans saying 'wag the dog' or whatever that expression as back then. He fired a few cruise missiles at targets in Sudan and Afghanistan - and got hell from it. 'He's just trying to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky affair!'.

Perhaps all that scrutiny by Ken Starr and the massive outcry by Rebulicans really did limit his actions. Do anything more than he did and give the Reps fuel to get the wag the dog deal out. I don't think those allegations helped.

It is true however that Al Qaeda turned very US-hostile on his watch. or rather, on Reagain/Bush Sr.'s watch, but they turned deadly on his watch.

Hortlund · « **Reply #39 on:** January 13, 2003, 01:53:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
Perhaps all that scrutiny by Ken Starr and the massive outcry by Rebulicans really did limit his actions. Do anything more than he did and give the Reps fuel to get the wag the dog deal out. I don't think those allegations helped.

Yes, because somehow it is all the fault of the republicans. Clinton is not to blame for all the things he diddlyed up, because either Regan and Bush Sr created the problems that blew up in Clintons face (Somalia, Afghanistan, etc) OR everything was just fine when Clinton left office and everything blew up when GWB arrived in office (economy, 9-11, etc)

Nash · « **Reply #40 on:** January 13, 2003, 03:58:35 AM »

"Ya gotta love Ann Coulter"

No ya don't.

For one.... She aint hot. Ok? In fact... well no, nevermind.

For two... She isn't doing anything more than everyone here does, day in and day out. Just spewing forth.

Fair enuff.... but I've seen waaaaay better posts by the folks in this community than I've seen her come up with.

What's the big deal about this chick?

Dowding · « **Reply #41 on:** January 13, 2003, 04:33:02 AM »

I agree with Nash - she isn't hot in any way shape or form. She's not even cute. As for what she says, she'd be a nightmare as a girlfriend, and a death sentence as a wife.

If she was some 50 year old, balding old man she'd get a lot less attention, and would probably have a regular slot on some piss-poor radio station eulogising to the masses.

Hortlund · « **Reply #42 on:** January 13, 2003, 04:51:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
She isn't doing anything more than everyone here does, day in and day out. Just spewing forth.

Fair enuff.... but I've seen waaaaay better posts by the folks in this community than I've seen her come up with.

What's the big deal about this chick?

Well, thing is she is doing it on the national scene, while most of us are doing it on this here BB. More than that, she is doing it under her own name in newspaper articles, books and on TV shows, while most of us here sit under false names or made up handles. Another thing is that she is one of the few that dares go up against liberal media publicly and in the open, that makes her the prime target of alot of liberal types. If you think weazel is bad (and lets face it, we all do), he is NOTHING compared to the crowd she has after her. If she would diddly up one thing, just ONE thing, she would be flamed to kingdom come by the liberal journalists...

That makes her very special. She's got balls, she is funny, intelligent, she writes excellent columns and she has a great ability to see things the way they are, and tell that to the public in a language most people can understand.

The libs all hate her for that, and they are desperately trying to marginalize her, pin some lies or dirty history on her, or just basically get her to shut up.

Dowding · « **Reply #43 on:** January 13, 2003, 05:29:54 AM »

Quote

She's got balls...

That I don't doubt...

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #44 on:** January 13, 2003, 05:33:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
while most of us here sit under false names or made up handles.

Not me!