Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on January 10, 2003, 08:21:38 AM
-
I figured out why I like her so much, she gets feathers ruffled up when she holds the mirror to the Liberal left faces. :)
Axis of stupidity
January 9, 2003
by Ann Coulter
When President Bush included North Korea in the axis of evil last year, foreign policy experts concluded that he was a moron. On the basis of years of scholarship and close study, the experts pointed out that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were – I quote – "different countries." As Tony Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained, "these are three very different countries here." USA Today sniffed that there was no axis because, "The countries have more differences than similarities." Koreans don't even look like Iranians.
Moreover, as the ponderer class repeatedly reminded us, President Clinton had struck up a brilliant agreement with the North Koreans in 1994, with guidance from Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter. The deal consisted of this fair trade: The Clinton administration promised North Korea 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually and $4 billion to construct a pair of nuclear reactors for "electricity"; in exchange, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
We were assured that the North Koreans had been peaceful little lambs since then. As Clinton himself said of North Korea, "I figure I left the next administration with a big foreign policy win." Alas, he said, Bush had squandered that "win." Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, concurred: "When we left office, we left on the table the potential of a verifiable agreement to stop the export (from North Korea) of missile technology."
USA Today said that "even critics concede the regime seems to have kept its promises so far regarding nuclear weapons and missile tests." But Bush had botched the peace agreement with his "hot-war posturing" – "a simplistic policy of hubris that alienates allies and inflames problems that can be managed more benignly."
The principal area of disagreement among the ponderers was what on earth could have provoked Bush to call North Korea part of the axis of evil in the first place. One popular explanation was ... Enron! Antony Blinken, a Clinton national security staffer, said Bush's axis of evil gambit was intended to distract the public's attention from "things less comfortable, like the economy and the Enron scandal."
Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, took a break from denouncing America's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to opine that "Bush's State of the Union speech was best understood by the fact that there are mid-term congressional elections coming up in November."
Robert Scheer wrote in the Los Angeles Times that Bush's axis of evil drivel was the "rationale for a grossly expanded military budget." Throwing North Korea into the mix was an obvious scam, Scheer said, because, "North Korea is a tottering relic of a state whose nuclear operation was about to be bought off under the skilled leadership of the South Korean government when Bush jettisoned the deal."
And then in October 2002, the North Koreans admitted that immediately after signing Clinton's 1994 "peace" agreement, they had set to work building nuclear weapons. A few months after that, U.S. intelligence forces tracked an unmarked ship carrying Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen.
It was beginning to look like an "axis of evil." The experts had never paused to consider the possibility that Bush had called North Korea part of an "axis of evil" because North Korea was part of an axis of evil.
With impeccable timing, just two weeks before North Korea admitted it had been feverishly developing nuclear weapons since the mid-'90s, New York Times columnist Bill Keller snootily referred to North Korea as among "the countries the White House insists on calling the axis of evil."
A week later – or one week before North Korea owned up to its nuclear weapons program – Keller's op-ed rival at the Times, Nicholas Kristof, wrote: "In 1994 the vogue threat changed, and hawks pressed hard for a military confrontation with North Korea. ... In retrospect, it is clear that the hawks were wrong about confronting North Korea. Containment and deterrence so far have worked instead, kind of, just as they have kind-of worked to restrain Iraq over the last 11 years, and we saved thousands of lives by pressing diplomatic solutions."
Instead of owning up to their ludicrous attacks on Bush and unrestrained praise for Clinton's "peace" agreement, the ponderers once again concluded that Bush was a moron. Bush, it seems, had somehow provoked the North Koreans to build nuclear weapons by being mean to them. Robert J. Einhorn, who helped negotiate Clinton's masterful 1994 peace deal, said Bush's "tough rhetoric" had "unnerved the North Koreans." Derek Mitchell, another veteran of the Clinton administration, agreed: "We did call them the 'axis of evil.'"
Time magazine was a rare voice of honesty amid the claptrap. "In January, Bush said the three states were seeking weapons of mass destruction and posed a grave and growing danger." On the evidence, Time said, "he's right."
-
But Ann coulter is an american and that makes her wrong... I only get my news and editorials from unbiased sources, like the Al Qaeda Tribune or the Kim Jong Il Weekley... :rolleyes:
-
Well that's all well and good, but how does she look in a Wicked Weasel bikini?
-
I like it when people post editorials as fact.
I also like it when people take a parody, that wasn't particularly funny in the first place, and take it on a marathon, nevermind run with it.
-
It's funny watching democrats repeatedly try and pin SOMETHING on Bush, only to have it backfire.
It looks a lot like a roadrunner cartoon. :D
-
Im impressed with that woman.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
It's funny watching democrats repeatedly try and pin SOMETHING on Bush, only to have it backfire.
It looks a lot like a roadrunner cartoon. :D
Right... as long as Bush has Ann Coulter in his corner, he's safe.
-
Placing the rhetoric aside for a moment, the question is "Did Korea immediately violate the peace accord it had signed?" By their own admission the answer is "yes". That pretty much removes any question about the success of the past administration's efforts to contain N. Korea, or their blatant naivety for believing they had. It also completely vindicates Bush's impolitic assessment of N. Korea.
-
Yeager: Im impressed with that woman.
For what, stating the obvious? She is not bad, considering but it's really Bush we may be impressed in this case.
miko
-
Okay, okay, okay. But nonetheless, whether Bush is/was right or wrong, that still doesn't change the fact that he is a moron.
We would have been so much better off with John McCain!
-
Well... his track record so far is surprisingly good for a total moron, agreed? And... I'm not so sure any more we would be better off with McCain.
-
Originally posted by WineMan
Okay, okay, okay. But nonetheless, whether Bush is/was right or wrong, that still doesn't change the fact that he is a moron.
We would have been so much better off with John McCain!
LOL!
Read this paragraph again:
"Instead of owning up to their ludicrous attacks on Bush and unrestrained praise for Clinton's "peace" agreement, the ponderers once again concluded that Bush was a moron. Bush, it seems, had somehow provoked the North Koreans to build nuclear weapons by being mean to them. Robert J. Einhorn, who helped negotiate Clinton's masterful 1994 peace deal, said Bush's "tough rhetoric" had "unnerved the North Koreans." Derek Mitchell, another veteran of the Clinton administration, agreed: "We did call them the 'axis of evil.'" [/b]
I can't help but think of the quotation "We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are."
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well... his track record so far is surprisingly good for a total moron, agreed?
Really? Has he done anything particularly special yet?
-
Well... we are lead to believe life as we know it will end with him in charge. So far that hasn't happened.
We were told he was a complete buffoon for labeling N. Korea as he did, and yet... he was right.
He sent troops into Afghanistan, something Gore would never have done.
He was an arguable influence on the success of the Republican party during the last election.
-
But just listen to the guy speak... When I call him a moron, don't necesarily mean the things he's doing are bad, I just think the guy comes off as one. He has problems speaking (although he has drastically improved since the election).
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well... we are lead to believe life as we know it will end with him in charge. So far that hasn't happened.
We were told he was a complete buffoon for labeling N. Korea as he did, and yet... he was right.
He sent troops into Afghanistan, something Gore would never have done.
He was an arguable influence on the success of the Republican party during the last election.
I'll give you one out of three for the Republican party. Troops to Afghanistan was a move so obvious that you or I could have done it.
-
Of course WE would have- would Gore? I have to say I don't think so. Sure, he would have lobbed some missiles, but I don't think he would have attacked. I'm pretty sure we'd be appeasing N. Korea right now, too.
I'm not even trying to suggest Bush has been some brilliant success, if that's what you think. However, even his most staunch critics must confess he has a confounding ability to come out on top.
-
You or I probably COULD have made the "obvious" decisions that Bush did. But we weren't in office. HE was.
We have had few administrations in the last 20 years that have had as many economic problems and international threats to deal with that the Bush administration has had to contend with. I would not want to be President under these circumstances.
Shuckins
-
Obviously, the liberal dems have not been listening to thier spiritual leader Bill Clinton.
The first thing Clinton had to say after his first face to face meeting with Bush at Clinton's Whitehouse was: "Don't under estimate this man."
Many liberals do, however; sitting back and offering nothing but negative cheap shots at a highly competent leader cost them dearly.
-
Originally posted by WineMan
But just listen to the guy speak... When I call him a moron, don't necesarily mean the things he's doing are bad, I just think the guy comes off as one. He has problems speaking (although he has drastically improved since the election).
Another version of "profiling". Or Sterotyping. take your pick.
I judge people by their actions, not their speeches. So far, my "jury" is still "out" with Bush, but I know he is no moron.
-
WineMan: But just listen to the guy speak... When I call him a moron, don't necesarily mean the things he's doing are bad, I just think the guy comes off as one. He has problems speaking (although he has drastically improved since the election).
So he has a rather common speech defect - a form of dyslexia. Many brilliant peopel had worse. Morons are those who are not familiar with common medical knowlege and judge people's intelligence by their health defects.
miko
-
I once heard Steven Hawking was a brilliant orator.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Really? Has he done anything particularly special yet?
Do you mean besides moving the rug and sweeping up all the dirt that Clinton put there?
-
Really? Has he done anything particularly special yet?
Yeah, he kept us from having Gore embarrass us as our president.
dago
-
"So he has a rather common speech defect - a form of dyslexia. Many brilliant peopel had worse. "
BRILLIANT! :)
-
Bush did manage to recover the White House furniture that went missing when Clinton left office.
Shuckins
-
Coulter is a radical nutcase. She's dead on with some things but then take them to such an extreme it's sad. But she knows this is what put bread on her table. Don't blame her.
A very cute, intelligent nutcase though.
Here (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html) are some tidbits of rather interesting things about the currrent administration. I'm sure it's all lies, distortions of truth, unsupported BS invented by democrats, though.
-
I'll make you a deal. If you can find where this same website, or any website, can lay out the same type of material for both sides of the aisle, I'd consider it at least balanced. To consider this source for a second past skimming the thread titles would be naive.
-
:p
-
Another reason convservatives love Ann Coulter?
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.
(Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
She's got balls...
That I don't doubt...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
while most of us here sit under false names or made up handles.
Not me!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If you think weazel is bad (and lets face it, we all do), he is NOTHING compared to the crowd she has after her.
Cmon Weazel just needs a HUG
-
Iran, Iraq and North Korea were – I quote – "different countries."
Scathing! Just scathing!!
If only the "right" had more like her..........
-
Hmmm... how do you think she'd look in a wicked weasel?
-
Like a train wreck studmuffin hag.
-
I have accepted that Ann-Thrax will be around as long as she satisfies the libidos of repressed conservative men, regardless of what she says as long as it is extremely partisan and full of vitriol. Any man who expressed sympathies with the actions of the terrorist McVeigh would long have been dismissed as a total nutcase.
-
A little ironic coming from the side that celebrates womanhood.
-
I must confess that, even tho I am a Republican, that I LIKE women. I also respect them.
Will I lose my magic decoder ring?
Shuckins