« i've got a new complaint | Main | BlogMoodMeter (tm) »

number nine

support the banned books project


number nine

I really shouldn't be reading Ann Coulter rants in the morning. Starting the day off with aggravation is not a good thing.

In her latest piece of work she writes:

"HOW IS IT that the New York Times managed to locate the only eight people in America opposed to attacking Iraq"

Hmm. Let's see. The only eight people? Well they didn't ask me, so that would make me number nine. If I started counting the people I know that are opposed to bombing Iraq, surely they number would pass by a landslide the number of brain cells Ann Coulter possesses. But of course, Ann only sees what's in her little world and, like most people on her end of the political spectrum (read, extremist right wing wackos*), skews numbers and words to fit her agenda.

In doing a little research for this morning's post, I just came across Charles Kuffner, who is saying the same thing I am. So if I'm number nine, then Charles is ten and that's already two more than the eight people Ann is talking about. That's right, Ann. 8+2=10. Follow me?

Oliver Willis posts about a poll in the Washington Post regarding carpet bombing Iraq. Is Ann taking into account just the people who oppose bombing, or those people who may or may not be opposed to it but sure as hell don't think that Bush has the right to make that decision on his own? And even if the opposers only amount to 36% of those polled, that's still more than eight people, Ann.

Yes, I know she was being sarcastic or facetious or what have you. Or maybe not. In Ann's mind, she is always right.

Do I think Saddam is evil? Yes. Would I care if he were to be taken out and sent back to his maker? No. Do I think we have the right to just go in there and oust him because we don't like him? No. That takes care of your questions, right?

We are not the leaders of the universe. We are not He-man and She-Ra out to save the world from the forces of evil (When I say we, I mean the United States of America). Suppose the tables were turned? Suppose some other country decided that they don't like our regime, that we are a threat to their way of life and their people and they think we are harboring nuclear weapons that we will use against them some day. They decide that Bush should no longer rule, that a war is necessary. What would America do? America would shake its collective head and call that country crazy. Lot's of How Dare Yous and Who Do You Think You Ares would ensue.

So what gives us that right? How can we justify going in and bombing a country that has yet to strike at us? Smite your enemies before they smite you? Pre-empive bombing?

It's interesting to note that Saddam wasn't even a blip on the Bush radar before September 11th. Now, with bin Laden neither certainly dead nor certanly alive and obviously not captured, with the war on terrorism dragging and with corporate scandals slowly creeping their way into the White House, Saddam has become the dog that Bush needs to wag.

He is wagging this dog so hard the poor thing's eyeballs have fallen out.

So, back to Ann. I am standing here saying that I oppose bombing Iraq. That makes me number nine to you. Anyone else want to join my line? Do I hear a ten? Eleven?

updated: Jima just pointed out Tom Tomorrow's post on the subject where he takes Ann to task for this great quote:

"How is it that the New York Times managed to locate the only eight people in America opposed to attacking Iraq? (By "America," I obviously mean to exclude newsrooms, college campuses, Manhattan and Los Angeles)."

Tom takes her down better than I could have.

*addendum: The post is up one hour and already there's email. I apologize for the use of the word wacko in reference to right wing extremists. I am sorry that I have defiled the good name of Wakko Warner in that manner. Also, I do understand that there are extremists on either side of the spectrum, whether that spectrum be political, religious or the Dunkin Donuts v. Krispy Kreme warmongers. And...Just because I oppose the war on Iraq does not mean I am a card carrying liberal. I have not in any way affiliated myself or my beliefs with the likes of Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore. As if.

Comments

10.

10

E is obviously number eleven. I do believe that E and Kat mind melded on that one, but they count as two separate entities.

Unless that was Kat's other personality, then they count as one.

Well we in the UK have secretly been planning to oust Bush and deactivate your entire nuclear arsenal.

We just haven't worked out how the hell we're going to do it. Maybe we'll send Boy George and George Michael over to do it, damned if we want them in this country any longer.

ooohh i get to have multiples?? alright! now maybe my vote can count twice in the next election instead of not at all ;)

can i be 12?

13, and I am definitely a card-carrying liberal, NYAAH!

Tom Tomorrow has a few more things to say about this particular quote on his blog. He also points out the parenthetical stuff right after that quote:

(By "America," I obviously mean to exclude newsrooms, college campuses, Manhattan and Los Angeles)

So... the 9/11 attacks were not an attack on America?

YOU FUCKING NUTTER - I SUPPORT THE BOMBING OF IRAQ. As long as Geogre and Dick are down there doing thier shady deals with Saddam, good time to take all three of em out. Until then though, no war!

15. I swear that stupid maniac in the White House is going to get us all killed. Just because his popularity ratings are finally starting to wane because people are actually realizing that the man's a fucking idiot and he's done absolutely nothing for us doesn't mean he has to make like his dad and attack Iraq just to get his approval numbers back up. Remember, Daddy Georgie won the war in Iraq and still lost the following election.

I feel so much better reading this, Michele. I was starting to think I and my 5 friends were the only people asking the same question: What gives us the right to bomb a country and stage a coup just because we don't like their leader?

Never mind the fact the we're the ones who put him in power in the first place.

Lick Bush in 2004. :)

You have to remember, the reason that Ann or Rush or any of these loud-mouths say the things they do is to MAKE MONEY. Doesn't make a bit of difference whether they are right- or left-wing zealots, they have come to the conclusion that there is way more money (and ego appeal) being antagonistic than in being a productive member of societ. Further, Ann is a lawyer. She lost all sense of value to the country when she entered law school

we should all go and join the free state (http://www.freestateproject.org/) and take this blogging country over! Bloggers with guns and freedom - I like the sound.

"What gives us the right to bomb a country and stage a coup just because we don't like their leader?"

See, that's been my point too. Who the hell do Cheney, Shrub, and Rummy think they are, Frederick Barbarrossa or Alexander the Great? Count me in as 16 or whatever.

oops. 17.

18.

19.

When in doubt (ie, when approval rating drop) bomb the shit out of something.

Count me in as #20.

I would like you all to go read Glenn's post referencing a Stratfor article on why the invasion of Iraq might be beneficial (the link to the article itself is buggered).

Dubya et al. may be looney fundamentalists however...

"those people who may or may not be opposed to it but sure as hell don't think that Bush has the right to make that decision on his own"

YEAH! Add me to that list! You know, over lunch today with a client we were just discussing how the Bush regime is more then willing to do whatever they can to get the media hyped up, just to get us to support him more. Uh oh! Ratings are dropping ... we had better bomb something!

Someone. Save us. Please. sigh

In case anyone wants to read more re: Coulter's remarks, her opponents and defenders, try this exchange over at Brad DeLong's place.

I'd like to make a reservation for 69.

How does next Friday at 9pm sound?

Oh..you didn't mean with me, did you?