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?
"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)."
*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.