« 13 | Main | mmhmm »

oh, ann....

Ann Coulter:

In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did.

Did I miss something important? I was sure it was bin Laden/the Taliban/al Qaeda that hit us on 9/11.

I really shoudn't write about Coulter. Every time I do, I have nightmares about her and she takes the form of Sebastian Bach.

She is just one of the many reasons I would never align myself with the far right. Besides that whole ideology thing, I mean.


Which, if nothing else, demonstrates her unfamiliarity with Dr. Demento, who, despite his public persona as a purveyor of Wacky Wax, is a perfectly sane musicologist who has contributed much to R&B research over the years.

(Besides, he reads my Web site, or so I've been told.)

I don,t see anything wrong with what Ann wrote. As usual, she sees the Democrats for what they are: disingenuous opportunists who have a no sense of decency or honor. And while I am on the subject; how can the Democrats on one hand criticise Bush for his handling of the economy and on the other hand attack him for protecting our oil supply. Nothing, not silicon, not gold, not tin, not copper or any other commodity is more important to the proper functioning of our economy than oil. How fortunate we are that Gore had not been elected president! The most important things a president can do to protect our economy is 1) protect our access to natural resources and 2) not saddle businesses with overbearing regulations (e.g. the Kyoto Treaty).
Gore would have failed miserably on both counts and then we would have seen what a bad economy is really about.

Come over to the dark side, Michele.

(Although what Ann wrote is a bit goofy).

I think she was trying to say that Saddam Hussein attacking the US is completely beyond the realm of possibility for the Dems, but Halliburton is the most evil corporation on earth and isn't beyond anything.

Sure, she could've been a little clearer, but I think she was only comparing what the dems find ridiculous.

I think you're misinterpreting what Ann said there. She's not saying that Saddam hit us on 9/11, she's pointing out that's something Democrats frequently say. She's also pointing out -- correctly I might add -- their obsession with Haliburton and other minor issues compared to defending America.

The question isn't settled yet.


The only unreasonable attitude is to beleive that we know most of what Sadam was up to.
"Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 bombing; 2) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, 9/11 mastermind, said to be Yousef's uncle; 3-4) two older "brothers" of Yousef, also al Qaeda masterminds; 5) a younger "cousin," Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, now known to have sent most of the money to the hijackers; and 6) Yousef's childhood "friend," Abdul Hakam Murad."


"Moreover, all these individuals, with the possible exception of the younger "cousin," are said to be born and raised in Kuwait. Their identities are based on documents in Kuwait, above all interior-ministry files, that pre-date Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi occupation in 1991.

Those documents are not reliable, because Iraq had custody of those files, while it occupied Kuwait. This is self-evident and beyond dispute."

Personally, I would pay good money to see a double date between Ann Coulter and Michael Moore and Mary Matalin and James Carville. Might even make great pay-per-view. A wingnut is a wingnut, whether it's threaded for the right hand or the left...

Most of the article seems to be about the importance of staying the course in Iraq, without necessarily getting the UN involved. Her closing paragraph, however, suggests that saying Hussein was responsible for 9/11 isn't just a subtle dig at the Dems' "obsession" with Halliburton.

"It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq."

I'm willing to concede that maybe she was trying to make a point about the Dems with her first statement. Juxtaposing the bad guys twice, though, at both the beginning and the end of her article, seems more like a conscious decision.

To her -- and a lot of people, I'd guess -- bin Laden and Hussein are one and the same. Who cares which one is in Iraq and which one is in Afghanistan? They both have beards. Neither one speaks English. They're interchangable bad guys.

As if it ever mattered which Cory (Haim or Feldman) was the star because you knew they'd both make an appearance sooner or later.

RKB, did you notice what I posted about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, 9/11 mastermind?

He's not from Afghanistan, not from Saudi, but arguably from Iraq by way of occupied Kuwait.

Maybe are you a bit disingenuous...and jealous?

I've read or heard just about everything AnnCoulter has published, and I can't for the life of me, find anything that I would find offensive, no matter how much I try. I am usually laughing too hard! Ann Coulter shows the Democratic Party for what they are; Organizd Crime w/ a massive PR monopoly.

It never fails -- Michele says something bad about Annthrax, and the commenters rush to assure her that while Coulter said might sound breathtakingly stupid to the naked ear, it is actually fiendishly clever. And if you can't see that, then you need to move ot France with the rest of the traitors.

Ripper: a response to the article you quoted is here. Excerpt:

In the six months when Iraq controlled Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, the entire brain trust of global terrorism was assigned fake identities. Over the next dozen years, these people pulled off a series of devastating attacks, and some of them were caught and are currently in custody, but no one -- except for Mylroie and one friend of hers -- knows who the captured people really are. And what's her evidence?

"A summary of that file was read to me."

A summary of the file was read to her! What is that, quadruple hearsay?

The post Thlayli quotes also includes this:

And the right wing of this country accords her more respect than it does the longest-serving State Department diplomats.

I consider myself a member in good standing of the right wing of this country, and I never heard of this Mylroie person until just now.

There is far more on which to base an Iraq connection than the rantings of a single person almost nobody (except the debunker Left) has ever heard of.

Thlayli, can you say "straw man"?

I knew you could.

There is far more on which to base an Iraq connection than the rantings of a single person almost nobody (except the debunker Left) has ever heard of.

1) No, there isn't.
2) I'm not the one who brought Mylroie up; someone on your side did.
3) National Review isn't "nobody".

Another Nobody speaks


MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: "We don’t know....we’ve learned a couple of
things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between
Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of
the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW[Biological
Weapons] and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get
trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing
bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World
Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi,
returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent
to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence
files, that this individual probably also received financing from the
Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the
original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that
one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from
the Iraqi government after the fact. "

Here's what Josh Marshall had to say about the above quote:

"In two years the US intelligence and law enforcement communities have not been able to unearth a single piece of evidence tying the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks.

In Cheney's answer he reels off a series of allegations, most of which have either been positively discredited or remain wholly unsubstantiated. Even if each point were true -- which, for the most part, they aren't -- they are clearly intended to muddy the issue by tossing out a variety of points not directly related to the question of Iraqi government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

The one supposed piece of 'evidence', of course, is the alleged meeting between Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the spring of 2001. But contrary to Mr. Cheney's claim that "we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," US intelligence officials have thoroughly discredited that report. And it has even been denied by the Czechs. What's more, as al Qaida expert Peter Bergen noted last month when he spoke with TPM, the US now has in custody the two Iraqi intelligence officials connected with this alleged incident.

As Bergen asked, "Don't you think he knows his get-out-of-jail-free card to some degree is saying "Hey I did meet with Mohammed Atta"? He's obviously not saying that, otherwise we'd know about it."

The point is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever connecting the Iraqi regime with the 9/11 attacks. What's more, it's not as though we don't know quite a lot about how the attacks were carried out. We know who the perpetrators were -- both those in the planes and many in support roles. We know where the money came from. We know about their ties with al Qaida and bin Laden. We know a great many details about how this horrific attack happened. And none of them have led us back to Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi regime.

Even applying so low a standard as that by which we judge incidents with four-year-olds and cookie jars, Cheney's statement that "we just don't know" whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks is a lie.

Why do 69% of Americans continue to believe that Iraq may have been involved in 9/11? Many reasons. But one of the most important is that their leaders keep lying to them."