Posted on 06/16/2006 5:05:55 PM PDT by ChessExpert
“As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo's valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army."
From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American and his Band of Brothers as wimps and crybabies "with a yellow stripe down their backs."
Maybe I'm biased, but nothing – absolutely nothing – Ann Coulter has said about Murtha, Kerry or McClellan strikes me as remotely comparable in vileness, cowardice and rank stupidity as Michael Moore's blanket calumny against some of the bravest men of the 20th century.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Although not directly involved in the Vietnam War, Canada was part of the International Control Commission (ICC) set up by the Geneva Conference in 1954. "Unlike Hungry and Poland, which supported North Vietnam," writes Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., in his Vietnam War Almanac, "Canada attempted to remain impartial. However, it provided economic assistance to South Vietnam." As a result of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, the ICC was superseded by the International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS). Canada and Poland remained members, but India was replaced by Indonesia. "When it became apparent that the North Vietnamese had no intention of living up to the accords," says Summers, "Canada withdrew on July 31, 1973 and was replaced by Iran."
http://www.vwam.com/vets/allies/canadians.html
My point is only that the hand full of troops that Canada sent to Vietnam were not there to support the U.S. war effort, and anyone who tries to tell you that Canada took an active roll in that war on our side is either ignorant of the facts or has some other agenda.
Thanks for the links.
The proper repsonse by Ramsey would have been to say,"I've been misinterpreted."
When he says categorically that
"Coplon was a spy. In the 1990s, the government declassified intercepts of coded messages from the mid-1940s between Russian agents describing her in unmistakable terms."
it's preceded by "At the end of the book, the authors explain why it did not."
In other words, the view that Coplon is a spy is that of the authors. The closest Ramsey himself comes to saying she was a spy in his own voice is when he says
"It was true that the Coplon case — and those against Hiss and the Rosenbergs — stigmatized left-wing views. But the case was not about that. It was about spying, and the spying, the authors conclude, was real."
But even there it's quite difficult to see whether the statement is in his voice, or if he's still describing the point of view of the book's authors.
I also find it odd that he refers to McCarthyism as stigmatizing what he apparently calls "liberals" and I usually call "leftists". Is he rejecting the common left-liberal premise that McCarthyism set back the cause of anti-Communism?
Coulter isn't the first conservative Ramsey's attacked. For instance, here's his negative review of Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000559.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003515.htm
And here is his negative appraisal of George W. Bush: http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2003_05/ramsey-disconnect.html
A few thoughts: Ramsey is a good journalist, but he was over vague in his article about the book about Coplon. When you're ambiguous, expect to be misinterpreted. Also, Ramsey is NOT a conservative--- he is a libertarian, and he should not represent himself as a conservative.
Finally, Ann makes her case as a lawyer does--- she brings the kitchen sink. She does so patiently and rationally, but not without invective. I'll agree that the last is problematic-- but it is far outweighed by the fact that she is perhaps the most unashamedly conservative pundit in the world. Most of us walk on our tip-toes with respect to the left--- Ann proudly marches on them.
What lie has Ann Coulter EVER published, said, or implied?..
Your post is a lie..
McCarthy was a HERO as Ann Coulter said.. even before he was cruelly slandered.. Both FDR and Truman KNEW commies were in their administrations.. and did NOTHING.. Eleanor Roosevelt herself was either a commie dupe or implicit..
I have absolutely no doubt that being referred to as the Michael Moore of the Right drives Coulter up a wall. But hey, don't dish it out if you can't take it.
referred to as the Michael Moore of the Right drives Coulter up a wall.
That's what shallow people think, void of truth. You see, Ann wears their contempt like a badge of honor. She's not driven anywhere - ONLY to #1, she's solid as a rock.
Go ANN! You certainly have divided the wheat from the chaff!
Beauty and the beast?
I loved Ann's line about not wanting attention.
She said if she'd wanted attention, she would have worn a little black dress and her hair long! Ha
Look, this is getting ridiculous. I will post my opinion of Ann's remarks, and so will everyone else. That is what I was doing on this thread until your buddy started insulting me, so to suggest I'm stalking him is false and absurd. Then you showed up to write mini-novels calling me "mendacious." Oh brother.
There is no point in discussing this issue further because I don't care enough to bother. I will continue to discuss Ann's comments, though. There are probably many other topics we would agree on, just not this one.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003515.htm
. . .
These people are not "internees" - they are under no suspicion for the most part and were moved largely because we felt we could not control our own white citizen [sic] in California.
Looks like typical bureaucratic CYA boilerplate trying to use alleged California racism as a scapegoat.
Just the mere fact she is number one gets people's attention whether you're a fan or not. You get invited onto TV shows based on you being number one, were you get to state your views to the great unwashed. It's about exposure.
The greater her book sales the greater her following.
That's a good thing.
Yep! As fighter against socialism, Ann is the closest thing to H.L. Mencken today, except that Ann is 1) hot 2) Ann defends our nation's heritage, principles and people against secularism, while Mencken defended secularism against our nation's heritage, principles and people.
I think Michelle explains what was going on pretty well--- the author of the memo apprenetly wanted to justify why he was having so much food distibuted to the afore-mentioned Japanese Americans.
Incidentally, my impression is that Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute, is, I think the most authoritative expert on this (as he is on more than one thing).
http://internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00205&search_id=2749&pagenum=3
"I will post my opinion of Ann's remarks, and so will everyone else. That is what I was doing on this thread until your buddy started insulting me..."
You posted a question (albeit to yourself) and I answered it.
Rather politely, in fact, given the imbecilic nature of the question.
whiskers
Liberals deny they are liberals all the time. They know liberals have little credibility among normal folk so they pose as something else.
They're frauds.
Whew! Masugi's phrase Irish-Americans initially caught my eye making me fear the worst (yet another public scolding for America's former Irish need not apply discrimination). Never fear! Instead Masugi merely observes "Irish-Americans have often been opposed to American foreign policy, which has often alined [sic] itself with the British."
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.