Posted on 08/15/2007 2:47:59 PM PDT by JWR_Editor
If conservatives are the ones driven by ideological passions, then why are liberals the ones always falling for laughable hoaxes in support of their anti-war ideological agenda? And if liberal beliefs are true, why do they need all the phony stunts to prove them? How about liberals keep hoaxes out of politics and return them to their rightful place: "proving" Darwinian evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
What is she lieing about?
All the Democrats' most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house."
The dearly beloved get sent to the garbage dump called histoire.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Hello?
Cindy Sheehan once had "absolute moral authority." Now she's just a madwoman writing mash notes to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
"Ipsa res locquitur, as Ann might say.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
If conservatives are the ones driven by ideological passions, then why are liberals the ones always falling for laughable hoaxes in support of their anti-war ideological agenda? And if liberal beliefs are true, why do they need all the phony stunts to prove them? How about liberals keep hoaxes out of politics and return them to their rightful place: "proving" Darwinian evolution.
Liberals are dummies. If they were really smart, they wouldn't need to discover hoaxes to make themselves "relevant." They're just funny when they're not making asses of themselves.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Sorry...didnt read the title well enough...ha...my bad.
What part of the column was a lie?
Never mind on me, too.
Bumper sticker I saw yesterday: “With all this fuss over Ann Coulter you’d have thought she’d killed someone, oh wait, that was Teddy Kennedy”
If at First You Don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie Again
by Ann Coulter
Suspiciously, Daniel Pearl’s widow is suddenly being lavishly praised by the Treason Lobby. Jane Mayer, co-author of the discredited hit-book on Clarence Thomas, “Strange Justice,” published an article in The New Yorker last week recounting that Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales in March with the news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had admitted to American interrogators that he had personally beheaded her husband and they were going to release the transcript to the press. Mayer wrote: “Gonzales’ announcement seemed like a publicity stunt.”
Frank Rich followed up with an article in The New York Times saying of Gonzales’ call: “Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it.”
Inasmuch as these are journalists who adjudge George Bush more evil than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, their perception of reality is to be treated gingerly. But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them.
All the Democrats’ most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house. Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector valiantly defending poor, misunderstood Saddam Hussein from George Bush’s imperialistic war to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls.
Cindy Sheehan once had “absolute moral authority.” Now she’s just a madwoman writing mash notes to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and Dick Cheney. “Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?” Cleland responded to Cheney. “If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war.”
Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer.
Bill Burkett was the left’s most admired military veteran since Benedict Arnold. He claimed Bush had shirked his National Guard duty and said he had the documents to prove it. According to Dan Rather and CBS News, Burkett was a “solid” and “unimpeachable” source who was being attacked by “partisan political operatives.”
And then Burkett turned out to be a foaming-at-the-mouth loon. He was eventually forced to admit on air that he had “misled” CBS on the phony National Guard documents, which is a little like Hugo Chavez “misleading” Sean Penn. Burkett’s current medical diagnosis: too crazy to be a homeless person.
The congressional campaign of anti-war Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett was treated in the media as if it were the Second Coming. The New York Times described Hackett adoringly as a “lean 6-foot-4, he is garrulous, profane and quick with a barbed retort or a mischievous joke.” The Times even produced the obligatory quote-ready Republican who said that “Mr. Hackett’s service had caused him to consider voting Democratic.”
Then we found out with a little more specificity what some of those quick-witted barbs were. Hackett called the president a “chickenhawk,” referred to Bush’s “Bring it on” statement as “the most incredibly stupid comment,” and called Bush “the biggest threat in America.” Yes, he was a veritable Noel Coward, that Hackett.
Soon, even Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer were trying to get Hackett to drop his next political campaign for the U.S. Senate.
Gen. Wesley Clark was once compared to Eisenhower, which, in mediaspeak, means: “He is virulently anti-Bush.” Democrats were so tickled to have found an anti-war Southerner and retired general, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert asked, is he “just a mirage?”
Then it turned out the only war Clark wanted to lead was America’s War on Fetuses, declaring that abortion should be legal for any reason until the moment of birth. Soon Clark was buddying around with Michael Moore and Madonna. Also, he claimed he had received calls from “the White House” by which he meant “a think tank in Canada.”
Last we heard, Gen. Clark was on the alternate list for “Dancing With the Stars.”
Joe Wilson went from being billed in the media as a trusted adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and billed (by himself) as an eyewitness to the president’s “lies,” to being an apron-wearing househusband who had been sent on an errand by his wife.
Not only did he fail to debunk the Niger yellowcake story, he also forgot to bring home the quart of milk his wife had requested. (Wilson is now demanding a congressional investigation into who leaked the classified information that his wife wears the pants in the family.)
The Joe Wilson celebrity tour officially ended when The Washington Post editorialized: “It’s unfortunate that so many people took (Wilson) seriously” — not the least of whom were reporters at The Washington Post itself.
Most recently, The New Republic’s “Baghdad Diarist” has been unveiled as a liar, another illustrious chapter in that magazine’s storied history of publishing con men and frauds.
If conservatives are the ones driven by ideological passions, then why are liberals the ones always falling for laughable hoaxes in support of their anti-war ideological agenda? And if liberal beliefs are true, why do they need all the phony stunts to prove them? How about liberals keep hoaxes out of politics and return them to their rightful place: “proving” Darwinian evolution.
Why did you post the last paragraph of the article and not the whole thing?
Get it from Human Events or Ann’s site and you don’t have to excerpt it.
Because we need traffic. (And we do pay for content) What’s the big deal to click on a link?
Ping!
Thanks for the walk down memory lane Ann!
There is a steady drumbeat from the MSM (or Dead Stream Media?) letting Dems know that there is no way to pull out in the next few years.
If the Dems nominate a candidate that isn’t an “out now” person, there will be 1968-style protests. In 1968, a small number of protesters were presented by the news to be a large riot, and the effect was, well, Nixon.
If the Dems don’t reign in their anti-war crazies, there will be protests in the streets should the Dem get elected in 2008. One can imagine, a la 1968, if the Dems were protesting their own POTUS, how hard it would be for them to do more than duck rocks.
I love that woman!
Leftist PFAW to confront Ann Coulter in OHIO on Sept. 6 at Xavier U...I took the liberty of pinging to this thread a few Ohio FReepers -- who posted recently on the OHIO state board.
Posted on 08/15/2007 2:05:59 PM PDT by Gopher Broke-- snip --
On September 6, Ann Coulter will be speaking at Xavier University in Ohio.
-- snip --...As Ann Coulter is speaking, People For, our Ohio partners, fellows from our affiliate People For the American Way [aka "PFAW"] Foundation's Young People For program and other progressive students and activists will participate in a rally on Xavier's campus, where we will counter Coulter's divisive message...
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread
Would one of YOU please post a link to Gopher Broke's thread there?Perhaps some gallant "Buckeye FReepers" could help to SUPPORT ANN at this event?Thanks, Ron
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.