Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Are videotaped beheading covered by Geneva?
by Ann Coulter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Sen. John McCain has been carrying so much water for his friends in the mainstream media that he now has to state for the record to Republican audiences: "I hold no brief for al-Qaida."

Well, that's a relief.

It turns out, the only reason McCain is demanding that prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and other atrocities -- be treated like Martha Stewart facing an insider trading charge is this: "It's all about the United States of America and what is going to happen to Americans who are taken prisoner in future wars."

McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner -- or, as the Times now calls him, the "courtly Virginian" ("fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor" being beneath his dignity these days) -- want terrorists treated like Americans accused of crimes, with full access to classified information against them and a list of the undercover agents involved in their capture. Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame.

As Graham explained, he doesn't want procedures used against terrorists at Guantanamo "to become clubs to be used against our people." Actually, clubs would be a step up from videotaped beheadings.

Or as The New York Times wrote in the original weasel talking points earlier this summer: "The Geneva Conventions protect Americans. If this country changes the rules, it's changing the rules for Americans taken prisoner abroad. That is far too high a price to pay so this administration can hang on to its misbegotten policies."

There hasn't been this much railing about the mistreatment of a hostage since Monica Lewinsky was served canapes at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton Hotel while being detained by the FBI.

The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won't die. It's worse than the idea that paying welfare recipients benefits won't discourage them from working. (Some tiny minority might still seek work.) It's worse than the idea that taxes can be raised endlessly without reducing tax receipts. (As the Laffer Curve illustrates, at some point -- a point this country will never reach -- taxes could theoretically be cut so much that tax revenues would decline.)

But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese -- enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?

It doesn't even work with the Democrats, whom Bush kept sucking up to his first year in office. No more movie nights at the White House with Teddy Kennedy these days, I'm guessing. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
movwater -- typicallyt fails
Once again, a very lengthy posting by movwater -- which fails to prove his point.
-------

BS Detector writes: Thursday, September, 21, 2006 8:29 PM


Okay movwater:
"Hmmm! The CBO, eh! Aren't they the folks that did an analysis during the Reagan Years that found the if Income Taxes were 100%, the Federal Tax Revenue would increase in the 2nd and out years? Apparently on the theory that people would just as hard the government as they do for themselves."

BS Detector
I'd love to see this study. However, I'll bet it doesn't exist. Prove me wrong - cite it.

---------------

Now the response:

"I'd love to see this study. However, I'll bet it doesn't exist. Prove mewrong - cite it."

Okay:

------------

Despite the "OK", movwater fails to cite the study. Instead he provides two lengthy quotes that MENTION the study -- each stating it was done in different years (1986 and 1988).

Duh.

If I can quote an article that MENTIONS a study proving movwater is insane -- that is OBVIOUSLY not the same as CITING the study itself.

Movwater: here's yer sign.


Jaksavin

Jaksavin writes: Wednesday, September, 27, 2006 10:20 AM

>>>>"You state a number of times that you are smart, others are dumb.

Show me where I said that, chump.

>>>>"However, you expose yourself by making a number of errors other than those of factual natures.

Lack of evidence?

>>>>>>"When you write "NOBODY SUPPORTS US NOWHERE" unless you are quoting (without attribution), as if to poke fun at the educationally-deficient you are citing a double-negative, hence undermining your case."

Yes, thought it was obvious that I was poking fun at the thinking-deficient. Or having fun with the language??

>>>>>"In conclusion, most would find it refreshing if you, like most liberals, ...

You betray your ignorance -- when you assume anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal.

I am literally stunned at how many people here do that. It's a logocal fallacy called (in the vernacular) "poisoning the well".

>>>>>"... might offer a scintilla of advice on how to right the wrongs that you perceive in contradistinction to simply railing against that which you find anathema or citing reference works out of context.

First, explain your shallow allegation that I have cited ANYTHING out of context -- lest you be considered just another of the attackers around here.

Second, you may have missed my advice on how to correct ... anything. If you could be more specific -- including your vague innuendo regardibg context -- I would be happy to oblige.

Unlike yourself, I actually enjoy specificity.

But first, I'm again saying you lied about me claiming to be smart. Show us where, sport.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.