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, February 07, 2007
Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Yellowcake and yellow journalism
by Ann Coulter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


To see how liberal history is created, you need to tune into the nut-cable stations and watch their coverage of the Scooter Libby trial. On MSNBC they're covering the trial like it's the Normandy Invasion, starring Elvis Presley, as told by Joseph Goebbels.

MSNBC's "reportage" consists of endless repetition of arbitrary assertions, half-truths and thoroughly debunked canards. No one else cares about the trial -- except presumably Scooter Libby -- so the passionate left is allowed to invent a liberal fable without correction.

Night after night, it is blithely asserted on "Hardball" that Wilson's trip to Niger debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein had been seeking enriched uranium from Niger.

As David Shuster reported last week: "Wilson goes and finds out that the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger is not accurate."

There have been massive investigations into this particular claim of "Ambassador" Joe Wilson, both here and in Britain. Nearly three years ago, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that this was not merely untrue, it was the opposite of the truth: Wilson's report actually bolstered the belief that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger.

"The panel found," as The Washington Post reported on July 10, "that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts." So you can see how a seasoned newsman like David Shuster might come to the exact opposite conclusion and then repeat this false conclusion on TV every night.

Wilson's unwritten "report" to a few CIA agents supported the suspicion that Saddam was seeking enriched uranium from Niger because, according to Wilson, the former prime minister of Niger told him that in 1999 Saddam had sent a delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" with Niger. The only thing Niger has to trade is yellowcake. If Saddam was seeking to expand commercial relations with Niger, we can be fairly certain he wasn't trying to buy designer jeans, ready-to-assemble furniture or commemorative plates. He was seeking enriched uranium.

But Wilson simply accepted the assurances of the former prime minister of Niger that selling yellowcake to Saddam was the farthest thing from his mind. I give you my word as an African head of state.

Chris Matthews also repeatedly says that Bush's famous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address -- which liberals say was a LIE! a LIE! a despicable LIE! -- consisted of the claim that British intelligence said there was a "deal" for Saddam Hussein to buy enriched uranium from Niger.

Matthews huffily wonders aloud why Wilson's incorrect report didn't get into Bush's State of the Union address "rather than the president's claim of British intelligence that said there was a deal to buy uranium, which of course became one of the underpinnings of this administration's argument that we had to go to war with Iraq."

Considering how hysterical liberals were about Bush's "16 words," you'd think they'd have a vague recollection of what those words were and that they did not include the word "deal." What Bush said was: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Even if the British had been wrong, what Bush said was factually correct: In 2003, the British government believed that Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger. (Not "MSNBC factual," mind you. I mean "real factual.")

But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger -- the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it.

But at MSNBC, it's not even an open question: That network alone has determined that Saddam Hussein was not trying to acquire enriched uranium from Niger. Actually one other person may still agree with MSNBC: a discredited, washed-up State Department hack who used his CIA flunky wife's petty influence to scrape up pity assignments. But even he won't say it on TV anymore.

Shuster excitedly reported: "We've already gotten testimony that, in fact, that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was based on forgeries that were so obvious that they were forgeries that officials said it would have only taken a few days for anybody to realize they were forgeries."

This is so wrong it's not even wrong. It's not 180 degrees off the truth -- it's more like 3 times 8, carry the 2, 540 degrees from the truth. Shuster has twisted Wilson's original lie into some Frankenstein monster lie you'd need Ross Perot with a handful of flow charts to map out in full.

During Wilson's massive media tour, he began telling reporters that he knew Saddam was not seeking yellowcake from Niger because the documents allegedly proving a deal were obvious forgeries.

Again, thanks to endless investigations, we now know that Wilson was lying: He never saw the forged documents. (Not only that, but Bush's statement was not based on the forged documents because no one ever believed them.)

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report notes that Wilson was asked how he "could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Indeed, the United States didn't even receive the "obviously forged" documents until eight months after Wilson's trip to Niger!

Wilson admitted to the committee that he had "misspoken" to reporters about having seen the forged documents. Similarly, Cain "misspoke" when God inquired as to the whereabouts of his dead brother, Abel.

But on "Hardball," the forged documents that no one in the U.S. government saw until eight months after Wilson's trip now form the very impetus for the trip. A perfectly plausible theory, provided you have a working time machine at your disposal.

If you wonder how it came to be generally acknowledged "fact," accepted by all men of good will, that Joe McCarthy was a monster, that Alger Hiss was innocent, that mankind is causing global warming and that we're losing the war in Iraq, try watching the rewriting of history nightly on MSNBC. Don't forget to bring your time machine.

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.
Is MSNBC Worth the Effort?

Ms. Coulter's article is the equivalent of yelling "airball, airball ..." at the incompetent college basketball player who routinely misses the rim. Yeah, it's fun the first time, but after a while it just becomes pathetic.

No, MSNBC is not worth a moment of anyone's attention.

Insanity
Since the leftist still think they control all free thought, this make believe trial is but another example, as Ann points out correctly, of how democraps are wrong on everything! I say just give them a rope and they will do the saddam imitation. Chris Matthews with his ranch comment embarassed Don Imus while on the radio is one example of many more to come.

I don't watch MSNBC
But I did read today where Tim Russert denied telling Libby about Plame.

Did Ann miss that tidbit, or intentionally leave it out?

She only mentions Libby twice(and never after the 2nd paragraph) and never mentions Cheney at all.

Not exactly yellow journalism, just the incompetent journalism we've come to expect from Ann.

Its fun
... watching the rats jump the sinking ship that is the bush administration. Its humorously clear they hung Libby out to dry, and the path of lies leads right to cheney's office.

Annie can dismiss this all she wants, but those of us who arent Fox News Stupid can see the handwriting on the wall.

Excellent Article By Ann
This is an excellent article by Ann on one, but only one aspect of the disgrace known as the Libby case.

What makes it so bad in my view is the combination of, among other things:

1. The Agent Identities Protection Act did not apply to the so-called "leak" of Plame's identity because, among a number of reasons, Plame as a Washington D.C. desk bound analyst for the CIA was not covert within the meaning of the Agent Identities Protection Act. That is the reason why no indictments were ever brought for violating that law.

2. Given Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times implying he was sent by Cheney to Africa and falsely saying he had done a report denying Sadam's effort to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger (contrary to British intelligence), it was in the public interest to know who did send Wilson, a left wing Democrat, to conduct a sensitive investigation in Africa. It was his wife Plame, whose status at the CIA was not protected by the Agent Identities Protection Act.

3. The truth is that Saddam actually attempted to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger. Christopher Hitchens said it so well -- "so sorry, everyone, but Saddam did go uranium shopping in Africa." President Bush relied upon British intelligence, and British intelligence was right.

4. The truth is that Wilson's oral report actually corroborating analysts who agreed with British intelligence that Saddam did go uranium shopping in Africa.

5. Fitzgerald is conducting a perjury prosecution still premised on a supposed effort to "out" Plame, even though it was Iraq War critic Richard Armitage who was the "leaker."

6. Fitzgerald knew early on in the investigation that there was no violation of the Agent Identities Protection Act and that Armitage was the real "leaker," yet spent years and millions of dollars on an investigation that in reality was nothing more than a prejury trap intended for his self-justification.

7. Fitzgerald ended up bringing but one perjury/obstruction of justice case based on conflicting recollections -- as a lawyer who has practiced for 30 years, I have repeatedly seen conflicting recollections in cases with no one intentionally lying.

Bulldog Closing In...
Judging from how shrill Ann is getting these days, her lawyerly skills and insights must be telling her that "Bulldog" Fitzgerald is zeroing in on the neocons in the OVP and they are getting appropriately nervous.

Those of us in the long-suffering Land of Lincoln hope he soon cleans out that particular nest of vipers and can then come back here to shovel out the Augean Stables of Springfield and Illinois government in general. These are both projects worthy of a legal Hercules like Fitzgerald.

I can't wait for Kimberloon...
... to come here and call Ann "shrill"! It's one of the little mile-markers of my week, when Kimberloon scans Ann's column and then proceeds to screech and flap her moonbat-wings in impotent fury.

Fly, moonbat, fly!

To utahnotmormon
So what if Russert testified that he did not recall telling Libby about Plame? Perhaps Russert's recollection is wrong, or perhaps he is the one not telling the truth. Libby's lawyer on cross-examination, asked Russert how it could be, given Ruissert's aggressiveness as a journalist, not raise the subject with Libby? A perjury case is not established because two people have different recollections about the same event; that actually is the norm. thirty years of being a litigator would teach you that.

So what if Ann's column does not deal with Russert's testimony? Ann's column deals with but one aspect of this absurdity of the Libby case. Russert's testimony does not go to the aspect of the Libby case that is the subject of Ann's column.

Ann, love ya darlin'.
Keep exposing the lies.

From personal experience, do take a break now and again and read only conservative and sensible articles and books.

Watching and reading these lefties with their lies, revisionism, anti-Americanism, and insanity makes me go into angry mode and my blood pressure goes up. I have to break away in self-defense.

I haven't been able to watch ms media in over 2 years.

Like exposure radiation, exposure to stupidity apparently has a cumulative effect. One can only tolerate so much.

To soothsayer
If you understood the handwriting on the wall, you would realize how off the wall you are.

The Bush Administration is far from a sinking ship. Bush is still the decider on Iraq. In time, the Libby case will get legally straightened out.

To pitbull
I thought that I included your point as one of mine (point 1) in my 10:00 PM post. It is worth saying over and over.

blah blah blah blah
As long as the Republicans continue to throw their own to the wolves once the Dems and the media go into attack mode (Trent Lott anyone?), it doesn't matter how many times Ann Coulter or anyone else points it out in the new media. The Democrats circle the wagons and protect their own and the media selectively manufacture their own stories and headlines, and nothing changes.

Until recently Republicans controlled both the White House AND Congress, with the power to call news conferences and make news. Too bad they didn't make more of an effort to fight the mainstream liberal attack machine while they could. Why can't Tony Snow stop a reporter from the NY Slimes or Washington Compost at a press conference and address an issue like this directly with facts and footnotes? It's a sad situation...

Pitbull

Time to medicate, buddy.

Phil B
You are absolutely correct that Russert's statements could or could not be genuine. But if Ann is going to doa story on the Libby case, doesn't that deserve to be included, since it's the main story line of the day? OK, maybe Ann wrote the story before the Russert claim.
Still, she's obsessed with Wilson and Plame who, at this point are irrelevant to the trial.

Cheney is absolutely essential to the core of the trial. yet, instead of even bringing up his name, even in defense she conjures up the Normandy invasion, Elvis Presley, Joseph Goebbels, Joe McCarthy and Alger Hiss.

How much more off topic can she get?

I'll stick with my claim of incompetent journalism.

Lynne, what are you babbling about? You should be the last person accusing me of disconnect.

Liar Liar skirts on fire!!!
"But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger -- the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it."

Can you believe the audacity of the above?. In December 2003, George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet himself admitted that the 16 words should never have been part of the SOTU speech. The Butler report never provided even a semblance of evidence for the Niger connection (their whole thesis is based on a visit to Niger by an Iraqi official in Feb 1999). Let us not forget that America went to a bloody war on the pretext of this and other dubious claims. Bush was at best imcompetent and at worst a devious schemer who hid behind the British fig leaf. To this day he hasn't acknowledged that error. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis have perished as a consequence. In a just world Bush would be tried as a war criminal (maybe that'll still happen).

Libby
Y'all a bunch of whackos.

Libby is on trial for impeding a judicial investigation, not for "outing" a CIA employee who was never "in".

Disconnect
Lynne writes:

Ann's column =/= Libby trial & Tim Russert's testimony? Not sure what one has to do with the other. Typical liberal disconnect!

According to Lynne, anyone who disagrees with Ann Coulter is a liberal, even if they are a committed capitalist, believe in small government, think labor unions are generally socialistic entities that have contributed to ruining the american work ethic, oppose almost all entitlement and welfare programs and pays a boatload of taxes, many of them state and local in the reddest state in the country.

Then there's Pitbull, who believes one of the biggest liars ever to enter public service - Richard Armitage.

Your problems are you can't tell independents from liberals. Not my problem, and I'll henceforth ignore your rantings.

Lynne
Re: Liberal guys...
This is NOT about the LIBBY trial.....helloooooo

Get on topic!

*************************

Spew alert! The light's on but no-one's home. ROFLOL.

Bountyhunter20
Kimberloon, izzat yoooooooo?

pitbull
Well, is IS is? Or isn't it? :-)

Alien entity
You wrote: "Let us not forget that America went to a bloody war on the pretext of this and other dubious claims. Bush was at best imcompetent and at worst a devious schemer who hid behind the British fig leaf. To this day he hasn't acknowledged that error. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis have perished as a consequence. In a just world Bush would be tried as a war criminal (maybe that'll still happen)."

In the Real World, where I live, we are thankful for a President with the guts and determination to make a stand and prosecute a war effort wholeheartedly to take the war OVER THERE instead of us dodging bullets OVER HERE.

We are in a battle for our very lives and you obviously don't get that. Mr. Bush is certainly not perfect, and I don't always agree with him, but he will probably go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents due to his courage and conviction to protect this blessed country, and I have tremendous respect for the man.

Your thinking is twisted. Do yourself a favor and get your info from different sources than you currently employ.

To Alien
What is audacious is that leftists such as you continue to claim that Saddam was not seeking yellow cake uranium in Niger. Excuse me, Saddam was. In addition to the sources cited by Ms. Coulter, translated Sdaam giverbment reflected that Saddam was seeking to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger. What made the New York Times report complaining about the translated Sadam government documents being available on the internet because one could construct a nuclear device from them so ironic is that Saddam was perhaps a year away from having a nuclear device; Saddam's interest in acquiring yellow cake uranium was not a matter of fancy.

All this, though, is off point from the fact that the Libby trial is suposedly about perjury and obstruction of justice. It is just the real lying in connection with this mess has been done by Joe Wilson and you leftists.

Utahnotmormon/Ultramorom
Fair enough! And we'll ignore your ignorance....
yadda, yadda, yadda,..........zzzzzzzz!

How can Libby be on trial......
When Sandy Burglar gets a walk for stealing from the National Archives? Is it because he was acting on behalf of Clinton?

LadyRebel

Thank you for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree.

Our nation is strong enough to survive the many smaller issues on which President Bush appears to have lost his focus. But on the big issue -- global terrorism -- he has remained steadfast in a political climate that changes direction with every little breeze. He will be remembered as a great president, for that alone.

Ultramorom
Typo or example of retarded mind.

You decide!

To utahnotmormon
The answer to you about whether Ms. Coulter in her most recent article should have included reference to the Russert testimony is "no." There are a number of aspects to the Libby case; my 10:00 AM post touches on a number of them. What Ms. Coulter did was to focus in her article on what she considers (and I agree) is the rewriting of history by the liberal mainstream media (particularly MSNBC) concerning what Joe Wilson wrote concerning Saddam's efforts to acquire yellow cake uranium. The British intelligence on which President Bush relied was correct: Saddam did attempt to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger.

Quite differently, Russert's testimony goes to the different question of what kind of perjury/obstruction of justice case that Fitzgerald has. For that case, Cheney is not so important as you think. You may be still thinking about the Libby case as about the Agent Identities Protection Act; it is not. There was no violation of the Agent Identities Protection Act because, among other reasons, Plame was not covert within the meaning of that statute. That is why Fitzgerald did not charge anyone, not even the real "leaker" in Armitage, with violating the Agent Identities Protection Act. Instead, Fitzgerald brought a case against Libby for wilfully not telling the truth to the grand jury about what he recalled concerning his conversations with a few journalists about Plame.

In considering that case, if you care to do so, you should stop watching people like Chris Matthews and spend time in learning what is actually going on at the trial. The trial is full of examples of prosecution witnesses showing poor memory. Libby's lawyer Ted Welles (a Harvard Law classmate of mine) has been very effective as to that point in his cross-examinations. Fitzgerald's case is not a powerhouse by any means. And the trial court's rulings to Fitzgerals's favor in limiting proof to the taste of Fitzgerald concerning Plame's status at the CIA has led to some absurd situations that would make any conviction subject to reversal on appeal.

Lost Focus?
>Our nation is strong enough to survive the many smaller issues on which President Bush appears to have lost his focus.<

You mean small issues like:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_re_eu/russia_new_weapons;_ylt=AkUuFy6G13iSQL3kKIEX8aZvaA8F

MOSCOW - Russia's defense minister on Wednesday laid out an ambitious plan for building new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly aircraft carriers, and set the goal of exceeding the Soviet army in combat readiness.

Sergei Ivanov's statements appeared aimed at raising his profile at home ahead of the 2008 election in which he is widely seen as a potential contender to succeed President Vladimir Putin. But they also seemed to reflect a growing chill in Russian-U.S. relations and the Kremlin's concern about U.S. missile defense plans.

Ivanov told parliament the military would get 17 new ballistic missiles this year — a drastic increase over the average of four deployed annually in recent years. The purchases are part of a weapons modernization program for 2007-2015 worth about $190 billion.<

Nothing like a little nuclear proliferation to take your mind off a few Muslims with AK47s.




Whew!!
Take note people. If anyone is still trying to make the "Bush Lied" case off the Wilson circus, gently move them over to the tinfoil hat corner, try not to overly excite them, then slowly back away.

Unless you are a liberal, it is accepted wisdom that no one can truly know what rests in the hearts and minds of any other person. We of mortal limitation and reasoning capacity are consequently left with only the actions of a person to judge them.

That being said, we of conservative persuasion have been provided an unexpected gift from the Almighty, and this is it -- anyone who invokes the name of Joseph Wilson in support of any theory in opposition to the current administration can be unequivacably consigned to the tinfoil hat corner without benefit of any further questioning or humoring.

Anyone who bases an argument on the discredited fantasies of Wilson, or who attempts to make arguments that are extrapolated from Wilson's discredited messianic delusions may be summarily discredited themself without any of the usual social pleasantries associated with civil discourse, for the simple reason that anyone who is stupid enough to still be clnging to the Wilson rationale is too incompetent to acknowledge your generous gesture.

Witch hunt gone awry
One of the more sickening aspects of Fitzgerald's witch hunt is that he knew all along that Plame was not covert. He knew that anyone was perfectly free to say anything whatsoever about the blond-bimbo-bureaucrat-turned-media-hound. As there was never a crime to investigate in the first place, the entire investigation was a fraud.

Notwithstanding the fact that 'leaking' Plame's name was entirely legal, and that Fitzgerald knew that, he also knew from the beginning that Richard Armitage was the 'original leaker', yet charged Armitage with nothing. Fitzgerald presented a theory to the public that he knew to be false.

There are indeed a host of liars in this sordid affair. They include Fitzgerald, Wilson and most of the drive-by media.

Valerie Plame, Undercover Babe
Gee, I wonder which President Valerie served under?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Phil B
I've never watched Chris matthews in my life.

Part of the intrigue in the Libby trial is when information was exchanged and the motives. Cheney's integrity is at the forefront of the trial. Deborah Bond of the FBI testified that Libby acknowledged on an Air Force 2 flight that he 'Might" have talked to Cheneyabout whether to tell the news media about Plame.
After talking to Cheney, Libby leaked classified information twice to reporters.

Robert Greiner of the CIA told the court he thought the White House(Cheney?) was "trying to avoid responsibility for positions that they took with regard to the truth about whether or not Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger."

And your claim that:
>The British intelligence on which President Bush relied was correct: Saddam did attempt to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger.<

is just that, a claim. Britain has never released the evidence to back that claim, even though it still stands by the claim.

This case has me worried
because it reveals how thoroughly the CIA has been infiltrated by the activist left.

Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

Phil Byler: no evidence
There were two sources of Bush's yellowcake claim: forged documents propagated by Italy and various intelligence agencies, and the documented visit to Niger by an Iraqi official in Feb 1999. Wilson was sent to Niger to confirm these allegations and returned a negative. Their was no evidence presented in the Butler report on the 1999 uranium connection. None. Was that reason enough for expending thousands of lives and billions of dollars much needed back home?

Was Saddam really seeking Yellow Cake?

I know! Let's ask him!

Oops!

Too Late!

Alien entity & utahnotmormon
Children, I realize that yelling "liar liar pants on fire" is your idea of an argument, but I must break it to you: It isn't. (I'm being gentle as not to dislodge the tin hats, Sandman.)

1. The very fact that there is no "Carnival Cruise Jihad in NJ" is PROOF of what I said. No bullets HERE. Duh.

2. Attempting to portray Mr. Bush as a coward is so lame. Geez. Not worthy of notice. Do you actually have anything to say?

3. Yes, Russia is a problem. Just one of MANY. Look at North Korea for crying out loud. And Iran. And the Mexican and Canadian borders. And the large population of Muslims up there in Michigan.

Danger is everywhere but we can't get all hysterical about it. We just have to deal with it as best we can.

Mountain Rose: Exactly
Indeed, too late for 3000 US and countless Iraqis.

A problem
Russia - many nukes and building more

You really equate North korea, Iran, Mexico, Canada and Michigan Muslims on the same level with a country that can vaporize our country at the push of a button?

I'm sorry, MOM, I just think it's probably a little bigger problem, and, again, lay off the kool-aid and the nonsense rhetoric.

Lynne, Mtn Rose, S12R
Ann does seem to draw the fantasy fiction crowd. I guess she messes with their version of reality.

Meanwhile in leftyland, the minimum wage, global warming, and "Bush lied" continue to be the topics of greatest concern. (Huge eye roll.)


Hmm. My kids used to do that -- when they were 3 yrs old. When I tried to get them to pay attention to something important, oh like how to disarm a bomb, they'd be jumping around and asking about the dog I had when I was a child.

God help us.

Lady Rebel: look before you leap
Let's look at some of your gems shall we?
1) Peace in NJ because of war in Iraq? Could you be any more vacuous?

2) Lamer than calling him "President with guts"?

3)And with all those 'dangers' lurking, Bush goes for the most insignificant and irrelevant, and actually creates a terrorist haven out of thin air.

I won't comment on your rant about the Muslims--it' just too distasteful.

Ohh no here you go again!
Valerie and Joe serve under her thighness shillery cliton, scmucky schumer, land deal reid, stretch pelosi, pol pot turbin, and any other slip and fall lawyer whose only purpose is to trash the U.S.A.

Lynne
Why do the Moonbats keep coming here? That's a good question. They sure don't come here to have a sensible conversation about political problems. It seems their sole purpose is to express their constant hate for Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, and America as a Republic. Weaving each of these hatreds into every response, in any distorted way they can, no mater what the subject. And of course, they consider themselves expert on all subjects!

But then if you think about it. They won't stay on sites like the Daily Kos. All the foul-mouth kiddies over there agree with them. No fun in that!

You can be sure that the two columnists they hate the most, Ann and Michelle. Will always cause them to swarm out of their caves.

Russian Nukes
Utahnotmormon said: Russia - many nukes and building more

You really equate North korea, Iran, Mexico, Canada and Michigan Muslims on the same level with a country that can vaporize our country at the push of a button?

Seriously, yes. The Russians are opportunists and criminals, but they are not insane. My parents lived in Moscow for 3 years. The Russians will steal whatever they can get away with but they have no reason to try and destroy us, nor do they have any great passion to do so. Sadly, a great number of Russians are alcoholics. Also, their technology is not very advanced anymore. A thief and opportunist is understandable.

Not so with the radical Muslims. They ARE insane. Insane I am defining as "without reason." The Muslims are fighting a holy war. They want to destroy us. PERIOD. Their religion says they will be rewarded if they destroy infidels - read US. They brainwash the children from the time they can understand, to hate us. Read up on Islam and watch some of the Muslim vidos that have come out of the Middle East. It'll curl your hair.

Muslims have been infiltrating our country for years and have built mosques all over the place. Many of these Muslims are sleeper radicals. They'll wait 10, 20 years to "get us." It is the will of Allah. Many of them live in barbarous conditions where death is preferable to life.

Are you getting a picture?

Shrill
Shrill = anything spoken by a conservative for which a liberal cannot provide a rational response. Shrill = anything spoken by a conservative.

Baron
Well said. Why isn't Berger in serious trouble? Why aren't the Republicans pushing for the lie detector test to be given that was a condition of his slap on the wrist? Additionally, John Kerry revealed the name of a covert agent on the floor of the Senate-twice! The person he was grilling tried to tactfully tell John "D Average Genius to the Liberals" Kerry to not use the actual name and then he did it again.

I can't believe
we're still talking about this. Talk about the boy crying "wolf." It seems that if there is no "watergate," the Left will manufacture one, talk endlessly about it, and revel in it long past the point where anybody cared. Pathetic.

utahnotmormon,
re: Tim Russert

Ann already covered him in her previous column on the same subject. You can look it up in her archive. Ah, I'm bored; here's the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/01/31/free_the_fitzgerald_one!

Meglomaniacal
Uh-oh. utahnotmormon is not happy. utahnotmormon says Anne is OFF-TOPIC! Oh NO!

Just imagine, an article about umm...what WAS that title.....oh yeah!

'Yellowcake and yellow journalism'

Yes, in an article about Yellowcake and yellow journalism Ann apparently got 'off-topic' and wrote about...Yellowcake and yellow journalism!

utahnotmormon says "She only mentions Libby twice(and never after the 2nd paragraph) and never mentions Cheney at all."

You know what else, utahnotmormon? She didn't mention butterflies, coffee, steam-cleaning carpets, the speed of light, cornbread, broadway, or even chocolate sundaes!!!!

'Incompetent journalism', indeed, utahsnotmoron, incompetent journalism indeed.


We know that Saddam has WMD
Ronald Reagan gave them to him. Yep, the US gave Iraq chemical weapons back in the '80s for his war with Iran.

Why is it that the left never mentions this?

Would it be that in doing so they would have to admit that Iraq had chemical weapons and we had absolute proof in that we gave them to him?

For that matter, if Saddam hadn't been trying to get yellowcake from Niger, why didn't he (or all of his fans) exploit Bush's speech by going to the UN and demanding that the evil racist Americans give aid to Niger if they were so opposed to his poor country trying to help that impovershed land. Trust me, that would have been exploited big time by the anti-Bush left...

Likewise there are so many ways he could have spun the inspections. Agree to inspectors but require that they be observant Moslems and sensitive to cultural traditions. Only accept inspectors from EU countries. Require that they take AlJazera cameramen with them. Et al.

He had WMD.

And as to the Chemical stuff, you can argue that stuff made in 1986 is out of code and technically obsolete but then a box of bullets made in 1986 is also out of code and technically obsolete. Wanna stand downrange while I shoot said box of obsolete bullets?

Ann has
an excellent article here by debunking MSNBC lies along with the lies told by Joe Wilson and his Plame dame. Hopefully PuffBall and MSNBC will all fall into the tank soon. Their ratings keep falling like rocks because most people have caught onto the lies and silliness they put out as "news".

Chris Hitchens has an excellent article covering the yellow cake connection.

Obviously the usual suspects on the left hate to hear the truth so once again we get spattered with their mud throwing trying to discredit Bush, Cheney, etc. Doesn't it get old guys? You never have any facts to back up what you say. Then you wonder why no one believes you.

Why do libs hate America ?
Actually, I don't really care.I just want to make sure that everyone I can get to, knows the truth and not the hateful stream of lies that screeds like the freedom haters here on TH are want to spew all over the screen from their cowardly little cisterns or wherever it is that they lurk.

Are you people even capable of singing the praises of this great country ? Of stating that on balance,America is the greatest force for goodness and liberty that has ever existed ?

No. Of course you can't. I don't think I even felt THAT bad about the girl who dumped me in my time of need.How can you folks be so full of hate for such a wonderful nation ? May God have mercy on you and touch your conscience with a grasp of the real.

2spot
That was good. Real good. I wonder too why the left hates America so much.

Cookie
I've been watching John Gibson's countdown on his show as to how many days have passed since Sandy Burglar promised to take a lie detector test. I think it was 671 today, but I'll check that tomorrow.

You guys have really cracked me up tonight.

And now, is it, or isn't time to go to bed? But it depends. Is I ready to sleep, or is I prefer to keep posting? Is depends on how you see it. Pass the medication over here please.

They need to fire
Puffball Matthews too. And, Keith Olbermeister.

Something of a Record
71 posted comments so far... and no Tehran Kim!

Of course, she was up late posting her propaganda on Michelle Malkin's column, so perhaps she'll get around to calling Ann "shrill" later today.

Cheers!

Before the Monkey gets here..
Yesterday a column was written by Byron York...It has a few facts for you moonbats. Wilson lied. The dates he gives in his boo don't match those in 2 documents never seen by but introduced for testimony if I remember coreectly-gotta CMA,you know!!(IT's the end all for Phylo on this issue.)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDRkZDFjMzU2NTc1NTYyM2Q0MWVmMGI4MGNmYzFlNDY=
And Kimberly, I see you ahve once again ignored me over on the Malkin thread. The truth hurts,doesn't it? Shocking!

While this was not one of Ann's best
columns, it demonstrates how influential she is. It is now 0630 and there are already nearly comments here, nearly all of them 'off point'.

Coulter simply (and indisputably) points out a few facts:

1. There was no indictable crime.

2. The Wilsons are known to be partisan hacks who have been exposed as liars on several important issues crucial to the case.

3. Armitage, the real culprit, was known to the prosecution for months before this became an event.

4. Libby is being prosecuted for a non-criminal memory malfunction, about a victimless crime.

5. The press is willful and eager to remanufacture the facts of this case to support their political agenda against Bush/Cheney.

There simply is no stained dress here and there certainly are no purloined documents.

MSNBC Bites! C BS, CNN, ABC and most of
the newspapers also stink!
I would never know ehat any of these garbage pushers say unless I read about it on TH, Fox, the real-news outlets.
I have a low tolerance level for BS, and I get my fill in seconds when I hear a liberal running their mouth. I also cannot stand liars and I can spot one pretty quickly. Wilson and Plame, Liars!

If I accidentally hit CNN when Channel Surfing I smack my hand and curse my bad button push.

To Alien
You got your facts wrong concernig Saddam's efforts to acquire yellow cake uranium in Niger.

Wilson did not come back from Niger with a written that Saddam was not trying to buy yellow cake uranium there. That is what he wrote in his op-ed piece, but gues what? He lied. That was what the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded. Wilson came back with an oral report that Saddam weas up to something in Niger. As Ann Coulter points out, all that Niger had to offer of interest to Sadam was yellow cake uranium.

The forged documents argument gets you nowhere. Wilson did not see them, and British intelligence did not rely upon them. You seem to expect British intelligence to disclose their sources to leftists such as you, but they are more intelligent than that to waste their time and blow intelligence sources.

And what about the translated Saddam government documents that caused Christopher Hitchens to write "so sorry, everyone, but Saddam did go uraniumn shopping in Africa"? Still pretending that did not come out?

The bottom line is that President Bush did not lie about the efforts by Saddam to acquire yellow cake uranium in Niger. That is what British intelligence reported, that is what the President said British intelligence reported, and that is what British intelligence has stood by to the present day. From what we know rorm other sources, including the translated Saddam government documents and the progress that Saddam had made to developing a nuclear weapon, Bristish intelligence was right.

In the end, the liars have been you leftists.

To utahmnotmoron
Your "analysis" of the Libby case is a hoot. Just what does "motive" in the possible exchange of information between Cheney and Libby about Plame tell you? The fact is that Plame's husband Wilson had published an op-ed in the New York Times attacking the Bush Administration with a false claim -- that Wilson had suibmitted a report denying Saddam had attempted to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. Wilson had submitted no such report. What oral report he gave tended to corroborate British intelligence. The natural question was who sent Wilson, a known left wing Democrat, on such a sensitive investigation? The truth was Plame. And indisputably, it was Richard Armitage, an Iraq War critic, who "leaked" that information to Novak.

So what, if anything, does "motive" in the possible exchange of information about Plame tell us? How does it at all relate to the perjury/obstruction of justice case that Fitzgerald has brought based on different recollections of conversations that Libby had with a few journalists? And what motive did Libby have to lie to the grand jury when the Agent Identities Protection Act did not apply to protect Plame, as she was not covert within the meaning of the law?

To the case that was brought, Cheney is not really central. To your apparent effort to treat the Libby case as involving a violation of the Agent Identities Protection Act, you could possibly argue what you do. But that case could not be brought because there was no violation of the Agent Identities Protection Act. I can understand some confusion on your part given how Fitzgerald is proceeding, but Fitzgerald is playing a slick game that won't in the end survive the legal process.

Coulter is WAY out there
Bush is the one who lied, he should be on trial. He lied to all of us to forward his administrations private political agenda! IMPEACH HIS A**!! Go ahead, read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by the think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). [http://www.newamericancentury.org/] See if you can find any statements of motive for Iraq and Iran. That's a group founded by Cheney! Members include but are not limited to: Elliott Abrams,Gary Bauer,William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg,Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen,Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz. I'm sure most of you would fail to see what I am talking about, but you should try anyway. These guys don't support us, they don't care about us. Wake up...

THE ADVENGER WANNABEES
Plume and Wilson live in a land of fantasy. They actually think they are people of importance doing spy things like Steed and Emma Peel. Plume's no Diana Rigg, not by a long shot.
I have not watched any MSM news in six years because it's propaganda not news. What a waste of time and with my temper I would probably pull out my little friend and blow a hole in the T.V.
Ann , love your humor , keep up the great articles driving the leftists out of their minds and hopefully into the insane asylums.

watcha
Great post. We haven't watched a yammering MSM newscast in forever.

BTW, Check my blog for a stunning article on libvermin on Connecticut banning the flying of Old Glory...by a Blue Star Mother.

These idiots need to relocate to Francistan ASAP.

pitbull
eloquently said as usual.

Ann brings out their latent S.M.S. (Screaming Monkey Syndrome) symptoms! They include:

"raging at the world, incoherent rants, excessive use of tinfoil hats, spitting, hair-pulling, and their main weapon of choice, poop flinging."

Rock on Ann!

pitbull
Check my blog amigo. One story, one update, and I'm fixing to cover the details of Her Highness' request.

No.. really, I'm a conservative!
Ever notice how far lefties, who have been on here for months decrying Bush's Lies! and the greed of big corporations and telling us how great Obama and Hillary are... Ever notice how when you call them a lib, they become "small government capitalists"? Oh, some add "Of course, I think the government can provide a safety net" and give away the game. But the rest love to pretend they are somehow even more right wing than the rest of the posters, they just happen to be right wingers who chant "no blood for oil", think the impeachment was "just about sex" and use the phrase "Chimpy McBushitler" a lot, but they're conservative... really!

Saddam's WMD
Ok. To those who say Saddam did not have WMDs:

1. How did he gas a lot of Kurds without possessing gas? It seems pretty self-evident that if he used WMDs he possessed WMDs.

2. Why did he have plans for nuclear weapons so detailed the NYT insisted posting them was a national security issue? Do you have such plans lying around? NO? Why not? Because you are not pursuing nuclear weapons BUT SADDAM WAS!

3. I know the aluminum pipes and refrigerated trailers have been "discredited" by the left, but I never heard exactly why he needed centrifuge grade pipes and refrigerated trailers?

4. What about the claims by his own scientists that they were asked to hide centrifuges and biological materials? Were they lying?

5. What of Sadda's claim to have witnessed the transportation of WMDs to Syria?

6. What about the "old" shells found in Iraq? They don't count? Care to store some old mustard or sarin gas at YOUR home?

5. Lastly, have we really invesitgated enough to say there are no WMDs? Really? Iraq is one giant sand box yet the elft is certainw e have invesitigated every square inch to say with certainty there are no weapons?

Numbering
Sorry, added a few before posting. Last one should be number 7.

Unbelievable
The left, including posters on this thread, and even some posters like utahnotmormon who claim not to be leftists, continue to focus (obsess actually) over who said what to who and how well Libby held up (or failed to hold up) under repeated, legally superfluous grillings by Fitzgerald under oath without the benefit of counsel.

Meanwhile these leftists (and others)BLITHELY IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE FOUND 1.77 METRIC TONS OF YELLOW CAKE IN IRAQ!!!!!

Only a political faction obsessed with its hatred of Bush could focus on the "16 words", focus on the Buler report, focus on Plame, Wilson, and Libby, focus on Cheney and Rove, and foolishly ignore what matters.

Saddam obviously WAS trying to buy yellow cake from somebody because he actualy got his hands on some, and if he succeeded in making a bomb with it the people he killed with that bomb would be just as dead no matter where the uranium came from.

So soothsayer, Bounty hunter20, and Alien, you guys just keep watching PMSNBC. It's exactly your speed, or, more correctly, your level. And if you get bored with you can always find a different version of the same drivel on CBS, ABS, or NBS, not mention PBS, NPRBS, CNN (the Clinton News Network), or Airhead America (Have they been forced to close due to lack of money yet? They satisifed the "lack of interest criteria about ten minutes after they started.).

And utahnotmormon, do us conservatives a favor. Stop telling us you're not a liberal and tell what you are. Stop being against everything and tell us what you are for.


Yellowcake in aisle 12....
and with your super-saver discount coupons you can get one half-off!

Another moonbat solution coming to your hometown today!!!

Thank you,
Ann Coulter. I watch that blowhard Chris Matthews on "Hardball" because I love politics and his passion for it. But even I, an admitted intellectual dwarf, recognized that Matthews' and his dopey team lean so far to the left they actually believe the platitude that if one tells a lie often enough, pretty soon most people will accept it as the truth.

Yesterday on "Hardball" Wilson's lie was propounded as the truth again and all I could do was scream at the TV, "That's an effen lie!" But, this morning Ann Coulter set the record straight and I thank her for it.

Wiseone
Thanks for the yellowcake info.

Have you heard if they found the bicycles Saddam was building with those aluminum pipes yet? Or all the ice cream and fertilizer he was making in those trailers he buried in the sand?

I know the media dropped them quickly once they ahd been "disproven", but I still don't know for what they were supposedly used.

Just like all the shells acciendtally filled with sarin and mustard gas. Saddam just forgot about them because they were so old, or something...

Amazing. No matter what is found, to the left it either (1) isn't what it plainly appears to be or (2) is too old or (3) isn't REALLY a WMD, just kind of like one...

I wonder what would satisfy the Left as evidence that Saddman had WMDs and was trying to make more?

andrews
My source is Michael Fumento, who individually has done more research and therefore knows more about Iraq WMD than all of the above-mentioned leftist news "sources" (I use that term loosely) combined.

When will you leftists argue the facts
instead of your hysterical opinions? Stop the chant 'Bush lied' and look at the extraordinary evidence to the contrary. If he lied, it should be easily provable. Where is the evidence that he did anything more than rely upon widespread. credible intelligence?

If he lied, then the following must also be true:

1. British Intelligence lied, and continues to lie. The French (of all people) continue to believe the lies.

2. Wilson never lied, even about his lying about his lying.

3. Wilson had no political agenda, despite the NYT falsehoods and working for the Kerry campaign.

4. Nearly every politician (including those who now conveniently oppose the effort) agreed with the evidence of WMD. All the Dem leaders supported the US-led enforcement of 14 UN resolutions.

5. The bumbling, inept President fooled hundeds of elected officials(including the smartest woman who every lived) into believing his 'lies'.

6. Saddam Hussien never used WMDs. No chem/bio shell casing were never found in Iraq. Hussein was completely forthcoming with UN inspectors.

7. Hussein never aided or abetted terrorism or Al Queda.

8. Terrorism is not an imminent threat to the US.

9. 911 was only the result of US/Isael hegemony in the middle east.

10. Given all these truths, it was clearly evident that Bush's manipulated us into an a war for political gain (poll ratings aside) or to obtain cheap oil for his buddies in the oil industry (oil is $30/bar higher now and all of it belongs to the Iraquis).

If you leftists did not believe in conspiracy theories, you wouldn't believe in anything.


wiseone
You're failing to understand the libdolt mentality here.

Saddam was merely "HOLDING" the 1.77 metric tons of yellowcake for someone else! Indeed, UNLESS we can positively establish that Saddam was going to USE that yellowcake for nuke weapons, then he is, of course, innocent. After all, as Hanoi John Kerry has noted, we're not nuanced enough to know what Saddam was doing. We should have asked his buddy Jockstrap chIRAQ about it.

So, unless HE KNOW that Saddam was going to make nukes and then either sell them to al-Qaeda or have his own intel agents pop one here, we're evil mean imperialist running dog lackeys of Chimpy McBush.

(I should be writing for Huffington! haha)

LMAO
If Ann didn't exist on the whacko fringe we would have to create her

THANKS GUNNY G
Yes, I have not watched ONE MINUTE of MSM news in six years, eversince I came back from my first pro-life march in Washington. I had someone record all the networks broadcasts so I could see the coverage of what I thought was a major event considering there were over 100,000 people there.
One network had 0 coverage and the other two showed mabye 60 seconds of the opposition which consisted of 15 or 20 hags screaming "no more coathangers!" That did it for me and I've been MSM free now for six years. And boy does it feel good ! Thank God for Townhall and talk radio.

PMSNBC
The Libby trial is nothing more than an effort by a high-paid quasi-official prosecutor to justify the millions of dollars he has spent (mostly on himself). A few salient points:
1. Plame was named in a Robert Novak article. Even before indentifying the source by name, Novak said in an interview that his source told him that if he wanted to find out who sent Wilson on his junket, he should look at his(Wilson's) wife-without naming her. Novak said he then looked up Joe Wilson in "Who's Who in America" where Wilson's wifw was listed as "Valerie Plame". Can anyone explain how repeating a reference from a publshed source, available to the general public is a crime?
2. I'll admit to not haqving studied geogpraphy in decades, but the last time I looked at a map, Africa was not composed of one country. Niger may be in Africa, but there are a bunch of other countries on the continent.

Me thinks Ann the Man..
is a wee bit bitter in that only one cable news channel will allow her to shamelessly promote her latest screechy screed, that being Faux Fox News.

Wonder where the 'felon-in-waiting' is registered to vote nowadays?

Wiseone
Thanks for the citation. Haven't kept up with Fumnento since he wrote about AIDS and ticked off most of the left by saying the numbers had been manipulated to falsely increase heterosexual cases. Except for a few columns here on Townhall I haven't kept up with his writing since then.

It was fun watching the left go nuts at him over AIDS though. He wrote a very thoroughly documented work, and yet the left kept accusing him of not being "scientific". Apparently, I have been using the wrong definition of scientific all these years, for, from what I heard from the left, the definition has more to do with results than with the procedure one followss... odd.

pitbull
Too late for Red Nancy to bite it off, HRC beat her to it, or at least wanted to.

Gaylord
Glad one of you lefties managed to work in the "Manne Coulter" concept. As I said yesterday, if you forget to call her "Manne" at least once a day, don't they kick you off the DailyKos politburo?

Andrews & Lynne
You are correct; Saddam did indeed posess weapons. As I have posted before, his decision to send them to Syria may actually proove to be the fatal blow...it gave the Dems all the ammunition they needed to bring about a US surrender. However, I don't believe his motivations were that Machiavellian--no doubt he believed he would be back in power eventually, just as he was after the first Gulf War, and could retrieve the weapons later. Sending them to Syria certainly required no great effort--for example, his entire known supply of Anthrax would fit in one 40 foot container.

As Anne points out in the article, libs are great at re-writing history, or pretending that history started today. Until recently, they and their media allies have been able to get away with it. But no lib on this site or anywhere else has ever answered the question, "Where are the weapons?" They merely pretend that the fact that the weapons are no longer there offers indisputable proof that they never existed. However, the weapons stock that Colin Powell recited to the UN was not surmise or theory; it was based on existing weapons cataloged by inspectors after the Gulf War. What happened to them? Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam secretly destroyed them, then kept that info hidden and thwarted inspectors so he could remain under crippling economic sanctions?

Wow!
For a bunch of wing nuts that bloviate about how y'all never, ever watch MSNBC, the personalities and program content of that network seem to be quite familiar.

Anne Keep It up!
Anne
Keep on pointing the stupidity of the NBC and other media.
We need to protect our Troops, We can not let the anti-war "yellowcakers" and the media do the same they did to the Vietnam troops. We must learn from their mistakes.

Thanks for your service to the country!

Eddie

Andrew, the very same tactics
are used by the wacko-twiggies right here on Town Asylum. Look it up.

Gay lord
It is elementary. Know thy enemy.

edmat58
Maybe we should provide the yellowcakers a little yellow snow as an acoutrement.

watcha
One thing that sends the libs over the edge is that talk-radio, Ann, Rush, etc NEVER utter stuff without having factual material to back it up.

I remember when "Treason" came out and the libstooges were screaming about her calling Dean Acheson a commie-lover, Alger Hiaa a commie spy, etc, until the FBI, thanks to FOIA, published the SEVENTY SIX pages of Venona that Ann referenced.

They pretty much STFU on that subject after that.

Liberals rely on the advice that Stalin and Goebbels told them, "when you tell a lie, tell a whopper!" I.e., "Bush lied people died." "Saddam had no WMD's". etc.

The repub house of cards..
is tumbling down, all around and the last joker has been played. All that is left is impeachment and conviction.

Gaylord
I thought you lefties were all sympathetic to the plight of GLBSTG...LMNOP...PDQ... Whatever crowd... Assuming you really believe your delusion (fantasy?) that Anne is a man, why do you feel the need to "out" and mock him/her?

Of course, it could be that you are acting out some sort of fantasy for us. You want Anne to be a man so you can have him/her, or can be verbally abused by him/her...

A tip: Such fantasies are best kept private.

New drapes you say Rabid-dawg?
Yep, for the White House in 1-09, when some Democrat, any given Democrat will take the oath of office.

GunnyG
We also found an Iraqi scientist who had the parts for a centrifuge buried in his back yard. He said Saddam had told him to leave them there until after the inspectors had left and, later, until after the invading troops had left.

Do you think that will convince the ninnies that Saddam wasn't just the middle man? Or does that depend on what the meaning of "is" is, like everything else?

Gaylord
Anyone can take the oath of office. It is taking up residence in the White House that counts...

I could take the oath of office now. Doesn't mean I get to lead the country.

Of course, you seem to confuse fantasy and reality anyway. Your dream that Anne is really the man of your dreams, who will whisk you away to the white house.... All kind of sad.

JohnGalt
So well said. Off topic, but I especially like the comment that history starts today for liberals. When Gore ran for president, he would continuously lie about his record on topics that are very easy to verify. Does the left not understand that we have recording devices and archives? I think they do. They are just used to getting a free pass from the MSM and not having these contradictions exposed. That's why they hate FOX so much. They rewrite history, including their own personal history. Hillary is/will do the same thing. It will be entertaining-especially the part about the MSM ignoring the obvious conflicts. It would also be nice to see Hillary asked a tough question just once. 7 years in office and nary a difficult question.

Wiseone
Those weren't centrifuge parts, they were for Saddam's bicycle factory. Remember he made bicycles using very specifically milled pipes. Very precise.

That mad loved his bicycles.

And he loved ice cream so much, he hid the refrigerated trucks he used to make it... Or did he hide a pair of mobile fertilizer factories... Well, whatever those buried trailers were, they were certainly something innocuous. Doesn't everyone hide their fertilizer plants?

What a joker! Always hiding bicycle parts and fertilizer plants.

Yeah, that makes sense.

wiseone
I'm not telling you I'm not a liberal. If you want to attach that label, as well as leftist, moonbat, commie or socialist on me, failing to make a distinction between me and Kimberly, that's your perogative.

I tend to appreciate the politics of Medved and Buchanon rather than the polarizing and divisive politics of Ann Coulter.

If that makes me a leftist or a liberal in your book, it goes further to establishing your narrow interpretations than my independent proclivities.

To Alien
You are nice enough to point out that many Americans and Iraqis have suffered because of the mistatement that was made in President Bush's speech.

Point blank, I followed the whole thing through, was pretty sure that with as much time as we were giving the twerps, they would have the WMD out of the country (BTW you did hear that they did find WMD didn't you?) or anything that could be used for WMD or biological warfare out of the country to Syria...so I didn't think they were going to find it stockpiled there. Hussein wasn't stupid...he knew better than to keep the evidence where he could find it and he sure couldn't use is because it wasn't on his time table and the goal was to make the U.S. look as assinine as possible and to discredit her.

There were several other reasons to send the troops to get rid of Sadaam and pull him out of power...you do realize that he was hung for mass murder don't you of Iraqi's for NO Reason other than they didn't align with the Baathist regime? If you look at the history of the Baathist party you will find that the greatest hero for the intellectuals in the Baathist party was none other than Adolf Hitler...

So point blank we got rid of a guy that was our modern day Adolf Hitler. Thank you very Much men and women serving in our armed forces. Alien you tell me, what is better - the fight for the freedom, or the continued aniallation of the people of Iraq under a facsist regime? Sadaam killed more people in a year than we have hurt toppling his government and stablizing it right now.

Freudian Typo
Meant to say "That man loved his bicycles", but "that mad loved his bicycles" works for me too, so just leave the typo.

Tish
Don't waste your time. When we first invaded, the news was daily reproting new mass graves, and the left still kept asking why we invaded.

The phrase "mass graves" doesn't excite them: unless they are the ones supposedly filled by the Serbians that Clinton wanted to attack.

But Stalinist mass graves in the Ukraine? Saddam's mass graves? Mass graves filled by leftists in El Salvador? (The ones filled by the right in El Salvador, did matter, somehow...)

No, the left doesn't care unless the party affiliation is correct.

Tanabear
And you have proof of all these claims? You were with him?

Why should we trust your word even as much as "Lyin' Joe" Wilson?


And you were in the White House when Cheney asked to send Lyin' Joe to Niger?

You do realize that NO ONE thinks Cheney was behind Wilson's trip to Niger, don't you? That lie, at least, seems to have vanished.

And the forged documents, that no on believed either, were long AFTER this trip?

Or did you see them when you were in the Shite House with Vice President Cheney discussing yellowcake?


Pitbull
Syria won't use the weapons on Israel. "Indepemndent" "freedom fighters" like Hezbollah will use them. And the left will argue : "See, the Syrians don't have any wepaons, that was Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is religious and Syria is secular, so they can't be working together!"

Typos
Please forgive my lousy typing.

Just to correct one:

Shite House should read White House

That was the most obvious typo.

Sorry.

Tanabear et al
Does it amuse anyone else that all these lefties come on and make ex cathedra statements, calling everyone else a liar, yet offer no proof. I often wonder why they think we would possibly believe them?

Of course, since they are just repeating the DailyKos/DUmmie party line, perhaps they expect everyone to just buy into it, since that is how it works on the orthodox leftist sites.

Pitbull
Maybe it was all the guano throwing leftists. Made me start writing about the Shite House...Fears of Hillary in '08, perhaps?

utahnotmormon
You keep telling us what you're NOT. Even your nickname tells us what you're NOT.

Now you've taken it to the next level. In your last post you don't say you're a liberal. Instead you say you're NOT saying you're NOT liberal. So what ARE you saying? What are you so ashamed of that you have to keep telling us what you're NOT.

You TEND to appreciate the "politics" of Medved and Buchanan? Does that mean you agree with them? Did you agree with Buchanan when he blamed 9/11 on the immorality of the gay left?

And in what way is Coulter "divisive"? She's a hard core conservative and she doesn't pretend to be otherwise. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Coulter divide the country? Or does she merely write about what the division of our country has wrought? Or is she a product of the division and not a cause or even a contributor to it?

Let me give you a clue about who divided this country in a manner that has not been seen since the Civil War. He goes by the nickname of "Bubba", he is personally responsible for creating more Republicans out of moderate Democrats and Independents than Ronald Reagan, and he hopes to become our next First Lady.

And you still haven't told us what you ARE, or what you are FOR. Get it?

I should charge you the $100/hr any professional psychologist would for this self-awareness therapy.

Well, it's been entertaining
rattling the cages of the droolers and the rabid but there IS a real world out there. You wackos here at Town Asylum ought to check it out some time. I'll be back when I get bored and I surely know exactly where to find the perpetually hunched over desk monkeys. Keep the plastic on your keyboards, your hands away from your crotches, especially you closet dawg.

Gaylord
It has been fabulous! Though you need to associate the words "crotch" and "monkey" a little less, at least in public speaking, if not in you fantasies...

Wiseone
Utahnotmormon fits my earlier post, the people who come on and say "How dare you say I'm a liberal? I am a small government conservative!"

A week ago or so, a die hard liberal, who has posted for a long time as a die hard liberal tried to tell me he was "a small government conservative... but I believe in the government providing a safety net".

This is pure speculation, but I have the feeling that Utahnotmormon is a "libertarian" who believes citizens should have absolute freedom, except when it is necessary to give it up to achieve "fairness" or "social good". (In other words a lefty in "moderate" mufti.)

Kind of like those vegetarians who eat fish and chicken or libertarian liberals. To them I must reply: "Uh, fish don't grow on trees, and government control is government control, no matter how 'worthy' the goal."

Bad choice of words
I shouldn't write while holding a conversation.

I did not mean to imply vegetarians eat libertarian liberals. That was just a very badly structured sentence.

Lynne
Following on to your post to GunnyG:

Years ago we used to to ask "How do these people feed themselves?"

Today we know the answer. Big government entitlements.

pitbull
Easy answer to that one:

is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is is

Ann you've done it again...
It's only 08:30 mtn time and already the Marxist/Nazi trolls are out in great numbers attempting to spew forth their perverted rabid hate for anyone supporting our constitutional republic. Stalin & Hitler would be proud that the trolls are representing them.

Yellow Cake, Orange Cake, and Ions
To LadyRebel

Surely you jest, does the MSM truly have the power to strip the electrons from the outer orbitals in your brain. Did Saddam send people to Niger to buy Orange Cake? If so he wasted a trip, my Aunt in Georgia has a much better recipe.

It’s interesting watching the libtards hunt for another argument after everything they had submitted on the previous thread has been shot down.

My question is, why doesn’t the defense go ahead and motion for the jury to vote? This trial should be over already and the Fitz should be a defendant now.



Andrews
If you are relatively new to TH, I must warn you against the mistake of taking Tanabear seriously. On several occasions she has gone on long screeds about how Bush actually destroyed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with missles, that there were no airline flights and the people who died on them never existed. She also likes to make "Protocols"-like rants about how a cabal of evil Jews controls the world. While we all have fun labeling far-out lefties as "moonbats", she truly is certifiable and her barkings should be given no more credence than those of any other lunatic.


John Galt
No, I am well aware of Tanabear. I believe I once asked "So, did flight 77 land in PA so Cheney's deatn squads could murder everyone" while arguing with Tanabear.

Though I do have to say, as far as our anti-Zionist, anti-Semite, Zionist_World_Domination-Conspiracy freaks go, Tanabear is relatively harmless. I have argued with much worse here. There are some truly hateful antisemites here some days. (Almost all leftists, of course, despite the myth of right wing antisemitism...)

But thanks for the advice.

Though if I confined my arguments to the sane, I would find Townhall quite boring. We would be stuck arguing details,a s we would almost all agree as to the larger picture. It is much more fun to try to convince the looney true believers on the other side, it is a much harder task, and makes greater demands on your ability to argue.

Lynne
Tehran Kim is a lost cause. She just spouts off the usual lies, it doesn't matter what topic, it's the mantra of a totally brainwashed robot. She believes the lies that were repeated over and over and over until those robotic enough believe them.
But all of this depends on what a lie is, is is is

John Galt
Also, I should probably apologize for some rather curt and less than polite statements I have amde to you in the past. (Since you ask if I am new, you thankfully seem not to recall them, which is fortunate.)

Unfortunately, sometimes the argument gets the best of me and I may come across as a bit less civil than I would like.

Tehran Kim
Ahhh... I've been offline for a while, and upon my return, I'm so happy to see that balance has been restored to the universe and you've posted today's edition of "How to Turn Lies Into Facts" by Tokyo Rose.

Pardon the pun, Kimmy -- but it really IS time for you to "move on"...(dot-org).

Thanks for the laughs!

- Primus54

P.S. Still waiting on that link I asked you to provide yesterday -- you know, the one that "factually" explains who is paying Michelle Malkin "millions to spout..."

Being the teller of all things truthful, you DO have a source, right?

Elephant
Republican Elephant indeed.

Can someone name the Republican Elephant hiding behind the Yellow Cake?

I can.

It's called Saudia Arabia.

In the September prior to the war, the Pentagon released a special report with an Iraq threat analysis. This is the Pentagon, not the CIA or the MSM.

That report stated.

1.) Iraq was 5-10 years away from having the capability of building a nuclear bomb, with 10 years being the most likely scenario.

2.) Iraq had no capabality of delivery and was not and had never developed the ICBM technology required to hit th U.S.

3.) Iraq was not a *direct* threat to the U.S.

When asked about the results of this report, Cheney responded the worry was the indirect threat. That Saddam would sell his technology to terrorists who would hurt the U.S.

The Elephant that Republicans are refusing to name but are all touching is who the *direct* threat is. Who it was that Saddam would sell too.

After all, Iraq was not the source of terrorists. Iraq, especially on its borders, was being used by terrorists of origin in other countrys. Terrorists from other countries were visiting Saddam.

If the source of the terrorists were the target, there'd be no won for Saddam to sell too.

In other words, Saddam was a bit player as a *terrorist* threat. The five-to-ten years should have been going after the *primary* threat.

And that threat is Saudia Arabia.

1.) Wahabism
2.) Osama Bin Laden. Hey people, what you all trust the Saudia's when they say they've disowned Osama? Every ask youself why you trust the Saudia
's word?
3.) 19 of the highjackers of 9/11 were Saudi.

Niether the Iraq government nor the Iraq people were the primary source of terrorists and terrorism. Why would you strategically waste time on a secondary source.

Instead, two years after the Iraq war, we have a President kissing and holding hands with the Saudi Prince.

Yellow cake arguments are a secondary distraction to the real problem. The actual terrorists who want to kill us. The actual terrorists who killed us on 9/11. The actual terrorists who were the ones visiting Saddam asking him for support. The actual terrorists who set up terrorist havens on Iraq borders.

Now, instead of the argument being about the very real threat posed by Saudia Arabia, we are constantly distracted by the now moot past threat that was Saddam.





Libtards
It never ceases to me how libdolts can totally ignore evidence that contradicts their misguided statements. There is not one fact stated in this article that is untrue. I mean how many times can Bush's 16 words be validated? These libs will talk about the 9/11 commission, the Senate Commission, and the Iraq Survey Group until they are blue in the face (blue in the face - get it?) until the findings of such groups contradict their statements. Then it is as if the reports and the findings in them simply don't exist. Poof! You never hear about them again. This is how a nutjob like Matthews can say the things he does. The Kool-aid drinkers tune in every night to hear the same drivel again and again and nod in agreement with nary a protest. It means nothing to them that we went to war in Iraq looking for WMDs that weren't there based on intelligence that was wrong in many counties, not just ours - Bush lied to them. It doesn't matter to them that documents found in Iraq show that Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs - Bush lied to them. It doesn't matter that we found Sarin gas shells and other WMDS becaue there just weren't enough of them to satisfy the libs and allow them to be classified as WMDs - Bush lied. It doesn't matter that Joe Wilson has been exposed as a liar (I'm sorry he just "misspoke")and British intelligence confirmed Saddam's attempts to get yellowcake - Bush lied. It doesn't matter to them that the documents Wilson cites were not even in our possession for 8 months after his mission - the Administration is covering up. It doesn't matter to them that Cheney says that he had nothing to do with Wilson going to Niger - he lied not Wilson. It doesn't matter to them that Plame was not covert - the White House outted her. It doesn't matter that Libby wasn't the first one to mention who Valerie Plame was and what she did for a living and that it was their friend Armitage who did - it's Libby working for the VP who did it to destroy Plame. And finally while they choose to simply ignore the tremendous feats of Sandy Burglar in stealing classified documents or Bill Clinton perjuring himself - Libby should be jailed on a perjury charge for incorrectly recalling who he learned about Plame from or when, at a cost of millions of tax dollars I might add. It must be nice to be a libdrool drinking the Kool-aid living in your own little world attacking the grownups like us who can see what is really going on. Being a libtard means never having to say your sorry. They make me sick.

Mountain Rose
Tacky remarks "what president she served under" I thought you had more class than that -

Glad that the discussions don't include nasty personal remarks

The bottom line is that Dubya got us into a nasty insurgency on a bull slit tip and 3000 lives later we are still paying the price - meanwhile the King of the Proliferation of Democracy around the world ignores the slaughter of innocent folks in Dufar by fanatical Rag Heads - but hell those are only black people who cares?

As far as Annie and Kimmy are concerned the only difference between the two is that Annie is an Arch Conservative and Kimmy is an Arch Liberal - just shows to go you that whenever Arch comes into the equation it really gets nasty – both of them like to stir their cauldrons



Gay Lord
I see the libweenie took a powder when the going got hot. So typical.

Lynne,

WHO can understand the workings in their twisted moonbat gourds? I usually laugh at their stupidity but sometimes the depths of their dinginess is pretty frigging scary.

Tehran Kim-bat and the other
moonbats are simply following the guidance of Allah:

It is OK and necessary to lie to the infidel to advance the faith.

Musings
If the cafeteria's signs are correct and "You are what you eat", then our brains are filling with mush each time we read a post from Kimmy and the Utah tripemonger!

Mountain Rose
So Joe McCarthy is your hero?? What are you thinking about? He was denounced by the Republicans as well as the Democrats - he started witch hunts that destroyed lives and never made the country one iota safer - last but not least he won he Purple Heart by being wounded in a cat house in Italy - Tail Gunner Joe ended up in an asylum suffering from syphilis which he probably picked up when he got his Purple Heart

MSM's Infomercial
It's well known that MSMBC is nothing more than NBC's version of the infomercial. Ask yourself, do you totally believe the infomercials?

This is one method it uses to create legends. Ann's simply making the point: the 'Drive By MSM' lies and the MSM Infomercials are extra strength lies.

Just to provide another version of its lying, consider that the Duke boys have been the MSM's cause celebre for the last two years - all based on the lies of a street wh*re. Yet of the story where three white girls were viciously beaten by a mob of black "youth" in Long Beach, the MSM's silence has been deafening.

Consider freeing