Sorry this took so long...

[prism68]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

One of the POINTS Al Gore raised in his speech: The U.S. government should be ashamed that communities around this country have had to accept the burden of equipping our troops. It is a national disgrace when the Department of Defense is so ill-prepared to equip our soldiers that their friends and families are forced to consider holding 'Bake Sales for Body Armor,'" wrote Rep.*Ted Strickland, who has tracked this issue for months, in a letter sent Wednesday to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

I pulled the quote from [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]. That's right: FoxNews---So fair! So balanced!!!

I was so hoping someone would say this

The fact is: Our military was DECIMATED under Clinton's 8 yr. administration. Therefore, we were ill-equipped to meet the hostile forces when they attacked. Our lack of proper funding for our servicemen and their families is a CLINTON legacy. Amazing that you all would now put the blame on Bush who inherited the mess from Clinton AND had a full-blown, home soil attack in his first year.

A little primer...
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[bassmount]

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

I didn't hear Al Gore's speech, just his passionate invocations, and I do wonder if some commentators here can say the same thing.

Seems I'm reading mostly comments of the media, not actual impressions of DoD'ers who HEARD the entire speech.

But, hey! Tenet did take Gore's advice: he resigned...

Now "what's the story, morning glory?" about Tenet's resignation?

Conspirators, spill your best theories!

Didn't George Tenet say earlier this year or late last year, that it was unlikely he would stay for very much longer? I could have sworn he said something like he was unlikely to stay through another administation's 4 years, so if he said that then HOW could Gore's "speech" have anything to do with him leaving? It seems to me he was already in though as to when to leave and he simply did it on his own terms and in his own time. NPR did an analysis yesterday on the possible reasoning and they sighted that he could make more money in the private sector and that he had children college age or close to it and they felt that this was the reasoning, based on what he said was the reason...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"This is the most difficult decision I have ever had to make. And while Washington and the media will put many different faces on the decision—it was a personal decision—and had only one basis in fact—the well being of my wonderful family. Nothing more and nothing less."

Oh and I forgot to add, you are right that I did not hear the speech, but did hear snippets and that peaked my interest. I Googled for the text, which I found at [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] and many other places. Even the written word makes me feel so relieved he never made it to Commander in Chief. There have been many Dems I have thought would make wonderful presidents, Al Gore is not one of them.

[Jwelch111]

Prism68: "Our military was DECIMATED under Clinton's 8 yr. administration."

Please cite a reputable newssource to support your claim.

In fact, Al Franken likes to relate a story: he congratulated Paul Wolfowicz on the successful Afghanistan invasion. Al said (paraphrase): Clinton's military was quite successful: Wolfowicz replied with an expletive.

The point is this: the military that Bush inherited was strong and able, NOT "decimated."

Can you (Prism) say the same for the military in Iraq today, that lack BULLETS? And decent food and WATER?

And that's not considering the cuts that veterans will face (and they WILL face them) in Bush's future budgets.

See the PRESENT, Republican situation of the military, and not the Right-wing definition of the military under a Democratic Administration.

We (Democrats) care for the Military in tangible ways: not the empty, patriotic jingoisms that some Republicans spout.

[prism68]

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

Prism68: "Our military was DECIMATED under Clinton's 8 yr. administration."

Please cite a reputable newssource to support your claim.

Okay, so what part of ...

Originally Posted by prism68

A little primer...
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

didn't you understand?

I counted 75 news sources before I gave up and was only about a third of the way down the page.
Define reputable? Everything from the AP to U.S. News and World Report to MSNBC, etc. was listed.

[bassmount]

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

Can you (Prism) say the same for the military in Iraq today, that lack BULLETS? And decent food and WATER?

I Google searched the news for just one story from a "mainstream" media outlet that would tell me our soldiers needed the basics such as food and water... I could not find ONE. I did see many saying they requested food and bottled water from home because they wanted it, NOT NEEDED it. There is a big difference between WANT and NEED. They have the basics of food and water.

I know when my brother was in the Gulf, he would ask for bottled water because even with the filtering systems, their water did not taste the way he wanted it to and he wanted food from home that was a little better than the MREs (he had this thing for the Quaker Chewy granola bars. LOL), but he was getting basic nutrition and water, as much as he wanted. He just WANTED different things, just as he wanted newspapers and mags from home.

IF there is a problem with the soldiers getting basic needs, that rests on not ONLY president Bush, but also the backs of ones who have to approve the money for it... congress and the senate.

IF you have a reputable source that says they NEED water and food, that they are not getting their MREs or other food services, please show me. This would upset me to no end if it were true.

[Jwelch111]

Prism68 said: "The fact is our military was DECIMATED under Clinton's 8 yr. administration. Therefore, we were ill-equipped to meet the hostile forces when they attacked... Amazing that you all would now put the blame on Bush who inherited the mess from Clinton AND had a full-blown home soil attack in his first year."

I went to your link of paragraphs from, I am sure, much longer articles. Hey, maybe SOME of the FULL articles had a good word for the military under Clinton as C-I-C.!

I believe that CLINTON's military successfully attacked Afghanistan in 2001.

When did the military became BUSH'S military? I would appreciate an answer from Prism68.

So: Afghanistan Action=Success: Agree, Prism68? Clinton's military succeeded, as a lean, mean fighting machine.

Incidently, MSNBC, one of your sources, is owned by GE, a LARGE military contractor. Other sources: Washington Times, aka: Moonie Times; WorldNetDaily

But back to the Invasions of sovereign countries during Bush's years as C-I-C:

Iraq Invasion=Failure. I don't think we would be debating the military as CLINTON's or BUSH's if Iraq were a success.

But is a military, in the 3rd year of his Presidency "owned" by Bush or Clinton? Prism68? Whatcha think?

And I'd like to ask another question, 'cause I'm reading between the lines of Prism68's post:

Is Iraq responsible for the "full-blown home soil attack" {9/11}?

Was Saddam behind 9/11?

[prism68]

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

Prism68 said: "The fact is our military was DECIMATED under Clinton's 8 yr. administration. Therefore, we were ill-equipped to meet the hostile forces when they attacked... Amazing that you all would now put the blame on Bush who inherited the mess from Clinton AND had a full-blown home soil attack in his first year."

I went to your link of paragraphs from, I am sure, much longer articles. Hey, maybe SOME of the FULL articles had a good word for the military under Clinton as C-I-C.!

Well I sure didn't find any when I went looking.

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

I believe that CLINTON's military successfully attacked Afghanistan in 2001.

When did the military became BUSH'S military? I would appreciate an answer from Prism68.

Let's see, that would be the day he took office? But how do you expect him to replace all the funding LOST in the Clinton years, especially while dealing with a war and an economy on the downturn (another Clinton legacy). It took Clinton two terms to decimate the military by reducing funding, closing bases, etc..
It is ludicrous to expect Bush to ride in on his white horse and just sweep up all Clinton's mess in his first year. Especially when he is embattled on so many sides AT HOME (Lack of appointments approved, for example).

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

So: Afghanistan Action=Success: Agree, Prism68? Clinton's military succeeded, as a lean, mean fighting machine.

Incidently, MSNBC, one of your sources, is owned by GE, a LARGE military contractor. Other sources: Washington Times, aka: Moonie Times; WorldNetDaily

Lean, mean fighting machine indeed. To compare Afghanistan to Iraq is an apple/orange debate. It isn't the condition of the troops that make Iraq such a struggle, it is the terrorists in a wild country made wilder by former presidents letting them get away with acts against us for so long.
As for the sources, who owns the Associate Press?!
Or the Washington Post or the rest of the 100 or so sources?
Sheesh, will the conspiracy never rest

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

But back to the Invasions of sovereign countries during Bush's years as C-I-C:
Iraq Invasion=Failure. I don't think we would be debating the military as CLINTON's or BUSH's if Iraq were a success.

But is a military, in the 3rd year of his Presidency "owned" by Bush or Clinton? Prism68? Whatcha think?

I don't consider Iraq a failure. It is a complicated war with long-term ramifications....JUST as President Bush said it would be when it began.

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

And I'd like to ask another question, 'cause I'm reading between the lines of Prism68's post:

Is Iraq responsible for the "full-blown home soil attack" {9/11}?

Was Saddam behind 9/11?

Surely Osama Bin Laden held the majority of the responsibility for the attack, but his relationships with Saddam's people and his financial backing from Iraq and other ME countries is a known fact.
There were enough actions by terrorists against us to warrant this war even BEFORE 9/11.

[Jwelch111]

Prism68: MANY in the military believe that Bush erred when he turned his sights from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Afghanistan was doable: now the country is reverting back to the Taliban.

We (the military) shoulda stayed in Afghanistan, until the people had a choice in their government, and the Taliban was banished.

But Bush diverted the military's prime stomping grounds to Iraq, and the ouster of Saddam.

And I STRONGLY disagree that there is ANY link between OBL and Saddam.

It just isn't there: now, honestly, don't you think that FoxNews would have a daily scrawl, reminding its avid fans of the OBL / Saddam link?

And yes, when Bush assumed his title of Commander-in-Chief, the military became Bush's military.

Did Clinton EVER complain of the "messes" Bush senior left for him (Clinton) to clean up?

Nope.

And the war in Iraq is NOT justifiable, but perhaps our childrens' childrens' history books will explain this to Bush's faithful base.

I can hope.

Bush "embattled"? LOL!!! The most vacationed President ever!

"Terrorists in a wild country made wilder by former presidents...": would that be President Reagan who sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq, to seal a deal with Saddam with a handshake?

[prism68]

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

And I STRONGLY disagree that there is ANY link between OBL and Saddam.

It just isn't there: now, honestly, don't you think that FoxNews would have a daily scrawl, reminding its avid fans of the OBL / Saddam link?

Just for starters... (culled from several books, etc. into a post here)

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

Bush "embattled"? LOL!!! The most vacationed President ever!

Surely you jest?! This man has been HOUNDED by the press in a liberal feeding frenzy since day one.

[Jwelch111]

Prism68: You're kidding, right? Linking to a CHAT BOARD?

But did you read the post that said: "Why are you so intent on "proving" a link when even the WH admits there is no proof"? Further along in the chats there is a Bush quote (9/17/03):

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11."

Have the months since Sept. 2003 uncovered any new, indisputable evidence of a Saddam / OBL link?

Again, FoxNews would be blazing such evidence in their scrawl, alongside the latest terror alert level.

"This man {G.W.Bush} was hounded by the press in a liberal feeding frenzy since day one."

STOP: you're killing me with laughter!

Or have you confused G.W. with Bill Clinton?

THAT feeding frenzy (against Bill Clinton) was fueled by a vicious RW media, and funded by Richard Scaife.

Please read Blinded by the Right...an insider's accounting of the press "hound"-ing of President Bill Clinton.

The Truth Shall Set You Free.

[prism68]

Originally Posted by Jwelch111

Please read Blinded by the Right...an insider's accounting of the press "hound"-ing of President Bill Clinton.

The Truth Shall Set You Free.

Well, in that case... please let me recommend a few to you:

Deliver Us from Evil
Hannity, Sean

The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Dereliction of Duty
Patterson, Colonel Robert

Treason
Coulter, Ann

Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years
Lowry, Rich

Slander
Coulter, Ann

Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite
Goldberg, Bernard

[mayor]

Those heretical diatribes? Give me some truth that I want to believe! Don't you know all those authors are discredited because the New York Times says so? C'mon Prism.. you can do better than that!

</sarcasm>

[FUNdamental]

Originally Posted by mayor

Those heretical diatribes? Give me some truth that I want to believe! Don't you know all those authors are discredited because the New York Times says so? C'mon Prism.. you can do better than that!

</sarcasm>

It appears, Anne Coulter admits to "using twisted logic" and "poorly masked bigotry" "for the past 11 years;"



Dear Readers,

I've been participating in a charade for nearly eleven years, now. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. You have all been a part of a sick joke that I began considering shortly after first getting on the air. At first, it was quite interesting to see how people would react when I would use twisted logic and poorly masked bigotry.

But eleven years is a long time to be living a fake life, and I can no longer tolerate this falsity. Even someone as fake as I tires out eventually.

Here's the truth, I don't care what people believe. Jews don't need to be "made perfect" as I so arrogantly proclaimed to Editor & Publisher not a half week ago. I don't even care if people are Muslim. Granted, I don't know much about the religion or the people, but they are people. This is something that we cannot forget, they are in an abhorrent situation. These people are in need of education. Perhaps if we did not participate in causing them misery, they would not hate us so.

In fact, does it really matter whether we are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or even Pagan? We are one nation. One. We should not let petty differences separate us, we are all American, and should act in that manner.

And with that, my precious viewers, I bid you adieu. My career as a media figurehead is over.

Signed,

Ann Coulter


P.S. - Oh, and Bill O'Reilly is also just acting.


If this posting on her website is a joke she is pulling on us, I seriously don't get why she even put "twisted logic" on the table. Maybe someone hacked her website. Or perhaps she has realized she has gone too far. Hopefully the latter.

If she is finally being truthful, perhaps Hannity, Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Fox News willl also now admit using "twisted logic" in their commentaries. A good example of "twisted logic" happened last week when Fred Barnes on Fox News stated that Obama was "not strong on national security" because he opposed the war when "every other country" thought Iraq had WMD's. (See response to telos2000).

[whitequeen96]

Fundamental, is that REALLY what she says?! Please supply the link! Honestly, I've thought this might be a possibility; that she was putting us all on! As a matter of fact, I think she is actually a true liberal who is acting as hatefully as she possibly can to damage the conservatives. (I'm always surprised when anyone agrees with her, and perhaps she is dismayed by it and that is why she's finally confessing!) Is it really possible?! It would be too good to be true!