Anyone want to have a little fun with a Anne Coutler board?

[Jackson4Gore]

Looked at my site stats and found that Coulter fans have a un explainable obsession with talking about Gore:

http://pub168.ezboard.com/fanncoulterofficialchatfrm1.showMessage?topicID=16691.topic

You may have to sign up, but it would be worth it!

[ClintonTyree]

1. I can not.................

in good conscience give that link a click. If I enroll, that would acknowledge my opinion that Annthrax is a human being. She's a shrewish, nazi and I won't waste my time.

[ParanoidPat]

2. Please check the DU rules page....

.........orchestrating attacks against other web sites :evilfrown:

We don't really like it when they do it to us so why invite an attack? :)

[Must_B_Free]

3. which one of you gave them this ass beating?

Re: Politicizing the War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very humorous thread. I find it funny that Frank asked some legitimate questions and has been variously called an "asshat" (good one I'll have to remember that) a @#%$ accused of being on various types of acid, generated a quote from the end of Apocalypse Now, (I have no idea what that's there) and generated the various boring "Liberals suck" comments.

For those that actually asked questions back, I'll provide a few answers in Frank's stead.




--- Favre99: "Source please you useless asswipe". Well if you would have read Frank's post he gives his source: The State of the Union, from Jan 2003.

--------
www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...28-19.html

:" The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them"
---------



--- Moonswept21: "you just may be, Mr. Frank. Here's a suggestion: ask the remnants of the Iraqi regime what happened to the weapons"
------
Associated Press: 7/9/2003

www.wane.com/Global/story.asp?S=1337120

"But an I-A-E-A spokesman says the scientist's statements seem to indicate there has been no nuclear weapons program in existence since 1991"
--------


--- Moonswept21: " Since we couldn't possibly expect to take their word's for it, what in the name of all that is legal were we supposed to do but the right thing? Also, the chief stated reason for war, in my opinion, was noncompliance. So if your goal is to somehow prove that we lied about noncompliance, prove it.

Prove Iraqi compliance in the run-up to the war. Prove it."

------------
- Well the legal thing would have been to continue inspections:

UN Resolution 687 (the Apr 3, 1991 ceasefire)
Section 9 b i states: "The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission "

- As of March 17, 2003 it looks like the inspections were making progress too:

www.un.org/apps/news/info....asp?sID=8

"UNMOVIC continued to supervise the destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles and components. Two more Al Samoud 2 missiles and 5 more warheads were destroyed at the Taji Technical Battali...."

- Next while it's impossible to prove an "opinion" (your words not mine) let me give an alternate "opinion". We forced the issue:

CNN Dec 20, 2002:
www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/19....iraq.war/

" Resolution 1441 calls for serious consequences for Iraq if it does not comply with the terms of the resolution. Iraq's noncompliance and defiance of the international community has brought it closer to the day when it will have to face these consequences. The world is still waiting for Iraq to comply with its obligations. The world will not wait forever," he warned.

-Remember we were the ones who forced the ambiguous "material breach" clause. We knew there was no way Iraq was going to comply with it's "obligations" given the demands and timeframe. We pushed the issue as a pretext for war.
-----------

-- dpflanagan: "I thought this whole topic had already been posted? I refuse to discuss this issue with any liberal until Bill Clinton, Carl Levin, Bob Graham, and Tom Daschle explain why they were saying the exact same things even as late as 2002.

As Condi Rice has said, there's a bit of revisionist history in play here. Either that, or liberals are just desperate. I vote for both."

---------
Maybe Frank's a liberal, I'm not....bring it on. It's awfully easy to refuse to discuss things and as Condi Rice (who I had a lot of respect for before the whole Iraq debacle) says accuse people of revisionist history. Hell I'll submit to you that Ms. Coulter's new book is a bible on how to revise history.


-- D2Boston " You see, they are just so pathetic... every last one of them has been quoted circa 1998 as supporting war with Iraq."

As farve99 asked above: Got sources? Every Democrat since 1998? I can think of a few that haven't let's start with Barbara Lee.

-- D2Boston: "They are so brainless and desperate to discredit this country -- and yes, they are traitors -- "

You should read the Constitution it's very enlightening:

www.house.gov/Constitutio...ution.html

Article III Section 3 Clause 1 has the definition of Treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Doesn't fit any Democrat I know. Name me one.

-- D2Boston: "I, for one, don't believe this bullshit of "I support the troops, but oppose the reasons for war, etc." How insipid can these people get.."

This is the biggest pile of @#%$ "argument" (and I use that term extremely loosely) I've ever heard and I can't believe the left lets the right get away with it. I have 4 friends that are over there right now, I routinely send them packages and letters. What have you done lately? How are YOU supporting the troops? I am so pissed about this war I can't see straight and I want them home NOW, not shedding blood for a what's looking more and more like a bunch of lies. Disregarding that, I don''t want one drop of American blood shed for anything OTHER than the defense of our country. THAT is supporting our troops not sending them off to do the bidding of some Administration with an agenda.





http://pub168.ezboard.com/fanncoulterofficialchatfrm1.showMessage?topicID=16681.topic