Political Games - Where the fuck’s the reset button?

I was watching this 25 minute video of an Ann Coulter interview today and all I heard was name calling. But there were some things that annoyed me even more. Like… for example… historical inaccuracy and mislabelling… everything. I got so mad at the blatant lies that Coulter was spewing on television that I had to pause the video and take a break. Why get so mad though? Because so many people believe this woman and support her by buying her books and worshipping her like a Republican godess. WAKE UP! She’s not that great. In fact, she’s really quite horrible.

But let’s get into the specifics. Coulter claims that with the war in Iraq we have such a huge insurgency because the public will not stand for civilian casualties. The question was, in hindsight would you have invested $250 billion that the Iraq war cost us into the Iraq war again, or would you invest it in other means of protecting us from terrorism? Coulter said: “I might have invested in more nukes.” Wow. Why the hell would you do that?! I can think of a bazillion other better ways of spending money… and by the way, throwing Ann Coulter’s books into a pile of burning $100 bills is one of the better ways of spending that money, although, perhaps ironicly, buying Coulter’s books to throw into the flaming pit of money… not worth the money. But let’s move on. She then stated that we didn’t buy these much needed nukes because the American public was “unwilling to accept civilian casualties.” Well, it makes me feel a little bit better to be American knowing that the majority of the American people think it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings. Ann Coulter seems to disagree. Why? Apparently since the American public doesn’t like to see innocent civilians getting killed, that is the reason the Iraq rebuilding effort is going so poorly. Now if you’re like me you’re thinking… what? Where is she going with this. And if you’re like me, you never saw this coming. Ann compares our war on terror to World War II, and she claims that there were “Werewolves” and insurgents in post-war Germany that were Nazis… … … Now listen carefully. I hate it when people rewrite history. I’m a history major because I love history, and it really gets under my skin when someone just makes sometihng up. Let me say this slowly. Ann Coulter is WRONG. Dead wrong. I know she’s wrong, I’ve heard this claim made by Condi Rice over 3 years ago, and guess what? She’s wrong too. I know she’s wrong. In both Germany and Japan there were no resistance movements what-so-ever. In both countries the majority of the population had been bullied by a ruling militant minority, and most people in those countries weren’t happy with the leaders, and when we destroyed those governments we were able to quickly capture the leaders of the Nazi party to prevent them from organizing resistance, and in Japan any potential resistance fighters left in the top ranks of the military killed themselves because they followed the Bushido (Samurai) code. Coulter would have us believe that there were insurgents that fought us in postwar Germany, and these insugents were few in numbers because we “carpet bombed German cities that we killed so many civilians there were so few insurgents.” That’s… ridiculous. Rewriting history like that is worse than plagerism!! But if you don’t believe me, I figured I would find someone to back me up. Luckily for me, a 30 second google search lead me straight to a site that proves that I am right, and Ann Coulter and Condi Rice are wrong.

Before the end of the war, there had been rumors of possible guerilla war by diehard elements of the Nazi regime after the formal end of hostilities. Yet of all the many problems facing the occupying powers, a guerilla war was not one of them. The “Werewolves” had a scary name but no presence and did not become a serious security issue for the occupation. Instead of any heroic last stands, many Nazi leaders became the butt of bitter jokes as their promises of enduring heroism culminated instead in hundreds of suicides. The length and severity of the Second World War itself combined with the severity of Allied occupation made postwar guerilla resistance a fantasy.

Thank you George Mason University. And to avoid plagerism I’ll cite my source. But back to this historical misrepresentation… no not a misrepresentation, but a “fantasy.” I don’t know how to put it any plainer… Ann Coulter is just plain wrong.

Actually there was a lot more that angered me in this 25 minute interview, but because I am a history buff I was drawn to this particular comment. I did want to address a lot of other things, but I think I have gone on enough for one post. Though I do want to say one last thing. I never really knew Coulter before, never read her stuff, never saw an interview, never really paid her any attention. But after her appearence on CNBC I am absolutely convinced that Ann Coulter has no conscience. She has advocated capet bombing innocent civilians as a viable military strategy to prevent insurgency. That is wrong. I’m stunned that anyone could go on television and get away with that crap. Ann Coulter builds her success on spewing hatred, lies, and misrepresenting everyone that doesn’t exactly conform to her idea of what is right. Ann Coulter… stop, you’re hurting America.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ~ Avram Noam Chomsky

~Justin

Share This

MR. BRADBURY: Well, Senator, I think — as I said in my testimony, obviously the court’s decision does not call into question our ability to hold detainees –

LEAHY: Not my question. The president said very specifically — and he said it to our European allies — he was waiting for the Supreme Court decision and that would tell him whether he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo. In effect, it actually said neither. Where did he get that impression?

BRADBURY: Well –

LEAHY: The president’s not a lawyer. You are. The Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what?

BRADBURY: Well, I try not to give anybody cockamamie ideas, and I –

LEAHY: Well, where’d he get the idea?

BRADBURY: Obviously — the Hamdan decision, Senator, does implicitly recognize that we’re in a war, that the president’s war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that law of war paradigm applies. That’s what the whole — the whole case was about –

LEAHY: I don’t think the president was talking about the nuances of the law of war paradigm. He was saying that this was going to tell him whether he could keep Guantanamo open or not. Afterward, he said it said he could.

BRADBURY: Well, it’s –

LEAHY: Was the president right or was he wrong?

BRADBURY: It’s under the Law of War that we –

LEAHY: Was the president right or wrong?

BRADBURY: — the president is always right, Senator.

VIDEO

Wow… always right? I struggle to think of anything I think he didn’t do wrong.

“When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” ~ Richard Nixon

Some people forget the President’s job is to enforce the laws not make them [Edit by Steve: or break them].

~Justin

Share This