Suspiciously, Daniel Pearl's widow is suddenly being lavishly praised by the Treason Lobby. Jane Mayer, co-author of the discredited hit-book on Clarence Thomas, "Strange Justice," published an article in The New Yorker last week recounting that Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales in March with the news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had admitted to American interrogators that he had personally beheaded her husband and they were going to release the transcript to the press. Mayer wrote: "Gonzales' announcement seemed like a publicity stunt."
Frank Rich followed up with an article in The New York Times saying of Gonzales' call: "Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it."
Inasmuch as these are journalists who adjudge George Bush more evil than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, their perception of reality is to be treated gingerly. But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them.
All the Democrats' most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house. Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector valiantly defending poor, misunderstood Saddam Hussein from George Bush's imperialistic war to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls.
Cindy Sheehan once had "absolute moral authority." Now she's just a madwoman writing mash notes to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and Dick Cheney. "Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?" Cleland responded to Cheney. "If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war."
Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer.
Bill Burkett was the left's most admired military veteran since Benedict Arnold. He claimed Bush had shirked his National Guard duty and said he had the documents to prove it. According to Dan Rather and CBS News, Burkett was a "solid" and "unimpeachable" source who was being attacked by "partisan political operatives."
And then Burkett turned out to be a foaming-at-the-mouth loon. He was eventually forced to admit on air that he had "misled" CBS on the phony National Guard documents, which is a little like Hugo Chavez "misleading" Sean Penn. Burkett's current medical diagnosis: too crazy to be a homeless person.
The congressional campaign of anti-war Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett was treated in the media as if it were the Second Coming. The New York Times described Hackett adoringly as a "lean 6-foot-4, he is garrulous, profane and quick with a barbed retort or a mischievous joke." The Times even produced the obligatory quote-ready Republican who said that "Mr. Hackett's service had caused him to consider voting Democratic."
Then we found out with a little more specificity what some of those quick-witted barbs were. Hackett called the president a "chickenhawk," referred to Bush's "Bring it on" statement as "the most incredibly stupid comment," and called Bush "the biggest threat in America." Yes, he was a veritable Noel Coward, that Hackett.
Soon, even Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer were trying to get Hackett to drop his next political campaign for the U.S. Senate.
Gen. Wesley Clark was once compared to Eisenhower, which, in mediaspeak, means: "He is virulently anti-Bush." Democrats were so tickled to have found an anti-war Southerner and retired general, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert asked, is he "just a mirage?"
Then it turned out the only war Clark wanted to lead was America's War on Fetuses, declaring that abortion should be legal for any reason until the moment of birth. Soon Clark was buddying around with Michael Moore and Madonna. Also, he claimed he had received calls from "the White House" by which he meant "a think tank in Canada."
Last we heard, Gen. Clark was on the alternate list for "Dancing With the Stars."
Joe Wilson went from being billed in the media as a trusted adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and billed (by himself) as an eyewitness to the president's "lies," to being an apron-wearing househusband who had been sent on an errand by his wife.
Not only did he fail to debunk the Niger yellowcake story, he also forgot to bring home the quart of milk his wife had requested. (Wilson is now demanding a congressional investigation into who leaked the classified information that his wife wears the pants in the family.)
The Joe Wilson celebrity tour officially ended when The Washington Post editorialized: "It's unfortunate that so many people took (Wilson) seriously" -- not the least of whom were reporters at The Washington Post itself.
Most recently, The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" has been unveiled as a liar, another illustrious chapter in that magazine's storied history of publishing con men and frauds.
If conservatives are the ones driven by ideological passions, then why are liberals the ones always falling for laughable hoaxes in support of their anti-war ideological agenda? And if liberal beliefs are true, why do they need all the phony stunts to prove them? How about liberals keep hoaxes out of politics and return them to their rightful place: "proving" Darwinian evolution.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 16, 2007 06:17:38 AM new
Coulter is up to her usual slanderous lies. I would not believe her if she told me the sun came up this morning.
"February 17, 2004 CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES
The True Story of Max Cleland's Vietnam Injuries
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Christopher Crallé
I wrote last night in response to the column by Ann Coulter. My father, who has close personal ties with Max, has responded to me and I forward his reply.
What follows is the true account of Max Cleland's injury in Vietnam.
---------
Thank you Chris. I did not have the links to this, but Max called me about it in case I needed to tell the real truth should someone want to know. This Ann Coulter has written real slime. Only in America. Our service men and women fight and die to defend your right to a free press. The press needs to be aware of their responsibility to use this democratic tool in a responsibility way.
------------------------------
The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.
As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.
Maury Cralle'
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan
posted on August 16, 2007 07:37:24 AM new
Yup, poor Annie, her attempted slurs about Wilson being a househusband(even if it was true, what's wrong with THAT ?) shows what she and linduh have in common....a horrible grinding jealousy of COUPLES
And one more thing ...the total inability to find anything to brag about bushit's or DICK's war record...the two cowardly bums who couldn't serve their country out of abject fear but take great delight in sending others to do what they were too chickenshit to do........
posted on August 16, 2007 08:13:17 AM new
speaking of serving their country,lets take a look a Bobby Kennedys record...oh dear there isnt any...okay about about Ted Kennedys record....oh goodness I cant seem to find anything on him either.Well lets look at "piggy" Bill Clintons service record...ummm I cant find that he was even in the country..however he did a "service" of another kind...talk about chickensh*ts.Umm lets look at Kerrys record...yup we finally found a Democrat that finally served...then ended up being a traitor..this is getting ugly...
[ edited by classicrock000 on Aug 16, 2007 08:18 AM ]
posted on August 16, 2007 08:41:56 AM new
C - I don't care if you believe anything Coulter says.
Maybe you'd like to point out to all of us who has SUED her for lying about them/their actions. ?????
And on Max Cleveland....sad how the liberals always have to drag out some 'victim' when they're campaigning. It's their CONSTANT MO.
They do that all the time. Whether it be the 9-11 wifes....edwards wife with cancer...Max Cleveland...etc. They don't seem to be able to run a campaign without USING some injured person as their BAIT.
I'll take the word of Ann Coulter AND the Swift-boat VN Veterans before any liberals 'opinion'. They did a GREAT job of refuting almost EVERYTHING kerry LIED about....and they cost him the election, imo. They couldn't sit still any longer and let kerry and the liberals continue lying about their service nor watching them 'trot' out more VICTIMS from VN. So they formed a group to make people aware that just because some liberal vet said this or that was true....didn't make it so.
When the press investigates, and presents the FACTS on how someone WAS injured....as with Max....I'll believe that also. NO dan rather [rather biased] reports. Truthful ones....straight from his military records.
Maybe YOU need to quit reading the liberal USERS of victims and actually read the FACTS of how Max WAS injured for yourself.
Republicans support our troops.....just not ones who allow themselves to be USED for the liberals political gain.
TRUTH rules. Not letters. Military records RULE....not liberal slant.
Maybe YOU could produce FACTS that Max Cleveland DIDN'T pick up that grenade and get injured for doing so. You think?????
==============================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 16, 2007 08:46:58 AM new
"speaking about serving their country"
Exactly the point I was trying to make with ld yesterday.
But he's too dense to get much of anything.
He DEMANDS to know why Romney's sons decided not to serve....SINCE he supports/supported the war. And yet he refuses to DEMAND the same of each and every OTHER LIBERAL/DEM who voted FOR the war.
Their double standards know no limits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 16, 2007 08:49 AM ]
posted on August 16, 2007 09:11:34 AM new
"And on Max Cleveland....sad how the liberals always have to drag out some 'victim' when they're campaigning. It's their CONSTANT MO."
First of all, it is Max Cleland. Second, Ann Coulter brought him up in that article you posted, so I am responding. No liberals are dragging him out--your precious Coulter is. She is the one who is in the habit of ridiculing "victims" a la the 9/11 Widows,Cleland, and now Mariane Pearl. You have no problem believing Coulter, who has offered no proof of her story on how he was injured. Her books are full of footnotes which are not accurate and when researched, do not check out. I'll post some examples in a follow-up post. A career military man, graduate of West Point, who was there as Battalion Executive Officer refutes that story and tells what really happened in my C & P.
posted on August 16, 2007 09:20:55 AM new
"1. On Page 175 (of GODLESS), Coulter attacked "liberals" who would "foist" sex education topics such as "[a]nal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, [and] 'birthing games'" on kindergarteners. Citing a November 8, 1987, New York Times article, Coulter wrote:
But in contrast to liberal preachiness about IQ, there would be no moralizing when it came to sex. Anal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, "birthing games" -- all that would be foisted on unsuspecting children in order to protect kindergarteners from the scourge of AIDS. As one heroine of the sex education movement told an approving New York Times reporter, "My job is not to teach one right value system. Parents and churches teach moral values. My job is to say, 'These are the facts,' and to help the students, as adults, decide what is right for them."9
To those who find it odd that Coulter would support her claim about "fisting" being taught to kindergarteners by quoting "one heroine of the sex education movement" and referring to students as "adults," there is a very good reason for that. The woman Coulter quoted was Dr. Beverlie Conant Sloane, then-director of health education at Dartmouth College. The Times article cited by Coulter, titled "At Dartmouth, A Helping Candor," (subscription required) was about the sex education programs available to adult students at Dartmouth -- not children in kindergarten. Not only is the article about adult students, but it is from November 1987, close to 20 years old -- hardly what would be considered to be relevant information on current sex education policies.
posted on August 16, 2007 09:24:09 AM new
On Page 195, Coulter wrote:
Until Michael Fumento wrote about Hwang Mi-soon, the South Korean woman who began to walk again thanks to adult stem cells, there was no mention of it in any document on Nexis.56
Coulter was claiming that Michael Fumento, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute and former Scripps Howard columnist, was the first to write about South Korean Hwang Mi-Soon, who was treated in 2004 with stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood after she had been paralyzed for close to 20 years; Hwang was later able to walk with the help of braces and a walker. Coulter cited Fumento's October 20, 2005, Scripps Howard column to support her assertion, though she did not provide the parameters she used in her Nexis database search. But a Media Matters Nexis search of all news outlets in the database during all available dates for "Hwang Mi-soon" revealed 47 articles, 36 of which, mentioning Hwang's newfound ability to walk, were published prior to October 20, 2005. Additionally, a week before Fumento's Scripps column was published, Deroy Murdock, another Scripps Howard columnist and a commentator to Human Events, mentioned Hwang's operation in an October 13, 2005, column, titled, "Embryonic stem cell research unneeded." Among those articles were:
The first article to appear in the Nexis database about Hwang is a November 28, 2004, Agence France Presse article titled, "Paralyzed woman walks again after stem cell therapy" -- published almost one full year before Fumento's column.
The New York Post published "Stem-Cell Gal's 'Miracle' Steps" about Hwang on November 29, 2004.
CBS News ran a segment on Hwang on the CBS Evening News on December 1, 2004.
Interestingly, Coutler would have to be aware that her claim was bogus, because her first reference to Hwang, in the paragraph preceding the excerpt cited above, annotated a Korea Times article, "Stem Cell Research May Be Money Game," published on July 8, 2005 -- almost three and a half months before Fumento's column. Additionally, Coulter misattributed the article to "Hankook Ilbo" -- which a Google search reveals is the Korean name for The Korea Times. The article was in fact written by Korea Times staff reporter Kim Tae-gyu. Like the three articles mentioned above and the other 33 articles published before Fumento's column, The Korea Times article is available on Nexis.
posted on August 16, 2007 09:25:44 AM new
8. On Pages 199-200, Coulter attacked "atheists" who "need evolution to be true." Citing what she presented as two Washington Post articles from May 15, 2005, Coulter wrote:
Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."1 This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.
The Washington Post articles Coulter cited are actually one article by Michael Powell, with the headline, "Doubting Rationalist," accompanied by the subhead, " 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be." But nowhere in the article will one find the Dawkins quote Coulter cited.
posted on August 16, 2007 09:36:59 AM new
The title of your OP could be Ann Coulter's slogan. I don't know why no one has sued her for slander, if that is so, (except that proving slander has very strict, difficult parameters in the US)but if anyone did, you would be right there ridiculing litigious liberals.
Coulter's only talent is manipulating people, who already believe as she does, into believing her half-truths, exaggerations and lies.
posted on August 16, 2007 10:02:03 AM new
Oh boy.....more quotes from the liberals who Ann has spoken out about....getting all upset because she speaks the truth.
LOL She gets their panties twisted around each and every time she speaks or writes a truthful book about their disgusting actions/behaviors.
As she pointed out.....the liberals and their LIES that they use against others instead of just doing the job the voters elected them to do.
Nope....they've spent the last 6 1/2 years doing nothing but throwing garbage at the right. Ann's just pointing SOME of them out. Trying to make liberals wake up and see the error of their ways. How many LIES they spend weeks and weeks spewing...and in the end....we see they were ALL lies.
And now, again, she has done the job she does best. EXPOSING liberals for what they are.
posted on August 16, 2007 11:04:46 AM new
"Oh boy.....more quotes from the liberals who Ann has spoken out about....getting all upset because she speaks the truth"
Try reading one of the C & P's. Maybe you will be able to GRASP this. These are not quotes from liberals. Coulter cited specific sources in her footnotes. When the sources were checked, low and behold, her information or quotes were found to be incorrect. No opinion involved here. She says a specific article said so and so. You look up the article and it says something different. That is an error at best and a lie at worst. And her books are full of them.
"getting all upset because she speaks the truth."
Coulter would not know the truth if it bit her in the azz.
posted on August 16, 2007 12:22:28 PM new
LOL.....nope, C.
I've read the liberal hate/hype about Ann. Your statements are just a continuation of that...nothing more. I'm well AWARE of liberal SPIN. It's a joke. Truth always wins out. Just as ALL the 'laughable [dem] hoaxes' have been outed to the light of day.
As of today, not one thing she has stated about liberals has brought about a law-suit. And we KNOW the liberal lawyers are one of the biggest financial support groups the dem party has. lol lol lol
Oh they'll continue lying about it....they'll scream their heads off....lol....but I'm sure one of those idiots would have sued her by now...IF she were slandering them in any way, shape or form. LAWYERS are famous for doing just that.
But since she points out the TRUTH of their actions....in a humorous way.....she's keeps the liberals all riled up. LOL
That's what I enjoy the MOST about Ann. She gets under the skin of the wacko liberals....points out the truth of their actions...and they just GO MAD.
posted on August 16, 2007 01:20:10 PM new
Linda--Do you know what a footnote is? When you put a quote in your book,you put a footnote in showing your source. Your book quotes a New York Times article by Joe Blow on 8/1/07, in which the author states the world will end on 8/31/07 and put a footnote with the New York Times article by Joe Blow on 8/1/07 as your source. You go to the New York Times, look up the 8/1/07 issue, look up Joe Blow's article and it says "the world will not end on 8/31/07. That is a misquote.
That is an incorrect footnote.
It has nothing to do with liberals, opinions or all the other claptrap your post contains. If Coulter says this article contains this quote, has a footnote showing her source and then when you read the article it says no such thing--that is a lie.
It appears that all your bombast is to hide your ignorance. The more you are shown facts that dispute what you say, the more garbage you put in your posts.
posted on August 16, 2007 01:58:18 PM new
Another example of an Ann Coulter lie:
On the last page of her book Slander, Coulter says regarding the death of Dale Earnhardt in a NASCAR accident:
""It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page," she writes. This, she posited, was evidence of its obliviousness to "the society they decry from their Park Avenue redoubts."
Oops, says Somerby, who did a LexisNexis search and found that the New York Times ran the news of Earnhardt's death the very next day on Page 1.
posted on August 16, 2007 02:05:09 PM new
"but I'm sure one of those idiots would have sued her by now...IF she were slandering them in any way, shape or form. LAWYERS are famous for doing just that."
Since when is the lack of a lawsuit an indication that there was no slander? Who wants to give Coulter any more publicity than necessary. In addition, as I mentione in one of my other posts, the criteria for slander is quite strict in the US.
"Different standards of fault apply, depending on who you are. If you’re a public official or figure, such as a politician, celebrity or some other well-known person, you’ll have to prove you were defamed with “actual malice.” You’ll have to show that the person defaming you knew the statement he or she was making was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was false.
If you’re not a public figure, you’ll only have to prove that the person defaming you was negligent, failing to act with due care considering the circumstances."
posted on August 16, 2007 03:06:21 PM new
Perfect pic, Stonecold. The Presidential LIAR. It appears to run in their party - no wonder they love him so much - he represents ALL their values. tsk tsk tsk
----------------
Oh now, C. You're getting just WAY too excited. No one has sued Ann for slander NOR have they ever DEMANDED a retraction of what's she's said. LOL
It's only the liberals that get so upset when she 'outs' their actions and they RUSH to protect their 'hoaxes' for being exposed.
I know, as I've said before, TRUTH hurts those who can't face it. Truth along with humorous, snide remarks towards liberals REALLY gets their blood boiling. As we can see by your condescending statements here towards me. shame on you, C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 16, 2007 03:22:41 PM new
My favorite Ann Coulter quote:
Wrote Coulter: "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don’t. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."
That, liberals say, is slander. They say it confuses good liberals with bad liberals. But Coulter maintains that all liberals are the same, and the record shows she’s right.
============================
Now, DEMS, NORMAL dems, like Lieberman aren't included in that group. He FULLY supports defending our Nation.....and the liberals KICKED HIM OUT. THAT'S how they show NORMAL dems how much they are appreciated for their DECADES of dem party support. tsk tsk tsk
They ATTACKED their own because HE wants to protect America.
"Liberals" are all the same, they just come in varied packages.
===============
Take edwards wife, elizabeth. Just like MOST liberals they start SCREAMING, ATTACKING and blind-siding conservatives with their LIES. More of their 'hoaxes'.
She called Ann, on the CM show and starts accusing her of things Ann NEVER even said. Gets the MSM liberal-leaning media in their attack-Ann mode and then that allows them to put another money raising campaign because, wa wa wa, Ann was SO mean to them. lOL LOL LOL
Another time they did the same thing - blaming Ann for calling her little pretty boy a name. Which of course Ann HADN'T. LOL
Another liberal hoax. They're so good at that...it increases their fund raising because other liberals are too stupid and they'll believe anything they're told....no need to actually VERIFY anything. Kind of like you C.
posted on August 16, 2007 03:26:13 PM new
Excited? Me? No Linda, just amazed at your total lack of comprehension or your refusal to comprehend. You don't want to hear the truth. You fill your posts with all kinds of irrelevant gobbledegook. Then you bring in your trump card, good old Clinton. Drag him in every time you can't dispute a fact.
" know, as I've said before, TRUTH hurts those who can't face it. Truth along with humorous, snide remarks towards liberals REALLY gets their blood boiling. As we can see by your condescending statements here towards me. shame on you, C"
Pay attention to your own advice. How many times have you told someone they are ignorant, stupid, can't GRASP, get a clue. It is only condescending when someone else does it?
posted on August 16, 2007 03:47:32 PM new
Nope, you're wrong again, C.
See, I've read all those anti-AnnC websites....where they go CRAZY and call her all sorts of names. lol
Won't change the FACTS she posts about them....and since she's an attorney, constitutional LAW by the way, she always 'covers her rear' with proof.
That again...scares the liberals till they go CRAZY.
Her actions and the liberals reactions have NOTHING to do with anything about me, C.
But I know it's so much easier for you to go after me than actually DISPUTE what her statements IN THIS THREAD say. It's typical liberal behavior. Take the topic OFF SUBJECT and make attacks on those who post a subject for discussion.
LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 16, 2007 03:54:50 PM new
Here is but ONE great example of when people agree with Ann's views that liberals supported communism and now terrorism.
People DO agree with her. Just not the 'in denial liberals'.
posted on August 16, 2007 04:25:08 PM new
"But I know it's so much easier for you to go after me than actually DISPUTE what her statements IN THIS THREAD say. It's typical liberal behavior. Take the topic OFF SUBJECT and make attacks on those who post a subject for discussion"
I guess you haven't noticed that I DID post several examples of her mistakes/lies. NOT opinions, facts. That you respond with typical LINDA behavior, pretending the facts are not there, is no surprise.
You see it as going after you, but you have answered none of my posts with any facts at all, just childish name-calling. As far as taking the topic off subject, I'm the one who has posted C & P's showing facts to dispute your OP and YOU are the one who has not rebutted a thing with any facts, only complaining about Clinton, liberals, and everything else instead.
posted on August 16, 2007 04:33:10 PM new
What I noticed is that you mainly address other statements, long ago statements that she has made. One responded to ONE about the VICTIM the dems used to help kerry....and whom was vetted out on HOW he injured himself. Different story from how the liberals tried to USE his injury. tsk tsk tsk
IF we discussed each and every statement Ann has ever made......we'd be here for the rest of our lives. lol
NOPE....you purposely AVOID responding to HER statements....and kept being condescending to me. As you usually are. You use ME to avoid discussing the topic.
And I thought YOU SAID you were just SO busy with your 'real life' you could hardly find the time to post here? LOL OH....I get it...that excuse is only used when you run away from answering questions that you don't want to answer. lol
Want to discuss what Ann DID say this time? Since you couldn't dispute how Ann said Max WAS injured....just wanted to kavech about HER, in general. lol
posted on August 16, 2007 04:39:11 PM new
C - Maybe the reason you can't respond to what Ann has listed as liberal hoaxes here, in her most recent article, is because you can't find anything on your liberal ANTI-ANN hate sites yet? lol
So you can't USE their responses to belittle her - prove her wrong?
THAT must be it. Too recent to 'borrow' other liberals angry statements about THIS article and what IT says.
posted on August 16, 2007 04:49:03 PM new
"What I noticed is that you mainly address other statements, long ago statements that she has made. One responded to ONE about the VICTIM the dems used to help kerry....and whom was vetted out on HOW he injured himself. Different story from how the liberals tried to USE his injury. tsk tsk tsk" Want to discuss what Ann DID say this time? Since you couldn't dispute how Ann said Max WAS injured....just wanted to kavech about HER, in general. lol"
Those statements above reiterate my belief that you do not read posts. I did dispute that story about Max Cleland. Show me a fact, any fact, that Coulter's statement about his injury is true. What I posted was from an officer in his unit. The other posts were to illustrate her history of lying about her sources.
[ edited by COACH81938 on Aug 16, 2007 05:14 PM ]
Are YOU a Bunghole?