“Your intimations that Democrats aren’t patriots and that Democrats support terrorism are complete bunk.”
such was said of me this week. i asked my friend, ann coulter, for a response. she was kind enough to oblige:
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: A VAST SLEEPER CELL
by Ann Coulter
January 3, 2007
Fortunately for liberals, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn’t seem strange that Nancy Pelosi’s flag was at half-staff. Also, Saddam’s death made it less of a snub when Harry Reid skipped Ford’s funeral.
The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.
More troops, fewer troops, different troops, “redeployment” — all the Democrats’ peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies — exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.
Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America’s defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.
They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong “the National Liberation Front of Vietnam,” just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq “insurgents.” Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a “Jeffersonian Democrat,” just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men.
During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. “It’s the other guy’s country,” he explained.
Now, as publisher of the Times, Pinch does all he can to help the enemy currently shooting at American soldiers.
After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam — with Kennedy ordering the assassination of our own ally in the middle of the war and Johnson ham-handedly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office — in 1969, Nixon became president and the world was safe again.
Nixon began a phased withdrawal of American ground troops, while protecting the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings of the North, mining North Vietnamese harbors and attacking North Vietnamese military supplies in Cambodia — all actions hysterically denounced by American liberals, eager for the communists to defeat America.
Despite the massive anti-war protests staged by the Worst Generation, their takeovers of university buildings and their bombings of federal property to protest the bombing of North Vietnamese property, Nixon’s Vietnam policy was apparently popular with normal Americans. In 1972, he won re-election against “peace” candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.
In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace accords, which would have ended the war with honor. In order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam’s throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South. But in return, we promised South Vietnam that we would resume bombing missions and provide military aid if the North attacked.
It would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented “Watergate,” the corpus delicti of which wouldn’t have merited three column-inches during the Clinton years, and hounded Nixon out of office. (How’s Sandy Berger weathering that tough wrist-slap?)
Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democratic Party. In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete, the new Democratic Party would lose wars on purpose.
Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.
Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America’s word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, “American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally.” He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam — no troops, just money.
But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America’s word. Within a month of Ford’s last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.
The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. It was the most demeaning image of America ever witnessed, until Britney Spears came along.
Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever these “Jeffersonian Democrats” come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast that none other than Sen. George McGovern called for military intervention to stop a “clear case of genocide” in Cambodia.
Five years after that, Islamic lunatics in Iran felt no compunction about storming the embassy of what was once the greatest superpower on Earth and taking American citizens hostage for 14 months. To this day, al-Qaida boosts the flagging morale of its jihadists by reminding them of America’s humiliating retreat from Vietnam.
In addition to being wrong about Ford’s pardon of Nixon, liberals were wrong about a few other things from that era. Democrats haven’t admitted error in rejecting Ford’s pleas on behalf of South Vietnam because there are still dangerous foreigners trying to kill Americans. Nixon is safely interred in the ground, but the enemies of America continue to need the Democrats’ help.
19 Responses to ““Your intimations that Democrats aren’t patriots and that Democrats support terrorism are complete bunk.””
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
How is it possible for you to truly believe this diatribe? Coulter is a political hack. She is just as bad if not worse than any liberal demon you could dream of. She generates hostility towards a group of people by her vicious attacks. She is antagonistic, spiteful, aggressive, crass, unapologetic and crude, to put it mildly. She sprinkles a few truths about liberals into her attacks to give herself some illusion of credibility, and then fills the rest of her words with complete falsehoods and innuendo.
She takes a large group of the American populace and turns them into a rabid, frothing anti-American, al-Qaida-loving cartoon characterizations that anyone with any form of rational thought can’t help but dismiss as ludicrous. While there may be a very small minority of people that her discription may fit, it DOES NOT describe the other 99.99% of liberals.
But most importantly, she generates hate. She causes antagonistic and venom-filled attacks by others. She is part of what is dividing America down the middle. She allows no reconcilliation or allowance. She is an extremist, with all of the negative connotations that comes with that title. And like all extremists, she should be ignored or bridled.
The writer Mich Albom said, “Holding anger is a poison. It eats you from the inside. We think that hating is a weapon that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is a curved blade. And the harm we do, we do to ourselves.” Listening to Coulter’s diatribes will only hurt you. I would implore you to back away from her spiteful rants and look upon the world with a more even-minded perspective.
To James D:
A most Clinton-esque reply. Attack the messenger because the message drips with truth.
James, forget Coulter. Refute her “diatribe” with similar logic and facts.
Typically, as most liberals, you want her “bridled”. Free speech is just intolerable for you. I say it again. Forget Coulter. Brilliant, as I think she can be at times, this piece demands a factual response. Show me the facts!
I counted at least 43 statements in her piece that she puts forth as fact. Show me your different facts!
But don’t criticize the messenger, by so doing it simply demonstrates by prima facie evidence the weakness of your position.
Good Luck. I’ll check back in April and see if you can dig up any contrary facts. Oh, and I do not mean 1 or 2 facts. Paint me a picture with a broad brush as she does. I lived through the period she describes and I call it, as she outlined it, history.
Unfortunately you missed the point of my message.
In this particular rant by Coulter which you have copied, I’m sure the “facts” are, for the most part, correct. The quotes from Arthur Sulzberger and others are factual as far as I can tell. Her illustration of what had happened during that time are based on facts, I agree. And if we are talking about simple, unadulterated, hard facts and what is historically accurate, then I will agree with most of the “facts” of her article.
But that was not what I was talking about.
As I had mentioned before, she takes these facts and couches them in ways to give credibility to the extremism she is voicing. As an example, take the title of the article: “The Democratic Party: A Vast Sleeper Cell”. She does not back that specific attack on liberals with any fact, but only innuendo and by pulling out *only* the most damaging examples from that time in history. In no way does she prove that the Democrats are a “Sleeper Cell”. Yet by placing the (carefully picked) facts within her article, she gives credence that the Democrats actually are (for some reason) plotting against America. (Which is rather ludicrous when you stop to think about it. They would make a horrible Sleeper Cell if they ever tried.)
There is never any notice in any text Coulter has ever published which comes close to even giving the hint of the possibility that liberals are anything but one generation shy of the devil himself. To her, liberals are what’s wrong with everything in the world. She demonizes half of the population of the US simply because they aren’t republicans or they don’t agree with her. In her mind liberals can not ever do anything good. We are incapable of intelligent thought. We are knuckle-dragging, inept, frightened, cowards. We are the abject base of all that is evil or wrong in the USA.
Now truthfully, how realistic is this description? Except for the very small minority of radicals, her description of liberals fits NO ONE. It is a characterization. A cartoon of reality. Yes the Democrats have done some horrible things, I agree. So have the Republicans. So has everyone. But her depiction of us is unreal if by nothing else than by only pointing out what is wrong and completely ignoring what is right.
I am a liberal and I find her description of me very offensive. And it is simply not true of me and never has been. It is also not true of my liberal friends or others whom I share emails or blogs with. It’s not even true of my Republican friends. (Yes I have them - they’re good people.)
I also find your description of me personally offensive. You say “Free speech is just intolerable for you”. Of course it’s not. Any reasonable person with any sort of sense will fight for free speech, as do I. You misunderstood my use of “bridled”. I did not state that Coulter should be bridled because she is saying things I don’t belive in. If that were the case I’d “bridle” most everyone I come in contact with. I instead meant that her extremism should be bridled just as you would with any other extremist.
For that is what she is: and extremist. Her piano only has one key. She seems to be incapable of even allowing the possibility that there may be some good ideas from the Left. It is her way or no way. Wikipedia says, “Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity.” And I claim that Coulter does indeed violate the common standards of ethics, manners, good taste and general good for others.
If a man on a street corner began saying harmful and hateful things about your wife or children, what would you do? You would attempt to stop him, or do something to make sure your family was no longer hurt by him. My thoughts on Coulter are somewhat similar to this. I belive her voice is one of hatred and anger and serves absoultely no useful purpose except to generate antagonism, hate, distrust and to fill her pocketbook.
And so, let me reiterate: You misunderstood my comments. The Coulter piece doesn’t demand a factual response because that is not how she is couching her words. Her article, as usual, is a full fledged attack on Democrats in particular and liberals in general. Whether her “facts” are true or not belies the real point I was trying to make. And that is: what is the result of her articles? Does her diatribes actually generate any good in people? Do they offer something constructive? Do they help better the situation? Do they make you want to do better, or to try harder to find a solution to the problem? Do they help people? Or if nothing else, do you feel better after having read her words?
The answer to those questions is: no. And this is why I am attacking this particular messenger. Not because she happens to be Republican or that her views are different than mine or that I want to “stop free speech”. I am attacking her because she hurts people and she causes pain and hatred. And it is my belief that any person who professes to believe in a God of love, or even simply has a good conscience, can not allow such a person as Ann Coulter or Michal Moore or any other extremist to be an influence in their life.
Great Travis. I thought you stooped to your lowest level when you referenced the hired gun for the oil industry. Now you reference Coulter?!! The plagiarizer!
Wow, the brilliance of the right! No wonder we’re stuck in Iraq.
I won’t even bother reading this one.
Actually I couldn’t resist. I wanted to see if Coulter was as stupid as ever. Of course she was. Have a look at how the facts she presents do not bear out her sweeping generalizations about Democrats (in this case, that we are anti-American when it comes to war).
“In 1972, he (Nixon) won re-election against “peace†candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.”
Presumably this landslide was accomplished with evil Democratic support! A swing and a miss Coulter!
Now tell me Travis, how can anyone be more anti-American than Bush? I mean this moron is going to send more troops into Iraq against the wishes of the overwhelming majority. He is doing this to satisfy his ego (er legacy). Keith Olberman’s recent report describes how Bush tries to couch this in terms of sacrifice. You should take a look. The man is a maniac and a liar yet you defend him. Coulter has no credibility and you prop her up as an authority. Remarkable.
Actually James hits the nail on the head with his post.
Indeed.
You engage in the exact style of argumentation that Coulter described years ago in her interview with Katie Couric.
Your only refutation of Coulter, which you seem to repeat throughout your comment (whose “piano only has one key”?), is this:
Hmmm…a quick glance sees her mention:
- John Kennedy
- Lyndon Johnson
- Michael Moore
- the “Watergate Congress”
- the head of the NY Times
Let’s see…Kennedy and Johnson were Democratic presidents (of the United States, not the Club of Democratic Radicals). Michael Moore sat at a place of honor at the 2004 Democratic convention. The Watergate Congress was, well, very Democratic. And last time I checked the NY Times isn’t some bi-weekly pamphlet put out by the folks at DemocraticUnderground.com.
The people she is commenting on are not the fringe .01% of liberals that you claim.
She alleges that these folks have some seriously screwed up ideas and in the case of the elected liberals, they messed up. Bad. Real bad. And they are prone to screw up again.
And your response?
She alleges that these folks have some seriously screwed up ideas and in the case of the elected liberals, they messed up. Bad. Real bad. And they are prone to screw up again.
And your response?
My response is: I agree. Some of them did screw up very badly. But I wasn’t responding to that. Please, carefully read my post again.
In a nutshell, I am attempting to say that it is Coulter’s hatred and anger I am against. Not her “facts” or her political bent. I have the same trouble with Michael Moore, or any other extremist for that matter. It is not what is said, but how it is said that will matter in the long run.
And although I find the Official Democratic Party Seal you posted rather funny out of context, I wonder why you felt it necessary to include it in this particular disscussion? It in no way has helped your argument. Instead I’m afraid you meant it as an attack. If this is so; why? I have only expressed my views to you with respect. I have not attacked you, but simply dissagreed with you. Why the need to belittle yourself with such spiteful antics?
This is the kind of thing I am talking about. It is not what is said, but how it is said. Instead of helping people to do better and to make the country better, you are calling people names and treating them as inferior. How does this help? What good does it do? What do you expect from such childish name-calling?
I’m curious.
James,
You’re right, perhaps the seal was in bad taste.
You say:
and
On that point I believe you are flat wrong.
I listed a bunch of people in the Democratic mainstream that she goes after (unless you are going to claim that Kennedy, Johnson, and dozens of elected Democrats were “extremists”).
In any case, I saw two main points when I read your previous comments:
1) Coulter doesn’t describe mainstream liberal Democrats, she is painting a picture of extremists.
2) Repeated references to being offended.
I tried to respond to your first point with facts, and your second point with humor (hence, the seal).
Coulter doesn’t describe mainstream liberal Democrats, she is painting a picture of extremists.
No, that is incorrect. She is not painting a picture of extremists. She is painting an extreme picture of people who have made terrible mistakes. That is a significant difference. Coulter is the extremist, not the mainstream Democrats she is castigating.
James,
I’m honestly confused now.
You say,
And yet,
You continue,
But admit that,
Now, I understand that facts can be twisted, distorted, couched in innuendo, and used for nefarious purposes.
And I think that this is exactly why her article demands a factual response and not a simple dismissal that she is a hater and an extremist. This is what Steve F was asking for, I believe… Paint a broad picture, using examples like Coulter does, that contradicts her argument.
The gist of her article is that “the Democrats have done A, B and C, which led to X, Y and Z. And they’re trying to do it again with Iraq…watch out!”
As evidence to support this thesis she doesn’t use the comments from DailyKos or the worst forum posts on Democratic Underground. She uses the views and actions of mainstream liberals.
If what those mainstream liberals said and did is distasteful, well, that says more about the liberals than it does about Ann Coulter.
Actually, based on our own intelligence estimates, the enemies of America need pigheaded Republican help. Helps them get more recruits.
Another swing and a miss Coulter.
Why do you listen to this discredited source Doug? Coulter steals thoughts and ideas from others. She’s nothing more than a brainless thief.
It’s actually quite funny. I do hope Coultergeist is reflective of the right’s thoughts about the left in general (or at least the leaders on the right). That is, they underestimated us in ‘06 and will do so again in ‘08.
Her argument is already refuted Doug. It’s not just Dems that want X, Y, and Z. The majority of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake. She’s a moron. Did the election teach you guys nothing? I hope so.
Just curious Coulter, Travis, and Doug, did America betray our allies by (as Coulter puts it):
“In order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam’s throat,”?
Wow Nixon was an evil Democrat in disguise.
As far as these wonderful Republican “patriots” go, let’s have a look.
Cheney - Chicken hawked out of Vietnam
Wolfowitz - Chicken hawked out of Vietnam
Bush - Chicken hawked out of Vietnam
Limpbaugh - Chicken hawked out of Vietnam
and on and on and on.
I’m honestly confused now.
Ah, I think I see the problem. It wasn’t until you put my quotes together like that that I saw how unclear I was being. Thank you.
Let me try again.
For the first pair of quotes: They are not at cross purposes with each other. The first one was meant to to illustrate that her description, in general, of liberals tend to take (carefully picked) facts of their missdeeds and blow them out of proportion and distort them into an impression of malfeasance. That it is an “impression” is the key word here. And it is this impression of anti-America or “surrender monkey” liberals or what-have-you that I believe is wrong. It is this depiction of liberals as something they are not that I am talking against. A lot of what she says of what Democrats have done is true, I agree. But that has never been my argument. It is the unnecessary, spiteful, antagonistic and full-fledged demonization of liberals that I am up in arms against. The second quote is not a contrary opinion to this, although I can see how it could be easily misunderstood. What I meant to say is that the people that she calls extremists actually aren’t at all.
As for the second pair of quotes: As I’ve just attempted to explain above, it is not the “facts” she has used of what the Democrats have done that I am against. I’m sure most of them are true. Once again I say it is the extreme nature of her rhetoric that I find abusive. There is no need for it. If you could remove all of her attacks and spiteful rants against liberals from the article you quoted above, I really doubt I’d have much of a problem with it.
Again, it is not what is in the article, but how the article is written. It is not the facts but the message. It is not the words but the intent. She did not write this to help further the political disscussions on this topic. She wrote it to inflame opinion and cause ire and hate. For some reason she wants people to be angry and incensed. She wants name-calling and demonizing. She wants people to go after each other. She does nothing but add gallons of fuel to the fire of division in this country. She is cruel. And she is hurting all who listen to her.
It is not what the Democrats have done that is at issue with me in this particular argument. It is Coulter’s assumption as to why the Democrats have done these things that I believe to be untrue and unkind. It is her insinuation that Nancy Pelosi’s flag would be at half staff because of the execution of Saddam Hussein and not because of President Ford’s death. THAT is the kind of rhetoric and spite I am arguing against. That single lowball,vindictive, hurtful, untrue, unreasonable and unrealistic accusation is not called for and goes far beyond good taste and reasonable argument.
And it is that and that alone that I am against when it comes to Ann Coulter. In short, she spreads hatred and I will not stand for that.
James,
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I can agree to that. Have a good weekend.
I totally agree that Coulter is excessive in her sarcasm.
However, the reason Coulter comes across so strongly with such blatant sarcasm against someone like Pelosi is because this is a leading contemporary Democrat that is contantly championing the cause to suggest that Bush hyponotized everyone into voting for the war.
Most Conservatives recognize and despise Democrats’ political opportunism in a time of war, and yes, indeed question their sincerity in fighting the war on terror when their actions seem so illogical.
Ryan,
The only people who have been illogical in their thinking are Bush and company. For example, they didn’t listen when told they didn’t have enough troops, Bush isn’t listening with respect to the troop surge, and they never anticipated sectarian violence.
Political opportunism? This from the party that exploited the 9/11 events to start an unjust war?! Are you really that deluded?
Add to that the fact that Bush lied to the American people about WMD and the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection and I see that you truly have been deluded by the right wing nut jobs. Yes Ryan, it’s all there. In a sense, Bush did hypnotize us into going into Iraq. He lied.
Why don’t you just answer a few questions. How can you support a liar? How can you support Coulter knowing she is a thief and has no credibility?