Maybe You Missed This
by Marilyn Mackenzie
Maybe you missed this article, dated June 12, 2008. I'm sure you did if you're a liberal or part of the media. After all, this person could never have anything rational and meaningful to say, right? Well, in this instance, I think this person did! And I'm sorry if I lumped all liberals and media into one pile. My experience has been that liberals don't want to read anything about which they don't agree. In my experience (56 years worth), liberals are the most closed minded people around. But that's just my experience. 
I was reminded of the June 12th article when I read something from one of our own - Allan Janssen. His Saturday Morning Confusion #6 reminded me that I had not seen anyone mention thiis June 12th article, part of which I'm about to share. (Do go and check out Allan's article too. You'll see why it prompted me to want to share this one.)
The writer said:
"In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.
Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.
The writer also pointed out that:
1) Liberals are anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Dafar for "humanitarian" reasons. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
2) The world is safer because our troops killed over 20,000 al-Quaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq.
Quoting the writer again, "That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter. We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible."
3) The writer admits that our military men and women must be (and I've seen them say that they are) baffled by the constant negativity and bashing coming from their own country.
4) There is now a democracy in Iraq. And, again quoting the writer,
"Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."
(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")
5) Al-Quaida has been virtually destroyed.
More from the writer:
But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.
We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.
But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush...
There is more to the article, and I'm including a link so you can read the whole thing.
Bush's American: 100 Percent Al-Quaida Free Since 2001
Every time I think who could have been or might have been president on 9/11/01, it gives me the creeps. Personally, I think God made sure the right guy was in the White House to take care of things.
Would Gore have bored the terrorists to death? Or maybe...fined them to death for polluting the planet with their weapons?
In case you're wondering, the writer of the words (in italics) above was Ann Coulter. I figured it I shared that right away, many of my liberal friends would merely bash her and say, "I never read her words!" Sometimes, Ann is right, fellows.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
That is a very unfair thing to say. I don't lump all conservatives together. I have conservative friends that I get along with just fine. Probably because they don't say things like that.
Kay you do it. You're always more patient than I am.
We have killed far more than 20,000 people in Iraq. How many were terrorists before we arrived in Iraq? How many would have been terrorists if we had not gone there?
"Al-Quaida has been virtually destroyed." In 2001 they were a powerful influence in Afghanistan. Now they are a powerful influence in Pakistan, a much larger nation with nuclear weapons. They are also making a comeback in Afghanistan. I would say that they have been greatly strengthened rather then destroyed.
Finally, how may Americans were killed by terrorists in the seven years before 2001? How many Americans have been killed since we invaded Iraq? Seems to me we just made it easier for the terrorists to attack us by Bush's actions.
You will also find that many conservatives think Bush has done a very poor job as president. Ask any libertarian.
You may have heard that in Afghanistan the attacks have increased quite a lot. It is more dangerous there than in Iraq for U.S. troops. Guess where the terrorists went.
"2)The first reason given for going into Iraq was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When none were found, the white house itself switched gears and justified the war for "humanitarian reasons". If we were acting for "humanitarian reasons" then Rawanda or Darfur would have a been much better places to start.
"The world is safer because our troops killed over 20,000 al-Quaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq. "
The only way to justify these numbers is to assume that everyone living in Iraq who did not wish for us to be there was a terrorist.
"3) The writer admits that our military men and women must be (and I've seen them say that they are) baffled by the constant negativity and bashing coming from their own country."
I know veterans who have returned from Iraq that are baffled as to why they were sent there in the first place, what their actual mission was supposed to accomplished and why they are being sent back.
"4) There is now a democracy in Iraq. And, again quoting the writer,
"Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."
I don't deify any candidate. The writer you are quoting, however, when faced with the death of our service people and innocent Iraqis, or the suffering of Katrina victims, will not even blink before launching into a devotional defense of the president.
"5) Al-Quaida has been virtually destroyed. "
General Petraeous has just said that they have shifted their focus to Afghanistan.
And then you say Marilyn
"In case you're wondering, the writer of the words (in italics) above was Ann Coulter. I figured it I shared that right away, many of my liberal friends would merely bash her and say, "I never read her words!""
But I have read and heard her words and wished I never had. There is no substance, just venom and hate speech. I don't find her jokes about John Edward's deceased son or her claims that the 9-11 widows were enjoying and benefiting from the deaths of their spouses to be humorous.
But I don't know how you can stand posting political articles on gather. It invites so many nasty responses.
As an editor, I also notice that this nastiness is often misspelled and/or ungrammatical.
Marilyn-
You began your article with an insult so I left without reading the rest of it. But then to be fair I came back and read the rest of your article and responded it to it politely. If I were to post and article that said "All conservatives , at least all that I know, are smug" would you have continued reading" And would you have responded politely?
Btw, just because we couldn't find WMDs does NOT mean they never existed. Some state that Saddam purposely hid them in other countries or destroyed them before we could catch him in the act.
Thank you for posting this article Marilyn!
I might or might not have continued reading, but I would have definitely responded politely. That's the way my Mom raised me. :-)
A man is hungry. The Chinese proverb says that if you give him a fish you feed him for a day; if you teach him to fish you feed him for a lifetime.
Our problem is that the Democrats want to keep handing the guy fish. And the Republicans want to take away the fishing pole. Neither one is right. But I think by continuing to hand the fish, it keeps the man so dependent that he doesn't even realize that he's become so. While taking away the fishing pole seems cruel, I think of the two it's better. The man will have to learn to do something in order to eat.
And as far as our country being better off...well, our country is worse off financially than it has been since the Great Depression. We've lost millions of jobs to other countries, inflation is up, the dollar is down in value, people are losing their jobs, houses, and paying ridiculous amounts for gas. Our infrastructure is falling apart and we can't afford to fix it. Tax cuts benefitted primarily the rich, not the middle class. The middle class is shrinking and more people are falling into poverty. I know because I work with the poor. Most people are one paycheck away from welfare these days.
Health care is unaffordable and unobtainable for 50 million Americans. And many of those that have it have such high deductibles and poor coverage that they go deeply into debt when a catastrophic illness occurs. My sister-in-law had cancer and the family had to declare bankruptcy. Is that better off?
When George took office eight years ago, we were paying $1.87 for a gallon of gas. We're paying $4.00 now. Is it his fault? Not completely, no. But he has everything to gain from the price of oil being up there. His alliances with the oil companies (which paid for his election campaign) and his families own interests in the oil industry have kept him more concerned about the oil companies making money than about the price of a gallon of gas and the emissions problem that we have that is threatening our planet.
"Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.
Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel. "
We read these words, but they mean nothing if we choose to believe differently. Did the Washington Post and New York Times say these things? Yes, it appears that they did.
There is a couple at my church who raised their family in their "starter home". Rather than getting bigger and better as their family grew, they remodeled the basement to add a bedroom there - just like they used to do when I was a kid. Are these people better off than they were 5 or 10 or 15 years ago? You bet they are. His salary has increased "normally" which, in reality, only gives them about 3-5% over what they used to make. But after the kids were "old enough", she started working at the school part time, making sure she was still home when they got home and Mom had the summers off.
They have more "things" than they did 5, 10, 15 years ago. They can tithe to the church, save money for retirement, etc. Why? Because they chose to stay in that starter home and to buy used cars rather than new. (And never gas guzzlers.)
When you look at how many man hours (or minutes) it takes to buy things - from long distance to groceries to cars, for most things we pay less now than we used to. Think about it. In 1930, we had to work 12 hours and 46 minutes to travel by air 100 miles. In 1950, we had to work 4 hours and 7 minutes to travel by air 100 miles. In 1980, we had to work 1 hour and 27 minutes, and in 1997, we worked 1 hour and 2 minutes for that same 100 mile air travel.
Reports and statistics today are unreliable, because they are gathred and reported by the person/company/group which wants them to be a certain way and they'll report them that way. If most people were honest, they would have to agree that they're better off than they were 8 years ago.
If jobs are leaving the country, it's because we have all allowed that to happen - by voting in the wrong people. By not giving the companies the tax breaks they needed. By putting such environmental controls on them that they cannot stay here. By wanting to pay less for goods than they would cost if the companies stayed here and paid top dolllar to employees.
We cannot continue to shop at discount stores, buying cheap Chinese junk, then complain because another company took a factory to China.
Please don't call yourself a conservative. That is unfair to true conservatives, who are fiscal conservatives. Anyone with an agenda to bring religion into our government, or prayer in the schools, or claims that Christian writers and speakers are being silenced is out of touch with reality. And those people are right wing (nuts!).
I have tried to avoid your other provocative topics. As Larry pointed out, Afghanistan has gotten worse, and Iraq has not gotten any better. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I am not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this, but if you thought you were going to win people over to your point of view with this, you wasted your keystrokes.
And the US is not Al Queda free. There are sleeper cells, God only knows where!
And don't get me started on Bush! LOL
If you think Christians are not silenced, then you are out of touch with reality. As I have suggested to others who make this claim, perhaps you'd like to try being one for a week or a month. Or following one around for that amount of time and observing. I think you'd be surprised.
I looked at a couple of fashion magazines the other day and it turned my stomach to see how much the movie stars and wealthy pay for a pair of shoes. It's more than some of the mothers I work with have to live on for three months.
We did not invade Iraq to protect America. We invaded Iraq because of oil. Invading Iraq was a part of Bush's plans even before 9/11. He wanted to reverse the mistake that he felt his father made of getting out before the job was done. His father warned him not to go to war with Iraq again, but he didn't listen. And now, all these years later and trillions of dollars in debt, plus the thousands of lives of troops lost, etc etc.
As for Darfur and Rwanda and humanitarian aid.... to me that seems like the Christian thing to do when a government is committing genocide and millions are dying. Somehow Christian morals have come to stand more for cutting back on government services and cutting taxes rather than helping people.
"2) The world is safer because our troops killed over 20,000 al-Quaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq."
What about Afghanistan and Osama bin Ladin? We actually pulled troops out of there to go fight this war in Iraq. And what about the millions of civilians killed and displaced in Iraq? Was it really worth it? The region is more unstable than ever. The fact that a CIA director says things are better doesn't surprise me. Bush fires anyone who disagrees with him. That has been an obvious pattern over the last eight years.
As far as following Christians around, I live in an area that is 99.9% Christian. So I have had the opportunity to observe these so-called Christians up close and personal. And many of them are the biggest crooks and thieves and hypocrites I have ever encountered in MY 50 years!
You can spot them here on Gather. They are the ones who are spending all their time trying to earn points! They don't have the time to send a friend who is going through a very troubled time an email to see how they are, they are too busy earning points.
How many dozens of Christian cable channels are there? I don't see anyone silencing any of those TV preachers. I don't see ANY evidence that Christians are silenced.
People complain about the "liberal media" however it is usually people who only watch FOX news that feel this way. I happen to watch many different channels including FOX and I have found it to be the most biased network of all. But if that is the only place you get your news, then you are going to be programmed to think in the way that they present news, which is quite skewed.
When you refer to people as liberals or conservatives and make broad generalized and stereotypical statements, it is divisive. It is not what this country needs at this time in our history. We need to pull together, regardless of our beliefs and create solutions, not label each other and make derogatory remarks about the character of people who happen to disagree with you.
Typical right wing FOX and radio pundit trash inspired, being on the low road you folks always claim the high road and gloat on how you think you are able to piss off the liberals ... if you had a brain without worms in it, you would be ashamed of yourselves.
Again, I am surprised you are presenting Ann Coulter as some kind of reliable news source. Or why you didn't mention her name in YOUR article. Ann Coulter is a right wing "shock jock." The things she said are for shock value and nothing else. In fact, she is the best friend that liberals ever had, because she is so full of vitriol and anger, no rational person can take her seriously.
That you do, Marilyn, I'm sorry to say reflects poorly on you. I have to ask myself, why are you being so provocative? Brian said it best when he said, this is divisive. I also noticed that you referred to another Gather author as "one of our own." One of our own what? Is this a private club, or can anyone join?
Stop and ask yourself, Marilyn. Is this what Jesus would do? I'm having a hard time believing He would go for anything like this (your article in which you incorporated Ann Coulter's column.)
That's the difference between us, I guess. I will read articles and news sources from all sides here in the US, then check to see what news sources from around the world are saying about the same things. If facts come a liberal nut job, so be it. If they come from a conservative nut job, oh well. But facts are facts no matter.
My eyes hurt. If you read my daily posts, you'll know why. Somehow I have to get them to stop hurting before early Wednesday morning, when hubby and I are driving up to see mom Mom for the first time in about 18 months. She probably won't know me. She will probably flirt with my hubby. These are the things I need to deal with now, not this.
Thanks for being mostly civil, folks.
What a hateful, ignorant and even stupid trashy lying article and comments by the author ... and I did not even have to read them all to know.
Typical right wing FOX and radio pundit trash inspired, being on the low road you folks always claim the high road and gloat on how you think you are able to piss off the liberals ... if you had a brain without worms in it, you would be ashamed of yourselves.
Jerry Kays, Jul 20, 2008, 8:44pm EDT
Yes, I said it earlier and it is worth repeating ... I could add a lot more in kind but the ones that really need the message probably wouldn't understand anyway ... too damn many worms crawling around where others have a brain.
Now, please go away. I don't have the time or energy for this. Please go somewhere where folks have the time and want to argue with you. I don't.
Your comment was unkind. I use my real name. If you'd like, you can do a Google search and see what kinds of articles I've written myself. One, titled, "Life is What You Make It" has been printed in a magazine, in a corporate newsletter, and in at least 5 e-zines of which I'm aware.
In 56 years, I've learned many things. Not just how to copy and paste. :-)
I don't know if the 20,000 number is correct, but it doesn't include the 300,000 or 400,000 civilians who were killed as well, and they hadn't done ANYTHING, just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, I completely agree that trying to defend Ann Coulter's skewed points of view is a a waste of time and energy.
Where then, in the name of Oilcan Harry, is all this oil???????????????????????
Just...don't...do...it.....
And yes, Chive, the motto of this administration has always been "Be afraid, be VERY AFRAID." What I'm afraid of is eight more years of this hell.