Want to know why 70% of Americans believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

[Rokenn]

Here is a good start:

Say what?

Yes, I know that I shouldn't even bother with this woman. Commenting on Ann Coulter generally raises the activity of shooting fish in barrels to that of succesfully capturing Bigfoot using a Unicorn as bait. But Atrios caught a masterpiece from Coulter this morning, which needs to be shared, and then discussed briefly as a lesson for no less than the very survival of the human race as the dominant species on the food chain. Atrios noted this column by Coulter, in which she makes the following statement, reprinted verbatim: In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did. Okay, let's, without resorting to petty attacks on Coulter's appearance or useless stuff like that, discuss how this is both the most dangerous and most stupid thing Coulter's ever written. For starters, there's the obvious that Atrios so accurately accentuated: Saddam Hussein didn't hit us on 9-11, Ann. Al-Qaeda did. Even if, as Ann obviously has been told to believe, Saddam Hussein was somehow secretly bin Laden's lover, nothing, and no one, remotely related to his regime was in any of the four planes two years ago. There's no way to even re-interpret this statement. It's just wrong. This is a severe problem for Coulter seeing how it's the opening statement of her column- a place that "professional writers" like to refer to as the basis of your argument. Now, Coulter proves something here: there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity; the former being something you choose. Coulter, for all her ignorance, as well as obnoxiousness, callousness, greed, racism, vanity, avarice, duplicity, envy, pride, viciousness, and blatant sexual frustration, is not, in the textbook-studying sense, an idiot. She, and I'm sure her editors, know damn well that Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for 9/11. However, a recent poll shows that nearly 70% of the country believes this. It is ludicrous to suggest that 70% of American came up with this conclusion on their own, as if the heartland of the country and every major city equally enacted a CSI-style investigation into foreign affairs and gathered evidence while questioning terrorism operatives in undercover missions. No, they think Saddam caused 9/11 because people like Coulter are telling them this as if it's a fact. See, that's why this article is dangerous, and contrary to Atrios' initial suggestion, brilliant in Coulter's plans. The point of Coulter's argument has nothing to do with the rest of the article: it has to do with the very phrasing of that quote up there. She's not suggesting that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, she's telling you. And she's using her complete lack of backing for this to accent her attempt to convince the reader that what she just said must be true because of (ta dah!) the conclusiveness of what she just said. Wither the right-wing pundits go the mainstream media points: by next week, Limbaugh will state Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind as fact. A few days later, Hannity and Brit Hume will have infected it into Fox News. Why should this be countered? It's easier to pass off something 70% of the country believes as fact than to refute it- regardless of the fact that, you know, it's complete and utter bullshit. So, in conclusion: Ann Coulter is not an idiot for writing this. She is in fact a scheming, psychotic monster. And frankly, that's scary enough to point out.

[Djinn Raffo]

If you repeat a lie often enough to an ill informed audience...

[Timber Loftis]

We could make her the US Information Minister.

[Faceman]

"You're Censored right. And it's got nothing to do with the B-3 Bomber."
(PAUSE)
"There is no B-3 Bomber"
"That's what I'm telling you."


That word is not allowed on this website.

[ 09-12-2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Chewbacca]

Propaganda works. It's not just hate-dribbling nut-jobs like Coutler espousing the belief that Iraq attacked us 2 years and 1 day ago.

Rice, Rummy, Bush, ect. All the usual suspects have repeatedly dropped hints at this and haven't the facts the back it up.

*Sigh* Propaganda works.


Edit- I forgot to mention Fox news channels habit of showing a large war on terror logo before news reports from Iraq.

[ 09-12-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[John D Harris]

Preach it Ann, Preach it, I love to watch the tolerance and diveristy crowd show how much tolerance and diversity they really believe in when somebody has a differant opinion than them. But I guess tolerance and diversity doesn't apply to them, just name calling and personal attacks.

AND AGAIN FOR ALL YOU FOX HATERS I asked where are you on the thread about the Patriot Act, where the writer CLEARLY STATES "CASES" then only gives a "CASE" as in the singular not the pural "CASES". You claim to be agianst bias and falsehood YET you don't stand up against the falsehood & bias pushed by the other side. Pop quiz What is the word in the English language for preaching agianst something that you engage in?

"Hale" at least I'm consistant and say people can be as bias as they want to be.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Preach it Ann, Preach it, I love to watch the tolerance and diveristy crowd show how much tolerance and diversity they really believe in when somebody has a differant opinion than them. But I guess tolerance and diversity doesn't apply to them, just name calling and personal attacks.

Well that's great and all, tolerance bla bla, but what Anne is espousing is not an opinion it is a flat out falsehood. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Preach it Ann, Preach it, I love to watch the tolerance and diveristy crowd show how much tolerance and diversity they really believe in when somebody has a differant opinion than them. But I guess tolerance and diversity doesn't apply to them, just name calling and personal attacks. AND AGAIN FOR ALL YOU FOX HATERS I asked where are you on the thread about the Patriot Act, where the writer CLEARLY STATES "CASES" then only gives a "CASE" as in the singular not the pural "CASES". You claim to be agianst bias and falsehood YET you don't stand up against the falsehood & bias pushed by the other side. Pop quiz What is the word in the English language for preaching agianst something that you engage in? "Hale" at least I'm consistant and say people can be as bias as they want to be.

Why should I tolerate someone as intolerant as her?

Is her own medicine, ie. name calling and attacks, not good enough for her?

I'm not a Fox hater, I'm a Fox veiwer.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: Preach it Ann, Preach it, I love to watch the tolerance and diveristy crowd show how much tolerance and diversity they really believe in when somebody has a differant opinion than them. But I guess tolerance and diversity doesn't apply to them, just name calling and personal attacks.

Well that's great and all, tolerance bla bla, but what Anne is espousing is not an opinion it is a flat out falsehood. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Did you notice the words "but Halliburton did."
Any of you people want me to go back through the earlier threads where all kinds of accusation were made about how the war was only for OIL and VicePresident Chaney and his friends at Halliburton were going to make money, and that is why the USA was going to war with Iraq. Computers are wonderful things we can check back on what was writen, I remeber 2 or 3 threads on that very subject.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Why should I tolerate someone as intolerant as her? Is her own medicine, ie. name calling and attacks, not good enough for her? I'm not a Fox hater, I'm a Fox veiwer.

Big woopity doo, Chewwie you still aspouse a bias and falsehood of Fox while posting an artical full of bias and falsehood. I don't care if you are tolerant of her or not, but at least be consistant and don' start any complants about somebody not being tolerant when you yourself aren't tolerant. You know get the log out of your own eye before you try to get the speck out of anothers eye.