Posted on 08/07/2002 5:21:47 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Nuclear annihilation can't be confined to the outer boroughsHow is it that the New York Times managed to locate the only eight people in America opposed to attacking Iraq? (By "America," I obviously mean to exclude newsrooms, college campuses, Manhattan and Los Angeles).
Americans have been repeatedly polled on the question of using military force to depose Saddam Hussein. Within the last six months, the ABC News-Washington Post Poll showed 72 percent supporting a U.S. invasion of Iraq. The FOX News-Opinion Dynamics Poll also has 72 percent supporting it. The Newsweek poll shows 68 percent in favor. The least support for an attack comes from an NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll showing only 57 percent in favor of attacking Iraq.
Yet the Times' man-on-the-street article – in Arizona, no less – did not manage to ferret out a single American supporting an attack on Iraq. Instead, the Times stumbled upon eight citizens, manifestly not at random, every single one of them opposed to war with Iraq. This allowed the Times to run an aggressively dishonest headline describing Americans as backing Bush – "but not into Iraq."
Intriguingly, the interviewees included a "lifelong Republican" living in "solid Bush country" who "worked on Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign in 1964." (It's amazing we didn't win that election with all the former Goldwater girls constantly popping out of the woodwork, such as Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.)
Even during the 1984 presidential campaign, the Times miraculously produced a poll showing Walter Mondale in the lead. Approximately three months before Reagan would win 49 states in the largest electoral landslide in history, readers of the Times were informed that Mondale "led President Reagan in a recent Gallup Newsweek poll, 48 to 46 percent."
So it's pretty pathetic when the Times can't even cite some phony Newsweek poll corresponding with its own evident desire to keep Saddam Hussein in power.
In a manly editorial that ought to have been titled, "SURRENDER NOW, GREAT SATAN!" the Times proposed patient suasion with the harmless and misunderstood Saddam Hussein. Demanding that "every available diplomatic option" be tried, the Times urged waiting until a "future link between Iraq and terrorism" can be established.
In the breezy style the Times uses for all its crackpot ideas, it explained that America need only "ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons." The same editorial warned against invading Iraq on the grounds that "there may be no way to deter Iraq from using unconventional weapons against American forces." Wait a minute! Weren't we easily disarming Saddam of unconventional weapons a couple paragraphs back?
The Times also assured its readers that there is "no reliable evidence" that Saddam is connected to the Sept. 11 attack or to al-Qaida. What liberals mean by "no evidence" is always that there is lots of evidence, but arguably not enough to convince an O.J. jury.
Accepting for purposes of argument the ludicrous idea that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are no threat to America unless Bush can also produce cell phone records connecting Saddam to Mohamed Atta, there is at least some evidence of a connection. Czech intelligence claims that five months before his monstrous attack, Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague.
In addition, the Times cheerfully announced that there "appears to be no evidence" (no evidence!) "so far that Baghdad means to share its deadly arsenal with others." Well, that's a relief. So the only guy with the deadly arsenal is a madman who gassed his own people, murdered his family members and passionately yearns for the total annihilation of the United States.
Days before the Times' "SURRENDER NOW" editorial ran, Khidir Hamza, a former member of Iraq's weapons-building program, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Saddam is actively developing weapons of mass destruction and will have accumulated enough enriched uranium to have three nuclear bombs by 2005.
The Times did not report Hamza's testimony. Sworn statements given to a Senate committee by a former member of Saddam's government presumably constitute "no evidence." It will take Manhattan and Washington being nuked before satisfying the exacting threshold of "evidence" demanded at the Baghdad Times.
It is as if the Times operates on Islamic holy logic – what should be true, on grounds of faith, must be taken as true, and hard evidence establishing the contrary can be dismissed as mere fact. There's a reason that reading the New York Times these days is like reading a newspaper published in Saudi Arabia.
Liberals are panicked at the idea that America might defend itself by attacking Iraq, but are perfectly copacetic about living in a radioactive world. They seem not to understand that – unlike their other insane policies, such as school busing – their heartfelt desire to keep Saddam Hussein in power will affect their children, too. Nuclear annihilation cannot be safely confined to the outer boroughs.
In the breezy style the Times uses for all its crackpot ideas...The rest of that paragraph was pretty good too, pointing out the clear self-contradicting thinking that liberals are famous for.
Now that's a funny reply to the NY Crimes usual drivel.
A true gem she is. Great post.
If we lived in a radioactive world, the RATS would of course be the ones handing out the iodine pills, for a vote.
Good editorial.
the Times urged waiting until a "future link between Iraq and terrorism" can be established.
Every time I hear a variation of this argument from some extreme leftist, I wonder why they expect they should be getting classified briefings direct from Rummey, the CIA, and the NSA. I expect the administraion knows a lot more about "linkage" than we, and especially the NYT, know at this time. I expect we will learn more during the mop up phases.
I didn't know there were even eight Democrats in this state, let alone eight people opposed to taking out Iraq.
I did nor know that John F Kerry was a goldwater girl. Who knew !!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHA!
Sen. McCain and those who'd still vote for him.
What's sad is that, save for the twice-weekly column of William Safire, I wouldn't wipe my ass with the New York Times. I mean, I thought I could never hold the Times in the same kind of contempt with which I hold that fishwrapper out in Los Angeles, but there you have it.
Under the mismanagement and editorial bias of the execrable Howell Raines, the New York Times has become little more than a pseudointellectual broadsheet for the haute couture fascism of the Upper West Side.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
The excrement Young Arthur bears as much blame (credit?) as anybody for turning the paper into a laughingstock. The understated headlines, the phoney over-use of 4+syllable words, and the snotty lack of comic strips doesn't fool anybody anymore.
the newest Ann Coulter Gem is here!Thanks for the ping!
See also ANOTHER recent "gem," with the DC Chapter's kristinn, at:
D.C. Chapter Report--Crossfire w/ Ann Coulter 8/05/02
self | Tuesday, August 6, 2002 | Kristinn
Posted on 08/06/2002 10:49 PM Pacific by kristinn
"...Accepting for purposes of argument the ludicrous idea that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are no threat to America unless Bush can also produce cell phone records connecting Saddam to Mohamed Atta, there is at least some evidence of a connection. Czech intelligence claims that five months before his monstrous attack, Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague.Ann certainly can generate erudite evisceration!In addition, the Times cheerfully announced that there "appears to be no evidence" (no evidence!) "so far that Baghdad means to share its deadly arsenal with others."
Well, that's a relief.
So the only guy with the deadly arsenal is a madman who gassed his own people, murdered his family members and passionately yearns for the total annihilation of the United States..." - Ann Coulter
It's a good thing that she is on OUR side!Oh, and by the way, thanks again to the folks at NYT for posting THIS:
From http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/books/bestseller/0811besthardnonfiction.html
(no-charge registration required to view this page):August 11, 2002
Hardcover Nonfiction
This
WeekLast
WeekWeeks
On List1 SLANDER, by Ann Coulter. (Crown, $25.95.) The lawyer and pundit enumerates "liberal lies about the American right." 1 5
Liberals are panicked at the idea that America might defend itself by attacking Iraq, but are perfectly copacetic about living in a radioactive world...From http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxcopace.html:
And, from www.bojanglesmuseum.com:
"copacetic"
by Mark Israel
[This is a fast-access FAQ excerpt.] This word, meaning "extremely satisfactory", was first recorded in 1919, and was originally heard chiefly among U.S. black jazz musicians. The tap dancer Bill "Bojangles" Robinson (1878-1949) popularized the word, and claimed to have coined it when he was a shoeshine boy in Richmond; but a number of Southerners testified that they had heard the word used by parents or grandparents in the late 19th century. Suggested origins include: a supposed Italian word copacetti; a Creole French word coupersetique meaning "that can be coped with"; and the Hebrew phrase kol besedeq "all with justice". RHUD2 says that all these theories "lack supporting evidence".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
