Posted on 06/16/2006 5:05:55 PM PDT by ChessExpert
“As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo's valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army."
From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American and his Band of Brothers as wimps and crybabies "with a yellow stripe down their backs."
Maybe I'm biased, but nothing – absolutely nothing – Ann Coulter has said about Murtha, Kerry or McClellan strikes me as remotely comparable in vileness, cowardice and rank stupidity as Michael Moore's blanket calumny against some of the bravest men of the 20th century.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
You call the blog site:
Stop Ann Coulter
http://blog.stopanncoulter.com/2006/03/29/treason.aspx
Crude?
It's sophisticated by the standards of the Coulter-bashers around here.
Really? Taking two words by a conservative writer from a favorable review of a book that exposes a communist spy out of context in order to portray them as "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." doesn't qualify as a lie in your world?
Just curious. What would?
You need to clean you bong water.
You accused of of lying.
What she posted was factually true.
You are the liar.
Ann said:
"Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union would be exasperating if it weren't so comical."
Ramsey said:
"So here I was, a non-liberal favorably reviewing a book that exposes a communist spy, and I am accused of "refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union."
So if Ramsey is by his own admission a non-liberal, then by definition she wasn't talking about him. Or else she got exasperated that Ramsey referred to the meeting as "entirely circumstantial" while ignoring the evidence of the cables. If he had said, "At the time of the meeting, it was circumstantial, but now we know better" Ann would probably have been more forgiving.
Cheers!
Sorry, multi-talking.
Should have read:
You need to clean your bong water.
You accused Coulter of lying.
What she posted was factually true.
You are the liar.
LOL. All that's missing is the obligatory Rollie Fingers mustache and goatee scribbled on Ann's face.
This book's two authors began their research with opposite assumptions. Thomas Mitchell, a former FBI agent, listened to some of the wiretaps. He writes, "I heard the panic, and, I was certain, the guilt in her voice."His wife, Marcia Mitchell, reasoned that if Coplon had really been a spy, the government would have brought a much stronger case.
And it could have. At the end of the book, the authors explain why it did not.
Coplon was a spy. In the 1990s, the government declassified intercepts of coded messages from the mid-1940s between Russian agents describing her in unmistakable terms. But the intercepts could not be used in the trial because it would have blown the cover of the government's code-breaking. All of which explains why a half-baked case was presented with such insistence.
It was true that the Coplon case — and those against Hiss and the Rosenbergs — stigmatized left-wing views. But the case was not about that. It was about spying, and the spying, the authors conclude, was real.
Gimme a break. I was making a prediction.
Hey, you ain't one of dem Libertarians, are you?
You're blowing bong smoke.
All Coulter said was:
"In 2002, the Seattle Times described the case against accused spy Judith Coplon as "entirely circumstantial."
That is a true sentence.
You said it was a lie.
You are the liar.
That is what he said. You can read the book review by clicking the link in #22, or see the excerpt I posted in #28.
I have a big imagination
Check its homepage.
Oh, please. You're being really unbelievable. The case was described as "entirely circumstantial" because it was. Ann portrays the book review as a leftist's denial of reality, when the truth is that it was a conservative's description of what really happened.
Sorry, but in my book, that's lying.
"Ann portrays the book review as a leftist's denial of reality, when the truth is that it was a conservative's description of what really happened."
More (probably drug induced) lies.
I have quoted in full all of Coulter's references to the Seattle Times.
you're pathetic....
I'm so impressed, I may vote for Hillary, McVain, Gore, etc, etc.
Or at least pretend to. Of course, when you check the original source you may find that it says something very different from what Ann claims it does, such as in this case.
Thank you for your very valuable contribution. Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ears like the other posters on this thread?
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.