Is Rick Sanchez becoming CNN's answer to Keith Olbermann?
After all, he does almost as poor a job of hiding his love for Barack Obama or his utter disdain for conservatives.
Consider that during his Friday interview with Ann Coulter, Sanchez actually asked the conservative author why the audience at CPAC gave former Vice President Dick Cheney such a fabulous welcome when he spoke to them the previous evening.
Sanchez also repeated the typical Democrat talking points about Halliburton, no-bid contracts, Clinton surpluses, and how all the problems facing the current President are George W. Bush's fault.
With this in mind, as you watch the following, ask yourself if it is possible for Sanchez to be ANY MORE obvious about his political leanings (video embedded below the fold with full transcript, h/t Story Balloon):
RICK SANCHEZ, HOST: You wonder if the conservative commentator Ann Coulter is thinking about this as well, as she gets ready to join us. I think she is here. Ann Coulter, are you ready to go?
ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: I am. Hello.
SANCHEZ: Good to see you. I can't help but ask you how things are going there at CPAC, lots of young activists are there and politicians that are representing the Republican Party's future. One in particular who looks like a superstar is this Marco Rubio, a Cuban kid who grew up in Miami like I did. What do you make of him?
COULTER: Well, he is very impressive. He is a fantastic tea party candidate, so to speak. This is definitely the man conservative activists have been talking about in Florida for the past, well, at least the past year. And outside of Florida not too many outside of the conservative movement not too many people have heard of him.
This year, I think he will stand a pretty good chance.
SANCHEZ: Are you surprised that Marco Rubio didn't get the same ovation that this guy did? Now, here is a face from the past, the former vice president stands up, a surprise appearance, by the way, at the convention, and gets a big ovation after that. Do we have that, Dan? Roll it if we have got it. This is Dick Cheney.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: I think that Barack Obama is a one-term president.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That is interesting. But I am wondering if by doing that the former vice president is not handing the Democrats an ace in a bad hand, if you will, if you know what I get -- if you know what I mean?
COULTER: I'm not sure I do, but I heard the first part about why did he get a bigger standing ovation than Marco Rubio, and that is because conservatives reward results, and we liked the vice president, and he was vice president, whereas Marco Rubio was still just a sparkle in our eyes, though, we do expect big things from him. And no, I think that Cheney is doing a fine job, and we do need somebody out there. As we discovered under Bush, Republicans need a wartime president who can talk. I think President Bush was magnificent in fighting the war on terrorism, but a lot of times it is tough because he was not out there making the argument.
And when he did make the argument, as with Israel, for example, it was spectacular. So it is nice to have one man taking the lead to defend the conservative position of national security, which most of all seems to entail acknowledging that there is a war on terrorism.
SANCHEZ: I hope you can hear me, because I am going to challenge you a little bit on that. I think that the people who love Ann Coulter are Americans who believe in free market principles. They are people who, like the guys in Texas who know how to put down oil fires and would love to go and help their country in Iraq.
But Dick Cheney told them no, we don't need you. We will let our companies take care of this in no-bid contracts and with money borrowed from China into companies that had ties to Dick Cheney.
Now, everything I just said is true, and it doesn't at all, Ann, sound like something that conservatives, true Ann Coulter-loving conservatives, would believe in. So why are conservatives standing on their chairs and applauding a man who did that, such an un- conservative thing to this country?
COULTER: Thank you, I did get that question. You are talking about Red Adair, the guy who flew to Iraq and had his private company put out all of the fires during the first Gulf War. And I'll bet you Red Adair and all of his guys would support Dick Cheney, point one.
Point two, I gather you are talking about Halliburton, and liberals were hysterical about that for seven years. And now we find that one no-bid contract after another are going to Obama cronies. At least in the case of Halliburton, I will give you two points, one is there was only one other company that could do what Halliburton does, and it is French company. You can look that up.
SANCHEZ: Not true, Ann, not true.
COULTER: So not surprising they will give it to the American company.
And point two, Halliburton was losing money in Iraq. So I think that the liberal hysteria over Halliburton was equivalent to, and you don't see this that much on the right wing, you see a few nuts, often liberals, complaining about Obama's birth certificate. That is the credibility of the Halliburton hysteria has.
SANCHEZ: First of all, I was not talking about Red Adair. I was talking about a coalition of gentlemen who work in Texas who tried to put in bids and were essentially told they couldn't.
Let me ask you a question, because this is important too. You hear the argument after one year we decided Obama is bad, and this is the argument that you hear from the folks behind you, Obama is bad because he is going to be using our children's money in the future, et cetera, et cetera.
Well, everything that was done during the Bush administration was money that was borrowed from China and Brazil and other countries, and isn't that the same thing, and why wasn't that argument being made then?
By the way, if I am over-articulating these questions, it is because Ann said she could not me very well, so I apologize to the viewers.
COULTER: No, I heard that. Thank you, you are doing an excellent job. I'm sorry if it is annoying to your viewers, but I can hear you.
(LAUGHTER)
If you think that we were not complaining about the spending of the Congress and Bush not using the veto pen, then you were not following the CPAC conventions very closely. Conservatives and talk radio hosts and people like me were going crazy over that. It is not true.
You have this image that is foisted on people like me that we were Bush flaks, defended anything he did. Quite to the contrary, it was conservatives who said no to Harriet Myers and the conservatives who said no to amnesty for illegal immigration, and it was conservatives screaming from the rooftops about the spending.
The problem is that there is this runway train where congressmen vote for bigger and bigger budgets, and an awful lot of it are things that without a major action cannot be changed, the entitlements of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.
But the same time, the fact that you had a mosquito bite in the Bush administration and before that in the Clinton administration does not compare to dropping a nuclear bomb on the economy now. The spending has gone through the roof. This is not an incremental, gradual change.
SANCHEZ: But, OK, let me ask you in fairness, the president of the United States under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were actually given a surplus. They left the United States in a situation where in George Bush's own words, "the economy was on the brink of collapse," and according to his advisers, we were staring at another depression.
That is the condition in which he gave this president, the Barack Hussein Obama as he is being called at that rally there, the White House. It's almost like here is the house, it's on fire. Put out the fire, and by the way, you have do it really fast. That's what some folks would argue.
COULTER: OK.
SANCHEZ: Is it unfair? Argue that one.
COULTER: I think it's a very simplistic way of looking at the world. For one thing that can't be described in 30 seconds, but the surplus was a surplus on paper. It's what the government was expecting to take in versus what they were expecting to spend. So that's kind of a myth and a fraud.
You can also look that up on Google, the explanation of what a surplus under the Clinton administration was. And what was the -- your other point about this?
SANCHEZ: Well, why is it that -- I'll tell you what. Think about it. My producers are telling we have to get a break in. Are you cool to stand by for another couple of minutes here?
COULTER: Sure.
SANCHEZ: Ann Coulter standing by, answering the question about whether or not some of the criticism of the Obama administration, in comparison to what happened during the Bush administration is really fair. That's coming out of CPAC.
I know we're having a tough time hearing each other, so I apologize for over-articulating everything. We'll be right back. Stay right there with more from Ann Coulter at CPAC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Ann Coulter is good enough to join us. She's at CPAC. She's our correspondent on CPAC, working double duty for us today.
All right, here's the great argument that Americans have all over the country. If the Iraq war was so important, why didn't we sacrifice as a nation? Why weren't we taxed? Why didn't the Bush administration, instead of borrowing the money from China to fight this war that would seem like it wasn't costing Americans, actually tell Americans it's a bitter pill, but we're all in this together. Why not?
COULTER: I never understand this argument, that we all needed to suffer more for it to be a successful war. We have a magnificent volunteer military. They did a magnificent job. And yes I think the war in Iraq was important. In fact, Joe Biden is now claiming credit for the war as one of the achievements of the Obama administration.
SANCHEZ: I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Do you think the war in Iraq was necessary?
COULTER: That's OK.
SANCHEZ: Do you think the war in Iraq was necessary?
COULTER: The necessary/convenient arguments I do not understand. I mean, was World War II necessary? Hitler didn't attack us. Was the civil war necessary? The Vietnam War? The Korean War? Either all wars are a war of necessity or all wars are wars of convenience. I think the war in Iraq was a very important war. We needed a foothold in the Middle East. We needed to knock out a guy who, whether we can find the stockpiles now, was certainly intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, who had Al Qaeda in his country.
And in particular to have a democracy someplace in that godforsaken region of the world so the rest of the Arab dictators can't say the reason you're living in the dirt is because of the great Satan and because of Israel.
What we needed and what we have in Iraq is an Arab Israel, and that is incredibly important, and we will be enjoying the benefits of that I hope for the rest of our lifetimes as long as the current president doesn't blow it. But since Biden is claiming it as the accomplishment of the Obama administration, I guess he won't.
SANCHEZ: So you just compared the Iraq war to World War II. Do you think that's an apt comparison?
COULTER: No, I'm just -- well in the sense they're both wars. What I was saying was the -- the phrase -- the arguments that Iraq was a war of convenience, Afghanistan a war of necessity -- I think that's a silly argument.
I keep hearing Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, neither did Afghanistan. The Taliban thought Osama bin Laden was a little nutty, but he brought all this money into the country. The Taliban didn't attack us, but we went in to take out the Taliban.
All wars are, I suppose, in a sense, a war of convenience, as the expression goes, or they're all wars of necessity. But you don't have to fight any war. Yes, I think Iraq was an important war to fight, and I think we're enjoying the benefits of it now. Thank you, George Bush.
SANCHEZ: Ann Coulter, thanks so much for taking time to join us. I enjoyed the discussion. And I know you've got to run, and I've already pushed the limit by an extra 56 seconds or whatever I did. Can we do this again? I really enjoy it.
COULTER: Absolutely. I love you, Rick, and I especially love your family, the right-wingers.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: You've got to stop going and drinking Cuban coffee in Miami. You're drinking too much of the Cuban coffee, Ann Coulter. Thanks so much.
(LAUGHTER)
COULTER: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Ann Coulter, joining us from CPAC.
Sheesh. They really ought to change the name of this show to "Rick's LIBERAL List!"
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
NewsBusters is turning 5. Enter our free t-shirt contest to help us celebrate!
























Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Nothing pleases me more...
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:13 ET by ChrisNH...than to see Lib media mouthpieces enraged and in a froth. After all, it wasn't supposed to evolve for them this way. What has happened to Olbermann, Sanchez and the others is the equivalent of Dorothy catching her first glimpse of Emerald City...and then a house falls on her.
Ha ha....Ann said almost the same thing at CPAC
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:56 ET by BlondeDuring the Q&A, a participant commented he was pleased that the number zero meant zero pies thrown Ann's way.
To which she replied, "If I don't get liberals in a seething froth, I'm not doing my job".
She was great at CPAC.
'Tis not a Summit, but a Submit. ~ Crash on Obama's Health Care Robot Theatre
"Everything
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:15 ET by UpNorthI just said is true"? Just because you say it, Rickie, does not make it true. You really ought to do your homework, Rickie.. Ann schooled you and you didn't even know it.
Rickie, a surplus is money in hand, not a "projected, on paper" surplus. I notice that Rickie dropped his idea that Clinton's "surplus" was an actual surplus when challenged on it. As is usual with a lefty, progressive or whatever it is they're calling themselves today.
Sanchez really stretched the "truth"
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 20:55 ET by jondelwiche1. Bush inherited an economy in disarray, not only heading right into recession, but fueled by both an internet bubble as well as massive corporate fraud accouting scandals (enron, wcom, tyco, adelphia to name a few).......It wasnt as bad as 2009, but it was no cakewalk. Surpluses? What an effen joke.
2. The four years the Republicans ran it all, 1/03 to 1/07, they added 1.1 trillion to the federal debt thru public borrowing ( the rest was raiding SS funds). This isnt good, but with 2 wars, isnt awful.
Should we compare the public debt being added by the Dem Congress in 3 years??? 3 TRILLION AND COUNTING.....
Sanchez is a lamO.
Love the two photos!
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:19 ET by BO STINKSSanchez and Coulter, side by side. Sanchez is supercilious and "concerned." Coulter is smiling in disbelief at his blatant bias and pretense. If this pictorial doesn't sum up the two sides of the aisle, I don't know what does.
"The moment you concede some small point to liberals, they go to work building an enormous elaborate edifice on top of the first lie." ~Ann Coulter
Yo - Ricky boy - there's a
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:19 ET by SlyrrYo - Ricky boy - there's a REASON why channels like yours and BS-NBC are dead last in ratings and losing market share faster than water from the toilet goes down into the sewer.
Content, content, content.
Keep it up, Ricky-boy. I and millions of others won't shed a tear when your programs cause CNN to go bankrupt and depart to the dung heap of media history along with Air America.
i wish rick would start drinking & driving again
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:23 ET by Mrltavernwhere do you begin with this interview.
I would like to comment on the surplus argument that liberals have been throwing around for a decade. Clinton never handed Bush a surplus and Ann is right here when declaring surplus an illusion on paper.
here's a really great article explaining the liberal folly of Clintonian surplus.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/deception_as_a_principle_of_go.ht...
Mr.L
Rick who?
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:24 ET by American.PatriotOnce again, Ann Coulter chewing up the lib-tard who isn't intelligent enough to respond beyond the democrap talking points.
What was with the constant
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:25 ET by BKeyserWhat was with the constant "praying hands" gestures by Sanchez? It came off really condescending.
Why didn't Bush "mandate" a war-fighting tax? Because the war would have been shot down immediately, as would every other initiative from Health Care Reform to funding for Presidential Apology Tours. If Americans had to write an individual check to the Treasury to fund each specific Federal outlay, the Treasury would be barren and men with pitchforks would be standing guard outside the building. What an absolutely juvenile argument from a supposed journalist; one designed only to inspire anger among his juvenile audience.
BKeyser
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:19 ET by cajun2The "praying hands" thing is an attempt to give the impression that you are focused on the answers from the other person. Not that he is actually listening. Just pretending. Notice, he gives his stance on an issue as he asks her a question but then does not really debate her answer. Just gives back the lib talking points. He had problems with her because she has a quick wit and is informed. Not like his usual guests where they spew the same lies then pat each other on the back for being so smart.
Bluntly put......
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:48 ET by pantryman...I think Ann cut him a new one with a sharp stick....
Remember in November...this year !
Great interview...
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:33 ET by BO STINKSCNN viewers were blessed to hear a lot of facts for a change. Didn't Sanchez say that Coulter is there as CNN's correspondent? Wow - this is bizarro world. Is CNN leaning to the center????
"The moment you concede some small point to liberals, they go to work building an enormous elaborate edifice on top of the first lie." ~Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Spanks Little Ricky
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:33 ET by R D Helm...and makes him look like the fool he is.
What a moron.
-Dave
TAX PROTEST! ONLINE MARCH ON WASHINGTON
I thought the exchange
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:37 ET by MidAmericaI thought the exchange was a good one. It showed to the CNN audience that there really is an alternative view to the usual leftie talking points about Bush/Cheney that can be founded on logic. Rick taking on Ann Coulter on live TV? I know better than to do that.
A.C. is a warrior!
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:37 ET by DieselShe crushed that little punk like a cockroach!
Cheney is no conservative
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:40 ET by steve05Dick cheney and carl rove went after Tom tancredo A REAL CONSERVATIVE because his rhetoric on immigration was pro american NOT pro mexico like bush's "family values don't stop at the border" let them all come because the chamber of commerce (the biggest lobby) wants it
This is one of the many reasons why, as a conservative I have no love for the bush presidency and will not vote for a republican who seems to be an extension of bush style "conservatism"
So, Steve, just
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:48 ET by UpNorthexactly who embodies your style of conservatism? As a leader, and possible presidential candidate? Just one caveat, it would be nice if you name someone who's electable.
"Blah, blah, blah, blah-blah
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:50 ET by BO STINKSnot real conservative, blah blah blah blah-blah...I'm a liberal...blah blah blah blah-blah... wait, how did that get in there?" Says little stevie
"The moment you concede some small point to liberals, they go to work building an enormous elaborate edifice on top of the first lie." ~Ann Coulter
You know? you really have
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:00 ET by BKeyserYou know? you really have to consider the political environment as a politician. (Captain Obvious strikes again, I know.) I'm a Conservative- USMC Veteran and strong believer in Conservative values. However, I'm also a realist. You simply just cannot take a hard line on every pet-peeve issue and expect to be able effect the kind of change you want. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are a case study in that regard. They have pushed hard and fast on every "Progressive" platform issue since taking control, and they've lost handily on nearly every singe one.
The groundswell of Conservative support wasn't nearly as strong during the Bush-Chaney years as it is today. My point is that you've got to pick your battles and whatever the Bush-Chaney agenda may have been upon taking office, that was superseded by Al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism. When you're fighting that battle, both here and abroad -in two very real, but different venues- issues like Social Security reform, Immigration reform and other Conservative platforms surely had to be altered to maintain enough support for the larger, or more immediate issues of the day (war). Again, the classic example of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi model of pushing for Health Care Reform and Cap-n-Trade has evaporated any populist support for their solutions to the more immediate issues of unemployment and the overall economy. They just couldn't convince enough people that those issues trumped that of their wallets, and I think Bush-Chaney knew that they wouldn't be able to convince enough Americans that tackling immigration was more important than tackling terrorism.
Politics is a dicey game, one that inevitably electrifies, and separates people along personally-important issues. At least, that's how I see it...
Still waiting
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 14:40 ET by UpNorthfor your answer, Steve. Who, in your estimation, is the ideal, electable, conservative candidate? Stumped?
UpNorth, You will wait in
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 15:11 ET by Scuba DudeUpNorth,
You will wait in vain for an answer, especially since Steve05 is most likely a liberal pretending to be a conservative. They do that every now and then to try and stir the waters here at NB. Take a look at him, he joined NewsBusters over 3 years ago and did not post a single comment until last week. That there is a sleeper troll account.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Oh, I know
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 15:28 ET by UpNorthScoob. I was just calling his bluff. I never thought I'd get an answer.
That's easy...
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 16:43 ET by ckc1227Barack Hussein Obama, lol.
Fair?
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:44 ET by exLibSo was CNN arguing with all the liberals during Bush's tenure, asking if all the criticism was fair?
Of course not, they were either silent or piling on.
Floor, meet Rick. Rick,
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 12:57 ET by ex buff e-dubFloor, meet Rick. Rick, meet floor....
Ann, you're holding the mop just right.
In case anyone wonders why it's normally 2-v-1 or 3-v-1...
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:01 ET by krendler...liberals versus conservatives on CNN (MS-NBC doesn't even bother having conservatives on), this video demonstrates why. Coulter ROCKS.
Generally, it's the "neutral" CNN "moderator" (like Sanchesz) plus one or two liberals versus a single conservative. And when it's any kind of big round table (SOTU speech night), it's usually 7 versus 1 or 7 versus 2 at best, e.g., Carville, Borger, Brazile, Roland "Fat Head" Martin, Paul Begalla and a couple of CNN moderators against one token conservative.
Ann is kicking but
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:11 ET by general companyAnd giving names a CPAC right now
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Rick Sanchez is so . . . .
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:13 ET by DoktorFranken. . . . clever. Although it's tough even when he, and a host of others, take the time to plan the ''attack'' and some 'girl' comes along to kick their collective asses - on live TV.
Way to go, Ann.
Sarah Palin: The Most Dangerous Conservative In America
Sanchez
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:21 ET by charlietexasThis interview is a classic example of a flaming liberal that just cannot get past George Bush's tenure. 90% of the interview was sequed into the Bush admin and Dick Cheney's policies. Poor little Barry inherited a horrible situation and deserves a pass for spending all of that printed money. He is why CNN is horrible. I hope he continues to fall in the ratings. Ann did a remarkable job at composing herself.
All of the old arguments were brought up and she patiently explained them to Sanchez.
Way to go CNN. When your ratings are going down, bring on the right wingers to bring em up and piss off whats left of your viewers. This is exactly what Donahue did when his show was going down the toilet. Problem is the right makes sense and the left has only their "you know what" in his hand.
Knife to a gunfight...
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:24 ET by gmonsenRick brought a knife to a gunfight with expected results. He, as with most liberals, simply repeats the mantras over and over expecting what? The hackneyed 60's mantra that American wars are all about capitalists making money by stealing weaker countries natural resources or of Big Business -- Halliburton in this instance -- stealing War Contracts from smaller, less politically well-connected companies is at best tiresome. It should, however, continue to remind us that we need to address these progressive or liberal "beliefs" by positive promotion that America intervenes not mainly out of self-interest, but out of the belief that our country can and needs to help smaller, less developed countries who are becoming totalitarian states that abuse their people and pose threats to neighboring countries. We need to attack liberals by declaring that America is a good and well-intentioned country and pounding that message home over the sea of repetitious 60's anti-American, guilt-ridden apologists.
Gordon
That was an actual interview..
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:25 ET by upcountrywaterWhere one person speaks, then the other person speaks.
I was expecting a yelling match, didn't happen, and once again the conservative argument won. Thanks you Ann.
Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power. Thanks, liberals!
As suspected CNN readers
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:32 ET by exLibAs suspected CNN Readers side with Sanchez.
The majority of comments linked to the discussion on Cnn.COM have Sanchez a "Truth Teller" and Ann Coulter a "liar".
One posters claims Bush left us an $8 trillion deficit and the Ann says we weren't attacked before WWII.
As Sanchez brought up the top 8 or so talking points of the Bush years, didn't once agree with here on anything, and like Katy Couric vs glenn Beck seemed very at ease arguing the far-left liberal position.
Rick is part of the drive-by
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:38 ET by shannon76Rick is part of the drive-by media. Literally.
Sanchez-- Bush given a surplus..
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:40 ET by Gary HallThis is really getting old. Yes, when Bush and Cheney took over, we were experience nice little brief budget surpluses. However, the bubble economy of the late 90's had crashed in early 2000 - and everything was heading south, including tax revenues. Even the likes of leading progressive economists like Dean Baker, CEPR, understood prior to the bubble collapse, that once it crashed the surplues would dissapear almost over night and would be replaced by massive deficits.
We also had the economic shock of 9/11 piled right on top of that crash (the era of corporate greed and fraud: Enron, WorldCom Anderson Accounting, etc. - which for some reason now celebrated by the left? Go figure that one.)
From 2001 to 2003, inclusive, the shift from projected surpluses to to real deficits was approx. $1.3 Trillion (black + red). Of that amount only 1/3rd had to do with the cost of the Iraq war ($54 billion) and tax cuts.
Bush's tax cuts did not become fully implented until 2003.
Sanchez can have a discussion about spending and tax cuts effect on the defictits from that point forward, but the fact remains; Clinton left Bush and Cheney a set-in-motion fast track from a brief round of surpluses to huge deficits.
There was no way for Bush to stop that freight train, and Gore probably would have made it worse - much like Obama is doing with this one.
Oh, what else did Bush inherit from Clinton? An Intifada in the Mid-East; the failed Mid-East talks; Afghanistan now under horrific Taliban rule; Iraq w/o inspectors and the Clinton no-fly zone bombing campaign in a two year escalation; Albright had stated that a 1/2 million children had died in Iraq during thier term; a war in Chechnya; N. Korea building Nukes; numerous civil wars and genocides in Africa (D.R. Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Darfur); 9/11 well into final planning stages; a Pakistan that would not work with us; India and Pakistan at the brink of a nuclear tit for tat; a recession...
..and the number 1 bad thing that Bush inherited was Rick Sanchez getting a job at MSNBC in 2001.
(;~/ gary
As Always . . .
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:57 ET by DoktorFranken. . . Gary - you da man. A double-barreled post if there ever was one.
Sarah Palin: The Most Dangerous Conservative In America
Slaying dragons
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:45 ET by KC MulvilleCoulter has always attacked the dragons (i.e., the unchallenged assumptions and political lies spewed forth by the Democrats and liberals). The liberals have basically created the mega-dragon, that Bush is responsible for everything that ever went wrong and that conservatives fell in lock-step behind him. That's such a ridiculous lie, but they unleash it every chance they get. Coulter gave that one the St. George treatment.
Another dragon: Why didn't we tax (i.e., pay for) the war? Oh please. This idiotic notion starts with the premise that a new tax is like fundraising, like a cake sale. Theoretically, when we have a new expense, we raise funds from the public to pay for it. Anyone with more than seven seconds of memory knows that when Washington demands a new tax, it bears no relationship to the expense that was exploited to excuse it. Governments don't have cake sales for specific expenses.
Liberals truck on that imaginary cake sale metaphor, and Sanchez's question reveals the ultimate liberal ignorance: the essential conservative tax policy is that you keep taxes as low as possible, to promote the ability of the private sector to generate more funds. You'll make up more taxes in the long run if you just let Americans make more money. Therefore, there is no one-to-one relationship between expense and tax. That's been a staple of conservative tax policy since at least 1980, but Sanchez's question just takes for granted that there is one. He's presenting a criticism against conservatives based on a liberal assumption, and as Coulter rightly pointed out, there isn't enough time to correct that intellectual misfire.
It's all about making noise
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:54 ET by metaphorsbwithuThe libs continue to pull out the same old tired cliches and talking points over and over and keep getting shot down with logic and facts but it doesn't matter to them.
How many times must we explain to them the fallacy of their arguments regarding Clinton "surpluses" and Halliburton and the war on terror and what conservatives really think?
It doesn't matter to the left. They keep raising the same points because they have little else. They know they're shooting blanks but it's all about making noise anyway.
I'll bet Ann could do these "interviews" in her sleep.
metaphorsbwithu
Still fixated on
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 13:53 ET by MidAmericaStill fixated on Bush/Cheney? The democrats (including obama) are really beginning to sound out of touch to the American public. People have very short memories when it comes to political nuance and generally are only looking at right now and into the immediate future. If the Republicans send up some fresh faces, voters are going to tune out democrat talking points if they continue to talk about the past. The democrats think the image of Bush is a pinata that has an endless amount of candy that can be knocked out of it but it is already empty.
DUI hit and run sanchez
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 14:09 ET by sevenHe is still campaigning against Bush. When will the Obama presidency begin?
I like the Halliburton cannard. Name another oilfield services company that offers the same technology.
GE is much worse than Halliburton. 25% of TARP funds are in GE. Halliburton works for it's money.
Sanchez does a good job of arguing from the DailyKos viewpoint
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 14:32 ET by OxyConHis entire point of view was far left.
He did what?
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 14:53 ET by zachlindOf course you always want to be positive when speaking about people, so here goes. I hope Rick Sanchez’s application for U.S. citizenship isn’t hindered by his vehicle hit and run event back in the 90’s where an innocent person died?
The Clinton Surplus
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 15:30 ET by Andrew_M_GarlandThe Myth of the Clinton Surplus
The Clinton surplus myth is repeated endlessly as a biased and untrue talking point
Clinton, Bush, and all administrations point to only the Public Debt, the US debt held as treasury bonds by the private sector and the Federal Reserve Bank. This hides the borrowing from the Social Security accounts, and understates the true borrowing that the government is doing. It is misleading to claim Social Security savings and surplus, then point to the "low" public debt deficit that is achieved by borrowing away all of the Social Security savings and surplus.
========
[edited excerpt] You will often see the claim that President Clinton balanced the budget and even ran a surplus. This is then used to underline the irresponsibility of the Bush administration. (And prove the true effectiveness of Democratic administrations -amg)
Clinton claimed surpluses of $69, $123, and $230 billion for FY1998-2000. Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion (interestingly, not the sum of the yearly claims, which is $422B).
There was never a surplus. In fact, the total national debt increased by $281 billion during those years. How can this be? The Public Debt and yearly deficits were paid down by borrowing money from the Social Security fund, rather than borrowing directly from the public. Clinton did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus. Actually, growing deficits began with a $133 billion deficit in the last Clinton budget, not in the first budget of the Bush administration.
========
Analogy: Dad has a college fund for the kids (accumulated money from Social Security taxes) and a credit card (Public Debt). Dad spends more than he earns, and borrows from the college fund to cover the excess. Then he goes further, and borrows $281 more from the college fund to pay off some of the credit card. Dad talks to Mom: "We're doing great dear. Look, I have paid down some of the credit card." Dad doesn't tell her that the kids aren't going to college.
Andrew_M_Garland
"Hit and Run" Sanchez....
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 15:59 ET by adamsmithO'l Hit and Run was was out of his league here. These guys have been getting these journalist jobs for years because of idealogy rather than being rational thinkers who could formulate arguments instead of the same old talking points that are propaganda to begin with. Ann handed his ass to him. This is going to be more and more frequent as Obama's(and all other Progressives)failures show they have no foothold in a political reality, and it's been smoke and mirrors since Teddy Roosevelt. The Progressives will die off if more light is thrown on their ridiculous arguments....
Why did the chicken
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 17:03 ET by BlazerWhy did the chicken cross the road?
He saw Rick Sanchez stumble out of a bar and start fumbling for his car keys on the other side.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Just don't get in front of
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 17:11 ET by nadadhimmiJust don't get in front of Sanchez's car or you may get killed too
Cantstandchez
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 19:47 ET by circusstormCNN got its A$$ handed to them in this bought. Change your panties rick...
Ann Coulter
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 20:13 ET by MrShyAnd in particular to have a democracy someplace in that godforsaken region of the world so the rest of the Arab dictators can't say the reason you're living in the dirt is because of the great Satan and because of Israel.
What we needed and what we have in Iraq is an Arab Israel, and that is incredibly important, and we will be enjoying the benefits of that I hope for the rest of our lifetimes as long as the current president doesn't blow it. But since Biden is claiming it as the accomplishment of the Obama administration, I guess he won't.
A-freakin'-men.
And this hack had about 8 or 9 Bush/Cheney/Wars lib talking points in his holster for every great answer she gave. Phony hack.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
"What we needed and what we
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 21:26 ET by BlakeR"What we needed and what we have in Iraq is an Arab Israel"
Any Conservative knows that a stable free civil society comes about as the result of constitutional development -- not democracy.
There are no cases where elections have led to constitutional development. When you hold elections in tribal areas with no constituional development you get, if your lucky, a Venzuela, a Russia or an Indonesia. If your not lucky, you get chaos.
What you've got in Iraq, if you've got anything at all, is a bunch of Shiites that will form an allyance with Iran.
Going Against Ann
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 21:05 ET by countmein5050is suicide unless you actually have a desire to learn the truth. I can't imagine going up against her to sell talking points I've been immersed in for a few months, or to try to one-up her on some liberal hot button issue...and don't even try to be cute or snarky. She is killer...and MY GOD, I'M GLAD SHE'S ON OUR SIDE!!!
The more Coulter is on
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 21:30 ET by BlakeRThe more Coulter is on television, the more it helps Democrats.
If you like Democrats, cheer for her.
Trying a little reverse
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 21:58 ET by Scuba DudeTrying a little reverse troll psychology there blaker? It is amazing how you say Ann Coulter is bad for conservatives when she is doing exactly what all conservatives should be doing, fighting back against the lies and distortions you libs love to throw around.
This appears to be both yours and Steve05's modus operandi, pick a threat to your statist ideology, pretend to be a conservative and then proceed to cry and whine and say that that person is damaging the conservatives.
Well I have some news for you blaker; we are not falling for that BS. The posters at NB that love our Country and the Constitution that makes it great are intelligent and see through the smoke screen you and the other trolls are throwing up. We will call you out on your lies and will fight the disease that is trying to destroy our country that you and your ilk support.
You have awoken the Giant that is the average American and you and what you represent will pay the price.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Ha! All right I'll
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 22:12 ET by BlakeRHa! All right I'll bend.
Some of her articles, in spots, if they're on domestic issues, are fine.
In my view, she helps Democrats get votes. Take it for what it's worth -- I imagine zero:)
But the statement on Iraq by her is just surreal. She doesn't get it.
I don't know at what point Nixon "owned" Vietnam, but Lyndon Johnson gets the blame and rightly so.
Pushing the notion there is Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq and that it all fell apart when Obama came in is an excellent strategy for giving Obama 2 terms.
I don't think 90% of the Republican Party gets that.
Who has ever
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 22:27 ET by UpNorthsaid that Iraq is a Jeffersonian democracy? I don't recall reading that anywhere. What I've seen is that people are saying that Iraq had been stabilized, and as percent of population, more Iraqi's vote than do Americans. Now 0 is trying to claim, through his mouthpiece, that he's responsible for the turn-around.
Well Coulter claimed that
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 23:32 ET by BlakeRWell Coulter claimed that Iraq is an "Arab Israel", and says they'll be allied with us.
In terms of stability, the only way for Iraq to be stable is for an authoritarian regime, most likely Shiite, to take control. I don't know if the Sunnis and Kurds will go along with that.
There are some pretty good Conservative links here about the fragmentation of Iraq.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/report-sees-recipe-for-civil-war-in-iraq/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/15/time-to-leave-iraq/
In terms of stability, the
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 10:49 ET by BDIn terms of stability, the only way for Iraq to be stable is for an authoritarian regime,
I guess the point is that
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 23:43 ET by BlakeRI guess the point is that without Constitutional democracy, you don't have minority rights. So the minorities in Iraq are not going to willingly accept the Shiite government. I mean you don't have a homogenous nation state there. Maybe the Shiite takeover will be bloodless. Or maybe they'll leave the Kurds alone and just rule over the Sunnis. But either way, there's not going to be some Iraqi Unity government at the end of the day.
I guess the point is that
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 10:55 ET by BDI guess the point is that without Constitutional democracy, you don't have minority rights.
But either way, there's not going to be some Iraqi Unity government at the end of the day.
Iraq a Jefferson democracy?
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 00:01 ET by Jer"Who has ever said that Iraq is a Jefferson democracy? I don't recall reading that anywhere..."
Does NewsBuster's very own MrShy count? He fancies himself as something of an expert on foreign policy.
Why, just the other day he educated all of us regarding our overarching geopolitical strategy in the Middle East. Here, read for yourself:
"I remember one time, on a date, with a woman who was spouting the usual "what Iraqi ever attacked us?" argument, and luckily I had the whole night to make my case.
After 9/11, the last administration GOT IT. They realized that this Islamic Fundamentalist cancer that had been spreading for decades went beyond the borders of Afghanistan -- AND beyond the "crazy minds" of just a few criminals, like Bin Laden, etc.. The Middle East region, which is predominantly Islamic and with no real functioning, healthy democracies in place, was the problem... and would be the strategic target.
And there was no better place to invade and plant democracy than Iraq, which is geographically in the middle, and borders just about every troubled country. It was also a 2-for-1 as far as the tyrant Hussain goes, and they can finally be rid of him AND have a new ideological base to work from, which will also weaken it's bad-player neighbors.
It took me some explaining, but she started to nod her head and admitted that she never thought of it from that angle. She was a pretty died-in-the-wool Dem, too, but she really could not argue my logic.
But this was never rocket science to me, so again, it's been the libs/Dems unforgivably playing politics with this serious ideological war we're in, and peddling this propaganda that we "took our eye off the ball" in Afghanistan.
Today's Dems and the left are despicable in my eyes."
MrShy [ Fri. 02/12/20 - 14:45]
Jer, Did Mr. Shy ever
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 00:29 ET by Scuba DudeJer,
Did Mr. Shy ever state that he thinks a "Jeffersonian Democracy" should be installed in Iraq? No. he said "there was no better place to invade and plant democracy". No mention of all of a Jeffersonian style at all. Nice try.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Scuba...
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 00:32 ET by JerNo he did not. I'm not sure what form of "democracy" MrShy had in mind. You'll have to ask him.
Jer
"No he did not. I'm not
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:09 ET by Scuba Dude"No he did not. I'm not sure what form of "democracy" MrShy had in mind. You'll have to ask him."
Then your response to UpNorth is no longer valid and I would think your above statement can now be considered a retraction since the original post can no longer be edited.
Feel free to respond again. :-)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
Well he is claiming that
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:23 ET by BlakeRWell he is claiming that democracy is good, that it will help Iraq, and that we should send our military half way around the world to give them this good thing.
BlakeR
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:45 ET by MrShyWe did send our military half way around the world -- we send them anywhere in the world, btw, as that's in their job description -- and gave Iraq this incredibly good thing.
Thank Bush.
Thank Cheney.
Thank, even, Rumsfeld.
Thank all the commanders who had to re-plan on their toes.
A job well done, and done against amazing opposition at home.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Authoritarian democracy is
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:11 ET by BlakeRAuthoritarian democracy is not a good thing Shy.
I don't like saying things.
I don't like the fact that a strain of liberals took over the Republican Party. And I know these liberals had the best of intentions.
But the "great society" Lyndon Johnson programs didn't help the people they were trying to help. And an international version of that mistake will fare no better.
Is it possible the real
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:27 ET by NL207Is it possible the real purpose of the war in Iraq was to create an optimum killing field for International Al Qaeda terrorists and that pomoting a free or freer government was only a secondary consideration? In such a case, the erection of a democratic state in Iraq would only amount to a political smokescreen intended to sugarcoat the real, brutal aims of that invasion, namely the killing of Al Qaeda's corp of tyrained militants.
Intelligence estimates place the number of trained Al Qaeda slain in Iraq at greater than 12,000. Al Qaeda only had about 20,000 trained operatives at the outset of the GWOT. If this is the true measure of the war in Iraq, then that war has succeeded.
To be honest with you I
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:38 ET by BlakeRTo be honest with you I just don't have any idea what goes on in the minds of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and the PNAC crew.
Other than that, like most liberal programs, the results never match what they want to do.
Oh lord, the PNAC'ers have
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:23 ET by BDOh lord, the PNAC'ers have returned...... ...
Were there any
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:39 ET by JerWere there any estimates on how many of those 12,000 may have been recruited at least in part with the message that they would be opposing a pre-emptively invading and occupying Western power within the sovereign boundaries of a heavily Moslem populated nation?
Jer
There is a vast difference
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:45 ET by NL207There is a vast difference between hardcore, well-trained, seasoned veterans and a bunch of green trainees. 12,000 of AQ's best for 12,000 fanatics eager to sacrifice themselves. I'll take that trade.
Without a secure base such as Afghanistan in which to operate training cadres, it will be inpossible for AQ to replace htose losses.
NL
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:53 ET by MrShySee Jer's post, above.... see what I mean? :p
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 03:00 ET by JerOkay, admit it. That was deliberate. :-)
Jer
Not to be flip, but just
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:58 ET by JerNot to be flip, but just how much training is required to strap on a bomb or distribute IEDs?. Fanatics aren't trained. They are indoctrinated--which is a religio/ideologic process. And controlling that dynamic will ultimately require an Iraeli/Palestinian resolution.
Jer
Answer your own
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 09:05 ET by NL207Answer your own question. The mule with the bomb is not the only perpetrator in that scenario. Who else is involved? What are they doing?
If the only operation you can successfully perform is to blow yourself up, how successful can your Jihad be? I say, eliminate AQ's trained cadres and much of the terror problem will diminish and what you will have left are Shoe Bombers and Fruit of Kaboom Bombers, people we successfully foiled. Compare the competence level of that moron who blew his schlong off in Detroit to the 9-11 hijackers. Which one do you want to defend against?
Again, getting to my
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:22 ET by BDAgain, getting to my discussion of the impact of relying on the press to fight to fight the information warfare fight:
Diaries seized and disseminated by the coalition forces have revealed that most of those who engage in the recrutiment of suicide bombers do so by trickery. They lure a young jihadi to places like Ramadi by letting the jihadi think he is going to actively fight. Then they "persuade" them to conduct suicide missions instead. My favorite diary that was in the press two years ago spoke of how pissed off a group of young Saudi's were that they were lured to engage in VBIED missions against shia market places when they wanted to engage in hit and run attacks with RPG's instead. They resented being cannon fodder.
Did this make the nightly news in Riyadh? Hell no.... It didn't even make the nightly news in New York....
Jer: Please read the
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:08 ET by BDJer:
Please read the books "House to House" and "No true Glory" which deal with the seminal battles of Iraq (Ramadi and Fallujah)dealing with the AQ infused forces.
In those fights, the locals were untrained rabble who fight and died in droves. The foreigners who came in were trained and experienced in fighting in places like Chechniya and were thus NOT newbies recruited by the concept of a US ocuppier. Most had obviously been in the pipeline or years.
And THEY died in droves in the great jihadi magnet.
If US policy in 2001 had not been abandoned and the information warfare fight had not been left to the press who claimed they would adequately fight it, everyone in the middle east would have been exposed to the truth of what it was like to fight the US in the GWOT.
My favorite quote of "It is like being stalked by a dealth machine..." would have been on the lips of every young kid in the middle east who instead only see manufactured atrocities on Al Jazeera.
NL
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:51 ET by MrShyYES!!
I am aware of this other strategic component in our invasion of Iraq, but it's often actually a harder sell on liberals, post-war (proving that all those suicide killers/insurgents were not homegrown Iraqis -- a serious stretch of the imagination, btw -- fighting for their country, but outside forces, etc..)
But absolutely. And if this was one of the amazing fortunate consequences, but not one of the deliberate strategies going in, then Bush & Co's move was very smart with an added upside. If this was one of the strategies, if not the primary one, well then, Bush & Co. were total geniuses.
However you slice it, a good, good, good move.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Is it possible the real
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 10:59 ET by BDIs it possible the real purpose of the war in Iraq was to create an optimum killing field for International Al Qaeda terrorists and that pomoting a free or freer government was only a secondary consideration?
BlakeR: Democracy IS good
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 10:47 ET by BDBlakeR:
Democracy IS good where we have installed it since it insures our own future security by countering the ideology of islamo fascism.
THank you for your concern. You may go now.
BD
I'll demur until Shy
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:34 ET by JerI'll demur until Shy describes the type of "democracy" he envisioned. Perhaps it was indeed a Jeffersonian model or something very close to it.
Besides, I think the key word is "democracy", not academic nuances or historical versions exemplified by Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, or Wilsonian paradigms. Again, if Shy had his politcally misguided date eventually nodding in revelatory agreement, he may prove equally persuasive with the NewsBusters audience.
Jer
Well you either wind up
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:55 ET by BlakeRWell you either wind up with an authoritarian democracy or a constitutional democracy. Jeffersonian democracy is just another word for constitutional democracy.
There aren't any good democracies that create free societies other than constitutional democracies.
Authoritarian democracies are no better than dictatorships. In fact they're worse since they create instability. Elections are a destabilizing process. Dictatorships are more stable.
In order to have constituional development you need stability.
The instability in authoritarian democracies prevents constitutional development. So we pretty much shot ourselves in the foot.
But that's the way liberals are. They have lots of good intentions that end up hurting the people they're trying to help.
Once again, half of the
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:26 ET by BDOnce again, half of the world that subscribes to western democracy does not do it under the cover of a constitution.
Jer
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:46 ET by MrShyThe form of democracy I had in mind was the type of democracy that will be more democratic than a Hussein Regime.
Right, meaning = something, anything, resembling democracy, and no longer resembling tyranny.
You want a nice, bow tie-wrapped result in war (or, well, wars waged by evil Repubs), whose mission and results are absolute. That's la-la land. Bush & Co. made a brilliant move, and got pretty impressive results looking back. I shudder to think of the M.E. with that thug and his minions still in power in it's heartland. You're gonna tell me you don't?
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:06 ET by JerI have always acknowledged that the world--in almost all respects--is a far better place since it is no longer graced by the presence of Saddam Hussein. But I am not ready to concede that the timing of our intervention in Iraq was prudent, or that it has or will necessarily produce the positve results originally envisaged by those who were promoting it early in the Bush administraton.
And despite your insistence to the contrary, in my view the deflected focus and massive military effort concentrated in Iraq after 9/11 was an impediment to our Afghanistanian objectives of disposing of the Taliban, liquidating Bin Laden and the senior command of Al-Qaeda, and prevented our committing adequate resources to ensure reasonable political stability in that nation. It was treated too much like the neglected step-child, and for the past three or four years we have been reaping the bitter fruit of that neglect.
Jer
He certainly implies that
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:03 ET by BlakeRHe certainly implies that democracy is an impediment to fundamentalism which is why it should be put in Iraq -- that isn't true at all. Indonesia being an example.
By contrast, constitutional development does impede fundamentalism. But you don't spread that by doing what we're doing in Iraq.
Constitutional government, societies with actual constitutional breakthroughs, inevitably have institutions that lead to elections within a proper framework.
There are numerous institutions in America that prohibit the majority from doing what it wants.
In addition, private property institutions in America restrict elected politicians from doing all that they would like.
These institutions are rooted in feudal Europe. They started forming before the Magna Charta was even signed. They preceded elections. These institutions led to elections, not the other way around.
It is extremely foolish to hold elections outside of this framework, which is what liberals have been pushing on other countries for the past half century.
A group of these liberals began infesting the Republican during the 1980s. How they came to be called "Conservatives" and took over Republican Party foreign policy is inexplicable.
He certainly implies that
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:30 ET by BDHe certainly implies that democracy is an impediment to fundamentalism which is why it should be put in Iraq -- that isn't true at all. Indonesia being an example.
Here: http://www.dakotavoi
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:30 ET by BlakeRHere:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/02/sharia-law-overtaking-indonesia/
Sharia law is completely compatible with domocracy.
wow the article
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:38 ET by botgwow the article at your link describes the beginning of a tyranny and a start of an end to freedom and democracy:
"all women are required to wear headscraves and women out after 10 are subject to arrest"
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Please sum up the argument
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 14:08 ET by BDPlease sum up the argument that supports the rationale in your own words. I do not chase links.
I thought the statement:
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:32 ET by BlakeRI thought the statement: "Sharia law is completely compatible with democracy" summed it up pretty good.
Okay, we will start from
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:38 ET by BDOkay, we will start from the position that you believe Sharia Law is compatible with a democratic form of government. THis is of course nonsense as all effects must be secondary to the expression of sharia law or the edicts of the prophet - designed in the 7th century by societies that believed in tribalism led by a series of strongment.
Ergo the mullahs of Iran. Largely the purest expression of sharia law following the beliefs of the Shia which is hardly democratic.
Turning to the other side, when Wahabism is factored in, you cannot even imagine a Sunni following Sharia approving of democracy. The leadership of AQ in fact believes any form of democracy is inimicable to Sharia law since voting amongst the public can be used to violate Sharia Law.
Salafists? Definately not.
Could a Sufi approve of Democracy? Possibly since it is more of a mystical form of Islam, but it is largely contained to mountain regions abutting other forms of religion and under constant attack by other sects.
It's common knowledge that
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:54 ET by BlakeRIt's common knowledge that laws passed by the so-called Iraqi government will conform to Sharia Law.
It is in place in over half the provinces of Indonesia and is expected to grow.
Iran has been a democracy since the late 70s and they use Sharia. It is only the last set of elections that were fraudulent, and even if they had been free and fair, Iran would still be under Sharia.
The great tragedy is that Sharia Law prohibits the development of comprehensive private property institutions.
Iraq had been the only secular state in the Arab world. Over the course of the next century or so, it might have been possible to engage in some land reform there.
Now it is an Islamic theocracy based on Sharia law.
Jer & Stevie05: Going
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 10:45 ET by BDJer & Stevie05:
Going back to topicality and covering what was posted above. You will note that Coulter more than adequately covered the rationale for invasion of Iraq which I have enunciated for years on this page. To wit, installing democracy (Of virtually any form) in the key LOC in the kiddle east will counter the ideology of Islamo fascism.
She was was fantastic at explaining this concept to the CNN audience and you will note Sanchez made no effort to try and rebut, because it is impossible to rebut this...
"To wit, installing
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:07 ET by BlakeR"To wit, installing democracy (Of virtually any form) in the key LOC in the kiddle east will counter the ideology of Islamo fascism."
This contradicts the beliefs of ALL of our founding fathers on the topic.
I included a link to federalist No.10
--Alexander Hamilton
--James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (arguing in favor of a constitutional republic)
-- John Adams, 1814
-- Duke of Northumberland, 1931
-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
This HARDLY contradicts my
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 14:14 ET by BDThis HARDLY contradicts my position.
You can either subscribe to order being generated out of chaos via a democratic republic (Can happen)
Or
You can ascribe democratic republic being generated by order.
THe first is much more proven than the latter. Our early years were hardly filled with order, rather they were chaos.
The founding fathers
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 15:38 ET by BlakeRThe founding fathers clearly state that chaos does not become order through democracy.
It completely contradicts you.
Chaos does not become order
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:45 ET by BDChaos does not become order through democracy?
Damn, you better tell that to old Nicolae Ceauşescu of Romania who ended up with a double tap to the head after Romania threw off its chains and had sought democracy. In the early days of Democracy in Romania things were pretty friggin chaotic.
As were the early days of a couple of French Republics but democracy over time brought order.
Samd-same Germany and Japan in 1949-60.
The prime mover of freedom
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 15:41 ET by BlakeRThe prime mover of freedom and liberty is private property not democracy. Edmund Burke
Democracy had never brought about private property development. There are NO instances of democracies evolving into constitutional democracies.
The progression in Europe was dictatorship/Monarchy progressing to a constitutional Monarchy and then to Constitutional democracy.
In EVERY case, the democracy came last.
Please look closer to the
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:50 ET by BDPlease look closer to the time immediately post WWII - end of the cold war for your proofs.
Prime examples include:
1.) - ROK.
2.) - Japan.
3.) - Germany
4.) - Philippines.
Address each and explain how they came about in the current manner from no-chaotic backgrounds.
Germany is part of
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:07 ET by BlakeRGermany is part of Europe. It inherited all of the land institutions that formed during feudal Europe and went through the general progrssion of dictator/Monarchy to Constitutional Monarcy to Constitutional democracy. The Nazis only ruled for about 15 years.
There is only one place outside of Europe (that includes the United States and Israel and others that came out of Europe) where there has been constitutional development, and that is Japan (the Meiji restoration which began in the 1860s -- well before we ever arrived on the scene to hold elections in the 1940s.) and that was due to extremely unique circumstances.
They copied the European land code almost verbatim. The militarists only ruled for about 15 years as well.
Since Korea was part of the Japanese empire it experienced some development as well (the Kabo reforms which began in the 1890s) -- even though the Koreans were not treated well by the Japanese.
None of these places are models for Iraq and the Middle East or for that matter the rest of Asia, or for that matter the Philippines -- which has a lot of problems.
Germany is part of
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:47 ET by BDGermany is part of Europe.
It inherited all of the land institutions that formed during feudal Europe and went through the general progrssion of dictator/Monarchy to Constitutional Monarcy to Constitutional democracy.
There is only one place outside of Europe (that includes the United States and Israel and others that came out of Europe) where there has been constitutional development,
Since Korea was part of the Japanese empire it experienced some development as well
None of these places are models for Iraq and the Middle East or for that matter the rest of Asia, or for that matter the Philippines -- which has a lot of problems.
Truly amazing. You can't
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:57 ET by BlakeRTruly amazing.
You can't dicount the Meiji Restoration or the Kabo reforms or feudal Europe.
The constituional orders that formed in these areas formed over a period of decades. And they did not form because of elections.
It is amazing that anyone who calls themselves a Republican would love democracy for its own sake, completely ignore Edmund Burke who noted the source of freedom is private property, and fail utterly to understand that Sharia law prohibits the development of private property.
It's like arguing with a liberal.
Wait, wait, wait.... What
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:00 ET by BDWait, wait, wait....
What is your position:
Please be clear...
It is freedom that cannot
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:17 ET by BlakeRIt is freedom that cannot be achieved outside of constitutional development. The type of land reform that goes into constituional development takes decades under the best of circumstances.
That type of development requires an extremely stable environment which elections do not create.
It very easy to achieve democracy without constitutional development.
The prime mover of constitutional development is private property which developed because of land autonomy.
Suppose you have a non-tribal consolidated nation state with a group of Knights who share a national identity and who have a King that is in many ways a dicatator.
The King has overwhelming power and the Knights swear allegiance to him, but the Knights have their own armies and autonomy over a fair amount of land.
If a lot of them get upset about something the King is doing, say two thirds, and they pass a proclamation, then a group that has control over a lot of land is telling the King they don't like something. He has to give that some attention. If the Knights didn't have any power, the King would just blow them off.
The idea that you can put up parliaments that don't represent property owners, and I mean property with a comprehensive set of rights, and expect that to be real check on the sovereign -- it just doesn't make any sense.
Please illuminate more on
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:29 ET by BDPlease illuminate more on your theorem of consitutional development. What does it mean to you?
How about pre-constitutional USA or Canada?
Well countries that came
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:54 ET by BlakeRWell countries that came about because of a migration from Europe can be included in the European model.
The United States developed from a Constitutional Monarchy (Great Britain) into a Constitutional democracy. Australia as well.
You just don't get to constitutional democracy by skipping from dictatorship to democracy. There aren't any instances of it.
Okay, okay, I finally get it!
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:40 ET by BO STINKSYou are one those that likes to redefine WORDS! Sheesh, it took too long to expose you. We are guilty of taking you way, way too seriously.
Btw, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, right?
"Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda." ~Ann Coulter
What part of going from
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 21:31 ET by BlakeRWhat part of going from Constitutional Monarchy to Constitutional democracy don't you get?
What part of requiring constitutionsl development during the Monarchy before you bring in Democracy don't you get?
And what part of the fact that constitutional monarchies take several deceades to form is so difficult.
And what any of this has to do with redefinition of words only you seem to know.
"There is only one place
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 21:37 ET by BlakeR"There is only one place outside of Europe (that includes the United States and Israel and others that came out of Europe) where there has been constitutional development."
That's straight from about 8 comments up if your trying to claim I didn't address it.
It's hard to tell what your talking about.
Blake, honey,
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 21:41 ET by BO STINKSthis is too much fun! You are gonna pop a vein there, big boy.
"Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda." ~Ann Coulter
Ha! Time for the 3rd
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 22:15 ET by BlakeRHa!
Time for the 3rd period.
And the importance of the
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 23:21 ET by BDAnd the importance of the constitutional developmennt is?
Particularly when most democratic governments operated without it for extended periods of time?
When a country has gone
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 23:40 ET by BlakeRWhen a country has gone through significant land reform for several decades already (and in Europe for hundreds of years) a 15 year period is a blip. And even during those periodic backslides into an authoritarian mode, a lot of private institutions can remain.
I can see what's going on with you and most others, but I enjoyed checking in and putting up the comments anyway.
For decades now, there is nobody in the Democrat Party I can think of that has put together a cogent argument for why force should or should not be used. That is why Republicans should have the upper hand in this area.
Liberals don't seem to understand the concept of private property. Why Republicans forgot about its importance in foreign affairs is a mystery.
Like I said before, Newsbusters and most of the commentors here did more to put Barrack Hussein Obama in the White House than any Democrat campaign. The Democrats just aren't competent enough to put somebody in the White House by themselves.
Whats this nonsense about
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 00:02 ET by BDWhats this nonsense about land reform when discussing emerging democracy? So, you are saying that an urban society with no previous country can adopt democracy or adhere to it?
That will be news to Hong Kong prior to turn over to China and Singapore....
Exactly HOW did we contribute to B Obama's presidential run?
As UpNorth said, who ever
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 00:40 ET by Scuba DudeAs UpNorth said, who ever said that we were pushing a "Jeffersonian Democracy" in Iraq? Who knows what type of Democracy will take hold in Iraq. It could be a Direct Democracy along the lines of Switzerland, or a Parliamentary Democracy along the lines of the UK, Germany, Spain or Italy or it might be a Presidential Democracy simliar to the US or France.
But enough of the deflection. A lib like you are trying to say Ann Coulter is bad for conservatives because she is smacking you and you "progressive" comrades around so much you head is hurting. And as I said before, your reverse psychology will not work. We are to smart to fall for you tricks.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
You are coming up with
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:13 ET by BlakeRYou are coming up with different names for constitutional democracy.
There is only one place outside of Europe (that includes the United States and Israel since they cam out of Europe) where there has been constitutional development, and that is Japan (the Meiji restoration which began in the 1860s -- well before we ever arrived on the scene to hold elections in the 1940s.) and that was due to extremely unique circumstances.
They copied the European land code almost verbatim.
Since Korea was part of the Japanese empire it experienced some development as well (the Kabo reforms which began in the 1890s) -- even though the Koreans were not treated well by the Japanese.
None of these places are models for Iraq and the Middle East or for that matter the rest of Asia.
Jer & BlakR
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 01:52 ET by MrShyDemocracy:
By far, the best model we have going for peace in our world, functioning countries/states, and the freest and most thriving/productive societies/cultures for it's citizens.
All others:
Suck and ultimately fail. They lead to poor quality of life for it's citizens, at best, and complete chaos and constant death/bloodshed/violence, at worst.
How else can we make things any clearer?
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
There are an awful lot of
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 02:00 ET by BlakeRThere are an awful lot of publications and polticians that use the word democracy when they really mean constitutional democracy.
The United States is a democracy.
Democracy spreads freedom.
The word constitutional is implied -- which is too bad because the word constitutional is not a redundant term. It is actually quite significant.
Authoritarian democracy does not spread freedom. It spreads instability.
Blaker the doofus...
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:10 ET by BO STINKS"The United States is a democracy."
The US is a Constitutional Republic - fixed it for ya. For someone who cuts and pastes quotes from the Founding Fathers, you are incredibly short on reading comprehension. Repent of your gov't indoctrination and read some non-revisionist history books.
"Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda." ~Ann Coulter
If you read that comment a
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:21 ET by BlakeRIf you read that comment a little more carefully, you would note that I am claiming that statements such as "The United States is Democracy," or "Democracy spreads freedom," are frequently stated by people but they aren't actually accurate.
You are quite correct. Unlike the authoritarian Democracy being created in Iraq, the United States, by contrast, is a Constitutional Republic.
Blaker - you have been
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:52 ET by BO STINKSusing the political philosophies of democracy and constitutional republic interchangeably throughout your posts on this thread. That is ignorance gone to seed.
Btw, I don't give a rip whether you think I am 'correct' or not.
"Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda." ~Ann Coulter
"You have been using the
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:01 ET by BlakeR"You have been using the political philosophies of democracy and constitutional republic interchangeably throughout your posts on this thread."
No. It is Ann Coulter, the neocons and a lot of Republicans that have been doing that. Which is a major reason why the Republican Party now has 41 seats in the Senate.
They keep claiming a "democracy" is interchangeable with a "Constitutional Republic" or a "Constitutional Democracy", therefore, we must be giving Iraq something good.
Blaker - this is by far, the most uneducated post
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:07 ET by BO STINKSfrom you so far. Time to act like a man and back up your accusations with source and links
"It is Ann Coulter, the neocons and a lot of Republicans that have been doing that. Which is a major reason why the Republican Party now has 41 seats in the Senate." Especially this little turd of a statement. You pretend to be a REAL conservative.
Now, give us the meat of your beliefs with credible sources. Are you a man or a lib?
"Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda." ~Ann Coulter
Look, you want to support
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:25 ET by BlakeRLook, you want to support the international version of Lyndon Johnson's great society programs. His programs failed utterly. You can't create things for other people that they have to create for themselves.
As well has having no constitutional prospects, Iraq is not a consolidated society.
Funding the Nicaraguan Contras made sense. You had a consolidated group of people that shared the same values and wanted to fight.
But if you picked up some Nicaraguan's from the south, north, east, and west, some pro-government, some anti-government, some opposed to either of those groups, some who were communists, and some who supported various other tribes, put them in a warehouse and gave them the same training, does anyone think your going to have an effective Army?
Yet this is what was attempted in Iraq.
Wth, Blaker????
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:33 ET by BO STINKS"I want...?"
Everything you have posted so far is BS. What I want is for you to back up your bs with sources and links. Time to act like a man. No one on this blog gives a rip about your endless blather without sources!!! Are you really too stupid to understand that or are you just plain afraid?
"Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda." ~Ann Coulter
No, everything I've posted
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:48 ET by BlakeRNo, everything I've posted is basic history.
This is a comments section. You can give an opinion and back it up with some reasons. It's not a research paper. You haven't really addressed any of my comments except to note that I smoke crack and so forth.
Now you want some links?
A good book I've read on it is The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. More info here:
http://www.wikio.com/books/the-future-of-freedom-illiberal-democracy-at-home-and-abroad-revised-edition-0393331520-884468,b.html
There's some basic stuff at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy
And here are some Conservative articles on the fragmentation of Iraq:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/report-sees-recipe-for-civil-war-in-iraq/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/15/time-to-leave-iraq/
Thank you Blaker -
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:55 ET by BO STINKSWill read them. You are a true gentleman - :-)
"Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda." ~Ann Coulter
Blaker
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:04 ET by botgperhaps if you were more cogent, coherent, comprehensive and clear in your postings others might not have to be sooo careful in their reading? try proper punctuation as a start
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
You know doggone well he
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:15 ET by BlakeRYou know doggone well he skimmed over the comment and then wrote something off the top of his head.
Why call more attention to it?
And if the Republicans want
Sat, 02/20/2010 - 23:59 ET by eloAnd if the Republicans want the Democrats to stay in power, they should let Cheney keep talking. http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2010/02/16/john-tantillos-brand-winner-and-loser-john-mayer-and-dick-cheney.aspx
Nonsense. THe truth wins
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:50 ET by BDNonsense. THe truth wins out in the great political debate that is America. And Cheney speaks the truth.
This is too sad
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:25 ET by Yephora" . . . you see a few nuts, often liberals, complaining about Obama's birth certificate . . ."
Shame on you, Ann! That is the equivalent of Bill Maher calling Tea Party protesters 'Just a Bunch of Stupid Cultists'.
Rick, Rick, Rick, Ann ate your lunch and dinner
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 16:22 ET by call me RoyRick Sanchez does it again. This guy is great. I stopped watching CNN when Lou Dobbs left but I was channel surfing and ran across another comedy routine with Rick Sanchez. I bet even Sheriff Joe knows the answer to this one. This is similar to when Rick interrupts a discussion of the potential size of a tidal wave in Hawaii by asking, "By the way, nine meters in English is?" Either he doesn’t know how long a meter is or he doesn’t know how long a meter is. Most everyone knows a meter is about the same unit of length as a yard. A meter is just the basic unit of length in the International System of Units. There are 39.37 inches in a meter. So Rick, a meter is a little longer than a yard? I guess the lesson learned here is : Don’t be using non a that fancy international talk around her on CNN. By the way, comparing yourself to Woodward and Bernstein?? That was great, I could not stop laughing. It was like your not bothering to do any checking about the statements that Limbaugh is accused of saying? Keep up the great comedy.