Back                                                          Understand Who's Talking

When you watch Fox News remember that it is owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch a extremely right wing Neocon who rules his publishing empire with an iron fist and chooses only people who believe in his ideology. So when they say fair and balanced you can believe they are fair to the right and balanced only from the right to the far right.

One of the far right wings angels is Ann Coulter and she is one who I'd like to debunk. I don't know how well you know her but if you've read anything she has ever written, or seen her on TV or in person, you know she is full of venom and extreme hate for any and all Democrats. She will spew and amount of distortions to make her point. An Example of her distortions can be seen in a recent column she wrote. The column was dated 8/25/06:

"This years Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick the American voters into trusting them with national security."  People, if you've been following the senate you'll know that not only has the 9/11 commission recommendations not been implemented but that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have cut national security spending everywhere they could.

"To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror - absolutely in favor of that war - They are adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as 'Iraqi civilians, " even if they are from Jordon, like the now dead leader of al-Qaida, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.  Oh, so they're not mostly insurgents and the new terrorists coming into the country weren't created by our action in going into Iraq in the first place. Then I guess the independent 9-11 Commission is wrong again. I'm glad Ann is so intelligent or I'd still be in the dark. People the misinformation Ann Coulter spews is so profoundly inaccurate it's almost laughable. Let's continue.

"As Howard Dean put it this week. 'The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror.' This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global was on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.

People let's face the real facts: Most of the terror in Iraq right now is according to our own Generals and the new Iraqi government, is not international terrorists but secular violence, bordering on civil war and yes, we are distracted from the real threat of Terrorism.

Since we went into Iraq there have been Terror attacks across the world, all attacking western interests and people. Cells have attacked in Spain, Great Britain, Turkey, Bali, Indonesia, Italy, Israel, and plans were broken up in Canada and other places. The people of the Arab streets have flocked to the great cause of defending Iraq against America and in doing so trained for terror missions across the world.

We pulled a large portion of our troops out of Afghanistan hampering our chances of catching Bin Ladin

We have cut back on defense spending in order to fund the war. Our ports, chemical and nuclear plants, our railroads and transportation systems, power grids, yes and even our borders are willfully under funded. Our first line defenders still can't communicate with each other.

What Ann Coulter doesn't seem to understand (Because she is blinded by hate.) is that the Democrats have been trying (Unsuccessfully, because of the Republican Party's opposition.) to strengthen all of the things I just mentioned and her comparisons were stupid. Italy (Fascism) Germany (Nazism) and Japan were allies. Islamic terrorism is spread throughout the world and Iraq was if anything a buffer against Iran and Syria two countries who definitely support terror. The most dangerous Moslems are the Shiite who were under the heavy foot of Saddam Hussein. Now they are free to join Iran or al-Quida in their fight against us.

She goes on to condemn the Democrats for asking that the Patriot Act be reviewed before being renewed. Not one person in either house said it shouldn't exist only that it may have needed changes to protect the rights of Americans and should be reviewed. If we have been watching how the Executive Branch has been withholding information from the House and Senate, classifying almost everything. You'll realize just how dangerous to much power in to few peoples hands can be.

If you want real information on the house or senate, watch the debates and the votes of both houses on C-Span and C-Span 2. Listen then decide. Your safety may depend on it.     Al

Robert Novak:  After all his complaining about the Democrats use of the filibuster. After saying that it should be abolished because it held up legislation. Robert Novak on a right wing Meeting on C-Span made a statement that if the Democrats took over the house and senate it wouldn't be the end of the world because the Republicans would always have the filibuster. Oh! I see, it's alright to use it if your a Republican but if your a Democrat you shouldn't use it. I didn't understand that till I remembered that Robert is hypocrite. (Do as I say, not as I do).

Another thing I can't figure out is: Why is it that Judith Miller had to spend time in jail for not disclosing her source in the Valerie Plame (The CIA. employee whose identity was leaked.) case, while Robert Novak who disclosed it in an earlier article didn't. They both refused to revel their source but only one spent any time in jail.

8/30/06: About that Valerie Plame leak: We now hear that Richard Armitage was one source of the leak. I say one because the fact that Carl Rove conformed that fact to Robert Novak and also told Reporter Matt Cooper the same thing (See 2 paragraph 3 in article - click link)

The funny thing is that Fox news totally disregards the entire story and only brings up the fact that Armitage was the source of the leak. Then makes a point that the Democrats used the leak to their advantage.

People a leak is a leak. Valerie Plame wasn't undercover at the time but we have to remember that in the past she worked as a liaison in Europe. Anybody who remembers her face and with whom she met will have a lead on other operatives. This could put other agents, still in the field, in danger. These kind of leaks are always dangerous.

9/01/06: Dan K Thomasson of the Scripps Howard News Service in a syndicated editorial claimed that the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak was the (In his words.) "I have never seen a more bizarre, silly, overblown and wasteful affair then the investigation of the leak that identified one-time CIA covert operative Valeria Plame.

I can't disagree with him more. Let's take a look back a few years to another investigation. If you said White Water, you guessed right. In that case after years of trying to bring down Bill and Hillary Clinton the only thing that the Republican Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr could find was a act of consensual sex between adults. They then turned a lie into a criminal offence (What man would admit, in front of his wife and daughter, that he cheated.) That investigation took many years, ended up putting an innocent woman in jail, and cost the tax payers millions.

This investigation was also run by a Republican appointed Special Prosecutor and reveled that along with Richard Armitage also found that Carl Rove verified that Armitage was telling the truth. When confronted by a reporter to confirm that a statement made by a administration official of classified information Rove should have told him that the information he was asking about was classified and warned him of the danger of using it.

It also caught Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. Which makes me wonder what and more importantly why Libby thought he had to lie.

He went on to say that one would think that her being identified would hurt national security. He said this in a snide way, meaning that it wasn't, since she was not at the time undercover. I explained earlier why it was.

Remember he is a far right leaning writer and is putting his opinions in front of the facts.    Al

8/30/06: Oliver North on Fox News made a statement about Americans who disagree with the war in Iraq are being unpatriotic, (On this I strongly disagree: When you see someone you love doing something that could hurt them does it mean you love them less if you try to stop then from that act? The same goes for your country. You must do what you feel is best for her. Doing anything less would be unpatriotic.) he then went on to talking about the danger Iran posses. People I agree. I've always said that we attacked the wrong country and should right now be in Iran instead of Iraq, but Oliver North is the last one who should be talking about that subject.

Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? I believe he had to be pardoned by Ronald Reagan when he was given a jail sentence for helping the Reagan administration in it's plan of selling illegal arms to Iran and using the money to support the Contras in Nicaragua against the orders of congress.

Retraction: He wasn't pardoned, He was convicted and received a three suspended prison sentence,1200 hours of community service and a $150,000 fine but he was still involved with selling arms to Iran.

Charles Krauthhammer: Recently in a recent article claiming that the lack of support of the war in Iraq would win on the short term and loose in the long term. He made some very misleading statements to support his view.

First he said that the Democrat's anti war policy in the Viet Nam War cost the Democrats the white house for years.  (I guess he forgot that it was Nixon who pulled out of Viet Nam.)

Later on he said "The anti-Viet Nam sentiment left a residual pacifism to intervention and an instinct for accommodation that proved very costly to the Democrats for years to come. The most notorious example was the liberal flight to the 'nuclear freeze'- the most mindless, strategic idea of our lifetime - in opposition to Ronald Regan facing down the Soviet deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe." People what did J. F. Kennedy do in Cuba. As for the nuclear freeze: How many more nuclear weapons would be sitting somewhere in Russia waiting to be sold to terrorists right now if it hadn't been for that freeze. How much more nuclear material would be polluting the earth.

Throughout the article he accused the Democrats of being weak on defense. The truth is that the Democrats have led American in more wars then the Republicans throughout our history but they (Democrats) want to fight smart wars. Iraq was a stupid war, fought in a stupid way by a stupid administration.

It was Eisenhower who halted the fighting in Korea, Nixon who pulled us out of Viet Nam, Ronald Regan who pulled us out of Lebanon and George Bush Sr. who didn't go to Baghdad in the Gulf War.

It was Woodrow Wilson (D) who lead us through the 1st World War. It was Roosevelt (D) who led us through the 2nd World War and Truman (D) who finished it and I believe it was Bill Clinton (D) who took us into Bosnia (To end the genocide.) A war which I have to remind you, caused not the loss of one American life.

Like I've said many times before: He has the right to his opinions but he has no right at all to his facts.

Bill O'Reilly: Early in October I watched Bill (The spin stops here.) {Right} O'Reilly talking to Bob Woodward say that even though he (O'Reilly) believed everything that was in Bob's new book "State of Denial" was true it was being used by the people in America who wanted us to loose the war on terrorism, to push their view that we should pull out of Iraq. People is he a fool or is he just a far right Neocon. The people who are talking about the book don't want us to loose they want us to win. Something we aren't doing now. When we see what a fog the administration is living in we can do something to change the direction and maybe, just maybe, we can salvage victory from defeat. How can the President tell the American people the truth when he can't face it himself.

10/14/06  12:30 a.m.

I can't believe it. I just heard on Fox News that the increased attacks in Iraq are being done to effect the elections here. Thay said that the Iranian Government and the terrorists want the Democrats to win and by demoralizing the American people, they feel the people will vote the Republicans out of office.

What? are they afraid that if the Republicans stay in office, things will stay the same? They have been tearing the country of Iraq apart. They have been able to pull off attacks all over the world. Iran has been able to forge ahead with their nuclear program. The terrorists have been able to recruit at will.

People, the worse thing they could do would be to make sure people of intelligence were put in office, The worse thing they could do was force us to vote in the Democrats.