Ann Coulter on 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom C.

Member.
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Messages
734
Location
Southern Maryland
How 9-11 Happened
Ann Coulter
March 31, 2004
We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:
PRESIDENT CARTER, Democrat
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.
Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.
PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN
The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.
In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.
President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.
Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.
In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.
Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.
On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.
Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."
Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.
PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN
In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.
President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, Democrat
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN
Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.
What a surprise.
 
President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed

A contention as ludicrous as saying that Jimmy Carter "allowed" the sun to rise.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Wrong. It was 18 April 1983. Security was lax, the embassy was a sitting duck. Col. James Mead, commander of the 1200-man US Marine Corps force in Beirut, declared shortly after the attck: "The embassy was not adequately protected. There was no way an unidentified vehicle with an Arab driver should have been allowed in."

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

The fighting in Lebanon escalated, and the US intervened by training and equipping the Lebanese army, which was increasingly being perceived as a pro-Christian, anti-Muslim force. By later summer of 1983, our Marines were being targeted by snipers and mortar fire. By September 1983 President Reagan authorized Marine commanders to call in air strikes and naval bombardment in support of the Lebanese army against Muslim militias. He did this over the advice of SecDef Cap Weinberger.

On 23 Oct. 1983 a lone Muslim drove a truck laden with explosives through a parking lot, past two Marine guard posts, through an open gate, and into the lobby of the Marine HQ building, where he detonated the equivalent of six tons of explosives, killing 243 Marines. He was able to do this because security around US installations in Lebanon was *still* lax.

The CIA had specifically warned the Marines three days before the attack than an Iranian-linked group was planning an attack against them. For his part, Reagan blamed the failure on Carter - who had been out of office two and a half years by that point.

Here the Marines were in a war zone, but the Rule of Engagement under which they operated made defending themselves problematic. Guards outside the Marine HQ were prohibited from carrying loaded weapons. One Marine sentry explained: "First you shout 'Stop!' Then if he doesn't stop, you can load your weapon and shoot at the vehicle and try to hit the tires. If that doesn't stop him, then you are allowed to shoot at the driver."

Coulter either doesn't know these facts or doesn't want to discuss them because they reflect so poorly on her hero, Ronald Reagan.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Wrong. Within days the CIA and FBI concluded that Al Qaeda was responsible. The CIA developed intel that bin laden and his boys would meet on 20 August. Clinton order an attack with 75 missiles to try and take out bin Laden, unfortunately missing.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Misleading. The record shows that Clarke was convinced that it was Al Qaeda and urged that Clinton take strong action. Other presidential advisors were not convinced that it was Al Qaeda, and no retaliatory strikes were launched.

I suppose that Bush could have retaliated for the attack on the USS Cole, but as he admitted to Bob Woodward that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency,†about terrorism before 9/11.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics,

"Won"? Those wars aren't close to being over yet, Ann.

So Ann Coulter gets it wrong again.

What a surprise.

Indeed what a surprise.
 
Works for me...

Does this change your mind idd? :p

gun.jpg


;) ;)

No? :(

Oh well...:rolleyes:

Il Duce
 
Reading Ann Coulter is a guilty pleasure I allow myself. I never reference her or use her for a source during discussions because she is so hated by the left.

Just the mention of her name sends libs into hissy fits. Any point or FACT you are pointing out is lost in the vitriol that is spewed against her.




edit for spelling
 
Last edited:
She is usually spot on and fact-checked. Unfortunately she simply built a house of cards here. Her anti-Democrat rant is a little short on facts and high on rant. She could do better.

And GoRon

Yes, I also guiltily indulge but was under-impressed with this one.
 
I do not like Ann Coulter but I think she is right that Clinton's response to terrorism was anemic. A few cruise missiles were not enough we should have invaded. We should have at least supported Masood (north alliance leader) before Usama assasinated him. Clinton reportedly had some plans for going in and killing/capturing Usama(one would have use american trained Pakistani rangers) but were rejected for poor intelligence.

Bush did no better until 9-11 though. Nobody took terrorism serious enough really.
 
I agree with a lot of what Ann has to say, but the level of vitriol in her comments greatly undermines her credibility IMHO.
 
Bush did no better until 9-11 though. Nobody took terrorism serious enough really

Per my Libertarian leanings, hell, even my right leanings, Bush isn't exactly my favorite politician, but it bears mentioning that the Bush Administration's staff did not have the full 8 months and eleven days to "do better" before 9-11.

They were still replacing Clinton admin people in key positions and teams up until the summer of 2001 because of the whole Florida election ruckus. The Bush admin lost the time before the inauguration to start picking and offering jobs to people prior to Jan 1.
 
I do not like Ann Coulter but I think she is right that Clinton's response to terrorism was anemic. ... we should have invaded.

"Should have invaded"? Which country? Sudan? Qatar? Afghanistan? All of the above? (And by "we" you really mean "somebody else", right? As in the real warriors in uniform and not the armchair generals/cheerleaders here at home. Real easy to advocate war when someone else's life and limb are at stake.)

We should have at least supported Masood (north alliance leader) before Usama assasinated him.

The record shows that the US gov did support Ahmed Shah Massoud with arms and money before he was assassinated.

but it bears mentioning that the Bush Administration's staff did not have the full 8 months and eleven days to "do better" before 9-11.

I don't really buy that excuse. The US had solid intelligence going back to 1995 that militant Islamic terrorists were developing plans to use airplanes as missiles to destroy significant targets inside the US. During the spring and summer of 2001 they were getting more and more intel about Al Qaeda planning a massive attack. We don't have the full story.

They were still replacing Clinton admin people in key positions and teams up until the summer of 2001 because of the whole Florida election ruckus.

Which "key people" specifically would you be referring to?

Nobody took terrorism serious enough really

Some people did, but they were ignored, or their job demoted.

I agree with a lot of what Ann has to say, but the level of vitriol in her comments

It's not even her tone or style. She's just so clearly out of her depth.

If you really want to wrap your head around this issue, read Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (The Penguin Press: New York, 2004).
 
I have never read any of her books, I have her on my Yahoo home page so I read her column every week.

She is a bomb thrower for sure. From what I've read and seen of her, she isn't concerned about being liked by either libs or conservatives. She no longer is on the National Review website because of some of her comments.

Personally I like her and enjoy her columns. Usually she is attacked with ad-hominem attacks and complaints about her accuracy. She has a website that she has used to answer the so called inaccurate statements.

She calls them as she sees them.
 
In any case, I'm glad Ms. Coulter is out there spewing the far right rhetoric. At least it helps a little bit to counter the mountains of far left rhetoric.
 
(And by "we" you really mean "somebody else", right? As in the real warriors in uniform and not the armchair generals/cheerleaders here at home. Real easy to advocate war when someone else's life and limb are at stake.)

So you think we should have a military dictatorship? So only soldiers can decide when we go to war? Or just a military council to decide where and when to send the troops? Because we wouldn't want those armchair generals in Congress to decide to declare war by themselves. :rolleyes:
 
cheygriz

Just check his profile....almost all his posts are L&P

Just enough General Discussion posts to make you believe he has an interest in firearms;)
 
Quote from chevygriz:

"As for Annie: YOU GO GIRL!!! Keep on driving the extreme left wing Kennedy-Kerry loonies up the wall!"
_____________________________________________________

Amen Bro. Beer-Chug.png



Hook:D
 
There you go again, ad-hominem attack on Ann's integrity coupled with the insinuation that Hillary ( I just found the billing records ) Clinton is an honest individal.
 
Bush on 9/11

bush-911-0m55.jpg

55 seconds after hearing that America was under Attack.

bush-911-4m35.jpg

4 minutes, 35 seconds after hearing that America was under Attack.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable
April 5, 2004
By PHILIP SHENON


WASHINGTON, April 4 — The leaders of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks agreed Sunday that evidence gathered by their panel showed the attacks could probably have been prevented.

Their remarks drew sharp disagreement from one of President Bush's closest political advisers, who insisted that the Bush and Clinton administrations had no opportunity to disrupt the Sept. 11 plot. They also offered a preview of the difficult questions likely to confront Condoleezza Rice when she testifies before the panel at a long-awaited public hearing this week.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/politics/05PANE.html
 
Looks to me like he's thoughtfully pondering the situation.

And his acts over the next few days were absolutely spot on what most people at the time thought they should be, so he clearly can, and did, deal with the situation in an appropriate manner.

What are you expecting that he should have done in the first five minutes? Signaled for his aide to bring over the "Football" and authorized a launch against random targets in the Middle East?
 
Last edited:
w4rma, may I point out that the first plane hitting the WTC was viewed by many - including myself - as a tragic accident? It's only when the second plane hit that it was realized that this was no accident, but a deliberate attack. So the President didn't look alarmed when informed of the first plane? Neither would I have been alarmed - distressed, yes, sorry, yes, but not alarmed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top