Coulter on Democrats' reaction to Hamdan decision: "[Y]ou just expect Democrats to side with Al Qaeda"
On Your World with Neil Cavuto, Ann Coulter commented on the Democratic reaction to the Supreme Court decision prohibiting the use of military commissions for the trial of detainees at Guantánamo Bay: "[Y]ou just expect Democrats to side with Al Qaeda." Coulter also stated that she couldn't "imagine that this country could have won World War II if this is the way one of the parties was behaving."
On the June 29 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter commented on the Democratic reaction to the Supreme Court decision issued that morning in which the court prohibited the use of military commissions for the trial of detainees at Guantánamo Bay: "[Y]ou just expect Democrats to side with Al Qaeda." Host Neil Cavuto remarked that upon hearing the decision, "the Democrats are lining up like jets on a runway, declaring this is proof that the president is bungling the war on terror," while showing a clip of a press event with two Democratic senators and one Republican senator: Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Arlen Specter (R-PA). Coulter asserted that she couldn't "imagine that this country could have won World War II if this is the way one of the parties was behaving. ... [T]he culture of treason right now ... has become so pervasive that you just expect the Democrats to side with Al Qaeda."
Despite admitting that she hadn't "read the decision yet," Coulter opined that during wartime, the "Constitution vests the entire commander-in-chief powers" in the president, removing any "checks and balances." Coulter continued: "[T]o have the Supreme Court second-guessing, rearranging military tribunals is about on the order of them coming in and disputing troop movements, and when and where a daisy cutter will be dropped." Coulter wondered "how the president can get around the decision, or whether he should simply ignore it," but declined to offer the president specific advice on how to do so because she didn't "know the details of the decision."
Responding to Cavuto's question about why the Supreme Court decision didn't affect the stock markets, Coulter replied that the Supreme Court ruling is "not going to help in the war on terrorism," adding that she doesn't "think that the market has incorporated it, but when there's another terrorist attack, the market will incorporate it."
Earlier on June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration did not have the statutory or constitutional power to set up "military commissions" to try detainees held at Guantánamo Bay and that, as a New York Times article reported, the commissions "violated both American military law and the military's obligations under the Geneva Conventions." The case was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver. The military commissions, as The Washington Post noted, afford the detainees with "fewer rights than they would get in federal courts or regular military courts."
From the June 29 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers wasting no time using today's Supreme Court decision to gain some political points. They were lining up like jets on a runway, declaring this is proof that the president is bungling the war on terror. Reaction now from Ann Coulter and, of course, the author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism, the most widely read book in all of the USA. Ann, good to have you.
COULTER: Thank you, good to be here.
CAVUTO: Let me give you some reaction today from Senator Ted Kennedy. He was saying Ann, "This decision is a stunning repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless behavior at Guantánamo. As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and [Defense] Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war." What do you think?
COULTER: I can't imagine that this country could have won World War II if this is the way one of the parties was behaving in those circumstances. And the way newspapers are behaving. I mean, the culture of treason right now, it just -- it has become so pervasive that you just expect Democrats to side with Al Qaeda.
I mean, this is an appeal, a habeas corpus appeal, from a member of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's driver complaining about the procedures of his court martial or military tribunal. And, instantly, I mean, I haven't read the decision yet, I have a general idea what the case was about, but I haven't read the decision. Trent Lott hasn't read the decision, but instantly the Democratic senators are siding with the Al Qaeda petitioner.
CAVUTO: Do you think that this is going to put pressure on the president to shut this place down?
COULTER: From what I understand, and I haven't read the decision yet. It only came out today, and I've been kind of busy promoting a book.
CAVUTO: You have a book out?
COULTER: From what I understand, it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the procedures of the military tribunals --
CAVUTO: Right.
COULTER: -- so I suppose the president could say, "OK, no military tribunals, we'll just keep you there for life --
CAVUTO: I'm just wondering, Ann --
COULTER: -- hope you like that chicken l'orange."
CAVUTO: The events we had earlier with The New York Times and releasing the terror network financing and how we're trying to track it down, and then this decision today -- many have kind of coupled these events and said we're kind of ceding one to the bad guys. What do you think?
COULTER: Yes, I do think it's part of the culture of treason that the country had during the Vietnam War for the first time but did not have at all during World War II. Because I haven't read the decision, not speaking specifically of the decision but generally, the Constitution makes the president commander in chief. You do want for normal laws and lawmaking and for rules governing American citizens, you do want checks and balances, you want to slow the process down. You want more innocent, or rather, more guilty to go free than innocent to be imprisoned. You're constantly erring on the side of not putting people in prison, of releasing the guilty. In wartime, all of that is reversed. That's why the Constitution vests the entire commander-in-chief powers in one man, not in branches, not with checks and balances. For the commander-in-chief powers, one man has that because you have to act quickly and decisively in wartime, and to have the Supreme Court second-guessing, rearranging military tribunals is about on the order of them coming in and disputing troop movements, or when and where a daisy cutter will be dropped. This is part of the war, the military tribunals. I don't know the details of the decision, how the president can get around the decision, or whether he should simply ignore it, given that the Constitution makes him commander in chief, and not the Supreme Court commander in chief --
CAVUTO: But, let me ask you about that --
COULTER: But, this sounds like a pretty serious decision.
CAVUTO: OK. Let me ask you about that, Ann. Let's say it was as big a deal as you have claimed it is. And other Republican senators, by the way, were echoing your exact point today, as was the president. Now, I know the market was up for a host of reasons, including hope that maybe the Fed is done raising interest rates. If there was this fear that we just ceded the terror fight to the bad guys, would we have been up so much today?
COULTER: I think they're completely unconnected because, I must say, as testy as I am with the Supreme Court and The New York Times -- which I think should be looked at for a treason charge, by the way -- when I heard your introduction today hearing about the market, I must say, I was a little elated. So, if that's my reaction, no, I think the two were completely unconnected, and perhaps once it sinks in -- I mean, these -- revealing a classified program that has been used to catch terrorists, to follow them, to track them, to see where they're going, to give this sort of information to Al Qaeda isn't going to have an effect today, it's going to have an effect when there's a terrorist attack. It's going to have an effect on our troops when there are bombings going off. All of this requires money, and now it's going to be easier for terrorists to get their hands on money, to finance operations, thanks to The New York Times. How, depending on how the Bush administration reacts and what precisely the Supreme Court decision held today on military tribunals, that's not going to help the war on terrorism. So, no, I don't think the market will react to that today.
CAVUTO: OK.
COULTER: I mean, senators, myself, we're all sort casting about, trying to figure out exactly what happened today. I don't think that the market has incorporated it, but when there's another terrorist attack the market will incorporate it.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
who supports the man who ignored every warning about al qaeda pre 9-11 and said he didn't think much about osama. and she says: "...or whether he should simply ignore it, given that the constitution makes him commander in chief." duh, commander in chief, yes. dictator, no. this woman is a lawyer?
called coulter a loon for nothing!
... I forced myself to watch the entire interview today.
I think I strained my uvula saying the C-word too loud too many times.
Talk about vulgar and offensive. During the Vietnam War it was the Yippies and other groups of their ilk who did the outrageous things. This time around it's the hard right.
Congress and the Executive are granted "shared powers" in war matters, and Coulter seems to miss that point. But maybe more importantly, the Supreme Court refuted Bush's arguments for surveillance without judicial oversight according to FISA. Check out Glenn Greenwald’s blog at HTTP://WWW.GLENNGREENWALD.BLOGSPOT.COM/
There is a very good explanation-in-brief of the ruling and its implications. Baiscally, the ruling is that Bush violate FISA, broke the law with his secret suveillance program because there is no mention of FISA that would imply Bush could ingnore FISA. Me thinks it is time to start the impeachment proceedings. Never was a president more deserving.
The C has all the rope needed to effectively hang herself - please quit giving her the publicity she craves so much. In this case, silence really is golden. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the downfall of the reich-winger's who'll stick with her as she free-falls into oblivion.
As much as I despise this generate who makes a bundle off of non-arguments, I agree that if we just paid less attention to her, she's go away, like the cockroach she is.
Let's work on getting her disbarred, rather than quoting her.
By the by, I was in a Costco store the other day--and Costco is a Democratic Party contributor--and they had stacks of this whore's latest book. So that's how the publisher sells it: send countless copies to discount stores. Hmmm....
I meant DE generate.
... is REVERSED in this country in wartime?
I see. WE become the enemy. We become LIKE the enemy. We give up everything that makes America GREAT, her freedoms, her equality and due process, her accountability to the people. We become a torturing bloodthirsty remorseless dictatorship under an all powerful Commander in Chief.
I'd like to see a copy of Coulter's Constitution. Mine has NOTHING of this sort inscribed there.
The President's OATH says nothing about protecting the people, or special WAR powers. It says the president MUST uphold THE CONSTITUTION. And all its LAWS.
Oh, and it doesn't matter if the likes of Coulter wets her panties in fear that Al Qaeda might "get her". Her FEAR doesn't mean we have to abandon AMERICA, and become sycophantic lackeys to despotism, as seems to be her need for a "security blanket".
No, America can stand strong, WHILE following the LAWS, and WHILE upholding our Constitution.
I'd like to see a copy of Coulter's Constitution. Mine has NOTHING of this sort inscribed there.
A friend and I have discussed things like this before. Like those inherent contitutional power the President claims to have. We have decided that we all need to contact the White house and get our secret decorder pen. Apparently we didn't collect enough OVALTINE clues to get ours when we where kids. After watching National Treasure it made me wonder if you added that lemon juice to the original copy of the Constitution if that is where Bush is getting it from.
No, America can stand strong, WHILE following the LAWS, and WHILE upholding our Constitution.
Wow, your display of courage is stunning, I am in awe. It's extremely courageous to wish and push for "rulings" that make the job of our soldiers more difficult, and support people, like Bill Keller, who intentionally make the jobs of the soldiers more difficult, all the while doing so from the comfort of your keyboard talking about America standing (on someone else's shoulders) strong . You are courageous indeed!! /s
If your King George had done the right thing, ie: stick to the rule of law and focusing on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, we and our troops would be in very little danger right now. Instead of securing our ports and borders, using the almost universal good will of our allies to rebuild Afganistan and improve the global gathering of intellegence, King George decides to attack Iraq because "they have better targets" (Rumsfeld, 2002), alienating our allies and Abandoning Afganistan (which is now in a civil war with the supposedly defeated Talaban). Here at home, your little dictator will sign a bill into law but makes in clear it doesn't apply to His Royal Highness. He'll eavsdrop and dig into whatever person information he pleases without a court order and we are to simply trust him.
Worst of all though, is the King's insistance that he alone, can order anyone he wishes to be thrown into a secret prison to be tortured, with no hope of ever having his case heard or to even know the charges against him, except for his secret military drumhead which will begin... only His Highness knows when. With this as an example of our shining democracy, tin-pot dictators all over the world can take heart.
BUT, not even the Repug's carefully crafted Supreme Court is buying that last one, ruling that these people must be brought to trial in the light of day, as our law decrees, or released.
Finally, sure, as my son prepares to leave his new-born son and deploy to Iraq, I'm just having a ball behind my keyboard.
Obviously, you are deluded.
FIRST, if knowing America is tracking bank records makes our soldiers jobs more difficult, they can blame BUSH for yakking about it. Olberman had clips of at least SEVEN speeches in which Bush announced we were going after terrorist financing.
Second, our soldiers protect out LIVES only secondary to defending the CONSTITUTION. The CONSTITUTION is what makes our country, and what makes our country GREAT. It is worth protecting to the death, to preserve this nation for our children.
You pants-wetting rightwingers WRONGLY think our soldiers are fighting to protect your own hides. This is not their job. They fight to preserve our NATION, and every enemy OF the Constitution ... which now has been ruled to be BUSH HIMSELF.
Olberman had clips of at least SEVEN speeches in which Bush announced we were going after terrorist financing.
Did any of these speeches include the specific manner that we were doing so, including the cooperating parties?? Of course it didn't because that would have been treasonous and HARMFUL to the troops. Listen, your COURAGE is impressive as you sit at your keyboard making patriotic statements about America standing stong, all the while defending actions that COST SOLDIERS LIVES!! Remember those poor slobs?? Coulter is EXACTLY right, you can depend on people like you to support the VERY SAME policies and rulings and activities that Al Quieda supports. Keller, the Times, NSA Spying, Terrorists' rights and so forth. Again, your "courage" is impressive. Fact is, if you're from Texas as your monikor would seem to indicate, BOTH your Senators supported the liberation of Iraq. If I am going to err, I will do so on the side of the troops and MY COUNTRY and sort out the details AFTER THEY'RE HOME SAFE and I am NOT going to WISH for policies that make their jobs harder and cause MORE to come home in caskets!!
by dropping them into the middle of an occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. His Majesty could have gone through the court or worked quietly behind the scenes with the congress (his constitutional equals in whats left of our democracy) and no one would be the wiser. When your president decided he was above the law, it became the duty of the media to alert us to our eroding freedom.
You are correct: The biggest danger to our troops' wellbeing is the current Administration.
First, NOTHING was done despite numerous warnings about an imminent terrorist attack. 9/11 hit a nation that had taken NO measures to enhance our security.
To this day, there has been NOTHING done about our ports or our borders, to make them more secure, despite SIX SOLID YEARS of monopolistic GOP majority control of Congress AND the presidency. Oh, but there HAS been a large attempt to turn our ports over to foreign countries, ones with ties to terrorism. Great stuff there.
All the reasons given for sending our troops off to fight and die turned out to be false. Once in the field, they were understaffed (generals saying more troops were needed were summarily fired), they had inadequate numbers to secure things like weapons depots, and so they were left unguarded to be looted later by terrorists and insurgents, and there was inadequate armor supplied for troops or their vehicles, which has resulted in many more fatalities and injuries TO our troops than a competent leadership would have allowed.
The list is long of the travesties which this Administration has heaped on our brave fighting men and women, including massive insults to our veterans.
This is NOT an Administration that supports our troops.
the massive cuts in veteran's benifits, the raiding of our state National Guard and the lack of proper body armor for our troops, all while giving tax cuts to the richest Americans.
All the reasons given for sending our troops off to fight and die turned out to be false.
WMD's FOUND IN IRAQ!! Story to follow.....
Admire you "courage!!" /s
If only there were something about your presentation to admire.
So, now you're going to jump onto the already roundly discredited Santorum "There WERE WMDs!" train wreck? Can't blame you. You certainly cannot rebut criticisms of Bush without resorting to falsehoods and asinine assertions.
FYI: It does not denote "courage" to send OTHER people off to die, when YOU are responsible for their support and for the validity of their mission. This administration has failed miserably in the "support the troops" department, and all you can come up with is 20 year-old degraded gas cannisters which were no part of the WMD search in the first place?
This is what defeat looks like.
This is what defeat looks like.
To a defeatist like yourself. This isn't about the WMD's for you, or about the legitimacy of the war, or the reasons for going to war. This is about defeat alright, the defeat at the ballot box of your ideology and you can't handle it with courage and dignity. Instead, you've turned on your own country with whines about anything and everything to the extent that your agenda mirrors that of Osama. Your pathetic doubletalk about WMD's and this new argument about which qualified and which didn't. The allegation was simple enough for even you to understand, THERE WERE NO WMD'S, plain and simple and Bush LIED, remember? Now that they've been found, you move the goalposts.
Like I said, I admire your courage! /s
I mean was that supposed to make sense? Are you saying the terrorists heard President Gump say we are tracking the terrorists financial transactions and said its ok Ahmed he didnt say HOW he was doing it so we can just go about our business as usual? Are you insane? Besides that the information WAS given in detail on a UN website that has already been linked to in previous threads on this subject. Its all so very hard to keep up the rightwing propaganda parrot talking points when they have NO basis in reality isnt it? I mean you are reduced to repeating the same old debunked nonsense over and over pretending it makes sense. Here is a clue you desprately need. No matter how many times you repeat nonsense on Planet EARTH as opposed to Planet Wingnut it never magically becomes true.
No matter how many times you repeat nonsense on Planet EARTH as opposed to Planet Wingnut it never magically becomes true.
LOL, Let me see if I got this right, because your logic in particular is typically quite convoluted. You are suggesting that this information was common knowledge, so the treasonous activities of the NY Times are NOT treasonous at all. Hmmmmmmm...... Apparently the NY Times disagrees with you since their PRIMARY excuse for printing it was the "public's right to know." If the public ALREADY knew, as you foolishly assert, then they really didn't have a NEED to know at all. So I, the NY Times the LA Times and the Washington Post ALL have it wrong, and YOU and the DNC talking points have it right, is that about right??
Was NOT the program but that the Bush administration had bypassed the usual oversight procedures followed when USING this kind of program. This has already been pointed out a couple dozen times or so.
So pointing out that the information did not have to be specific to alert terrorists the program was a danger to them is CONVOLUTED logic???? Only if your ability to understand logic is stagnated at about a ten year old level. I mean it was pretty obvious to me.
I mean it was pretty obvious to me.
Somehow, this doesn't persuade me at all. Fact is, the NY Times released information harmful to our country and our fighting men and women serving around the world, as well as our allies and those entities helping with this program. That's why an overwhelming majority of Americans have indicated in recent polls that they view the actions of the NY Times to be harmful to the country. That's just a fact!! It is expected that you and your ilk would take the side of the NY Times/Al Queida, which is the subject of this thread.
Propaganda parrots like you will continue to spew out the same tired already debunked talking points as if they made sense. The information was already in public domain. Bush told them, the UN website had it SWIFT website had it. The only NEWS was that Bush was bypassing the oversight. Only if you think pointing out potential wrongdoing by the executive branch is harmful to the country could your nonsensical assertion make sense. Then again propaganda parrots gotta do what propaganda parrots gotta do. I cannot help it if logic obvious to any reasonably bright ten year old is far beyond your ability to comprehend. I guess since you have no conception of logic or what a point IS you are beyond hope, that simply isnt my fault. It WAS a valid and cogent point. Probably why you havent even made an attempt to show why it wasnt. Calling it convoluted only shows you are intellectually challenged. It is a straightforward refutation of your silly attempt to pretend that we had to tell the terrorists exactly HOW they were trying to track their financial transactions to alert them to the fact we were trying to track their financial transactions. Just telling them we were trying to track their financial transactions told them WE ARE TRYING TO TRACK THEIR FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS (repetition seems to be the only thing you understand)
Italics off?
close italics
Italics off
I thought she was a failed lawyer not a failed economist. Why is she on an economics program being asked about economics?
Why is she on any show being asked about anything?
Condemn Uncensored Necessary Talk
Concerning U.s. N-abled Torture
Captive Unchristian N-emy "Terrorists"
Can be Used to Nullify Treasured
Constitutional U.s. National Terms of
Creating Unprovoked Nihilistic Throwdown
I'm running out of steam on the Skankyannie acronym runarounds.
in the national discourse where great people arise from obscurity into greatness.
... soldiers who REFUSED orders to work at GITMO, to hold those prisoners, to torture, to humiliate?
Because, see, the UCMJ allows for refusing ILLEGAL orders from on high.
All these years, the Bush Administration has been issuing ILLEGAL orders to our soldiers at Gitmo. Those soldiers would have been completely justified in REFUSING to take those orders.
FURTHER, we now know this Administration orders our soldiers to perform UNCONSTITUTIONAL tasks, in violation of their and the soldiers' oaths of service.
Don't we really need LEADERSHIP which does not give illegal orders to our troops? How can our troops follow orders from a Commander in Chief who does not follow our LAWS?
" In wartime, all of that is reversed. That's why the Constitution vests the entire commander-in-chief powers in one man, not in branches, not with checks and balances. For the commander-in-chief powers, one man has that because you have to act quickly and decisively in wartime, and to have the Supreme Court second-guessing, rearranging military tribunals is about on the order of them coming in and disputing troop movements, or when and where a daisy cutter will be dropped. "
Now, why would that statement be "highlighted"? That makes perfect sense, you don't want the supreme court telling you how to run the war. MMFA makes this statement appear to be "incorrect" or even some "missinformation", but that is exactly right. The President is president for a reason, because someone (one) has to lead the nation when a war happens. Perhaps you should take that into account when you vote for your next president.
Do you really think that military tribunals are analogous to troop movements? That's a rediculous on the face of it. It's simply a statement with no legal basis that designed to appeal to emotion and ignorance.
The majority opinion seemed to accept that Hamdan is an "enemy combatant." However, he must be tried under the existing UCMJ and Geneva Convention rules. The President may be Commander-in-Chief, but neither the law nor the Constitution confers on him the ability to establish new laws and procedures for the purpose of trying Hamdan and others.
If you really want to understand the legal basis for the SCOTUS decision, read the opinion.
The only way to justify making George into a dictator is to trump up this occupation as another WWII, as if we have an enemy army standing across the battlefield, and all we must do is win the campaign and all is well. That way the Repugs and their talking heads will be dropping WWII into every conversation from now until the election. There is also a vital need among the right to cover up King George's crime and misdomeaners for as long as possible.
Fact is, this is a conflict of idealogy which can never be won on any obscure battlefield, or NSA office, or torture chamber. And certainly not at gun point.
Congress has yet to declare war on anyone. Until it does, the President has none of the powers being suggested here. Even if we were at "war" in the official and constitutional sense the President doesn't have absolute power. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus without congressional approval, the supreme court said no. Truman tried to seize steel mills, the Supreme court said no. So this whole argument of the unitary executive in this time of unofficial war on a feeling (terror) is not constitutional, unprecedented in it's scope and it very dangerous to believe otherwise.
Senator Ted Kennedy; "This decision is a stunning repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless behavior at Guantánamo. As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and [Defense] Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war."
Apparently, Senator Kennedy dissagrees with you. Maybe he's been drinking again.
Teddy Kennedy said Congress declared war? No he didnt. So Bigbingtheory's point still stands
That's why the Constitution vests the entire commander-in-chief powers in one man, not in branches, not with checks and balances.
Coulter's implication that only the president has constitutional power over Gitmo detainees is (surprise, surprise) wrong. In wartime, Congress has the authority to "make Rules concerning Captures on land and water."
They are PRISONERS. They are out of the war. The war is OVER for them as long as they are prisoners. The Supreme Court did not say he had to release then only how their human rights were to be applied. THAT is a matter of LAW not of war. You have no point.
Did I hear her right? Culture of Treason That sounds like the title of her next book. Let's see.
CULTURE OF TREASON: Why Liberals Should All Face Firing Squads, by Ann Coulter
This woman is a stick figure with lips!
"Coulter opined that during wartime, the 'Constitution vests the entire commander-in-chief powers' in the president, removing any 'checks and balances.'
Yeah, maybe in a REAL war with REAL president...
Methinks Ann forgets it was the Democrats who won WWI and II.
it was republicans who cut and ran from Vietnam in April 1975.
it was republicans who cut and ran from Vietnam in April 1975.
If facts matter to you, and they probably don't, it was a Democratic Congress that rescinded the authority of the VietNam War on June 24, 1970 when it rescinds the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that was passed in 1964 by a Democratic Congress and was the Congressional authority for the VietNam war, which was based incindentally on a LIE by Lyndon Johnson, also a Democrat. So the facts of the matter are that Democrats STARTED the war, and Democrats made the decision to CUT AND RUN!!
I mean, if facts matter to you!
Dems ended the war in 1970, Nixon continued to fight it until 1975 ANYWAY, but when he brought the troops home its because of what the dems had done FIVE YEARS EARLIER?? Am I really supposed to take that seriously? Your facts seem correct. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution WAS based on a lie for instance. Your attempt at logic however is laughable and thats being kind.
Am I really supposed to take that seriously?
You can do as you wish, but from what I have seen, facts are of little consequence to you. The Paris Peace accords were signed in January of 1973 which called for American troops to leave within 60 days. The subject of the post that I responded to made the allegation that Nixon "cut and ran" from VietNam, when FACTS would clearly show that it was a Democrat Congress that mandated "cut and run" in 1970, just as Democrats are trying to do now. VietNam was started by Democrats in 1964 and didn't have the gonads to continue and decided to cut and run in 1970. That's just the facts of the matter, whether YOU recognize them or not. Do a little research.
who was commander-in-chief ( Gerald Ford (in April, 1975 . When things are good, the responsibility is accepted by the president and flashbulbs go off around him. And don't resort to calling names, as that makes your otherwise sound debate totally irrelevant.
Actually a better one. The peace accords of 73. However the peace accords were negotiated by the EXECUTIVE branch not congress so it still would fall on NIXON not a dem congress. More logical. However your previous argument was silly. IF dems mandated a cut and run policy. Nixon CONTINUED with the we want as many Americans to die as possible policy ( see how easy it is to misrepresent a motive?) for FIVE years, that precludes you claiming with any hope of a reasonable logical basis that dems were responsible for what happened. IF we had come home in 1970 or 71 you would have a point, we didnt , You dont.
However the peace accords were negotiated by the EXECUTIVE branch not congress so it still would fall on NIXON not a dem congress.
Well, his ability to negotiate was severly hindered by the Congressional mandate in 1970 withdrawing his legal authority to fight the war and signaling to Nixon, AND THE WORLD (as they are trying to do again NOW), that we, well a Democratic Congress anyway, didn't have the will or the stomach to continue the war, or more simply put, CUT AND RUN!!
Yet it continued to be fought until 1975. I guess it didnt hamper him all that much. Have you ever heard of the first rule of holes? When you are in one STOP DIGGING. Its time for you to stop digging. You made an attempt at a logical point bereft of logic, you were called on it, time to cut your losses
Yeah, Ann's real brave alright. She regularly harangue people who disagree with her, but you have to sign in to comment on her site, I suppose so she can delete you. She's a real harangueatang.
.....but you have to sign in to comment on her site,
You have to sign on to MOST sites, including THIS ONE!! What's your point??
Now she would probably accuse me of Hate Speech or Terrorism, because I hurt her wittle feelings.
did i miss it? when I happened upon coulter and scarborough on his show, maybe this past monday night, they were responding to criticism of repiblicans for attacking science, by saying how dems had challenged the bell curve when that was published. are they really saying that the scientific evidence in favor of racial genetic inferiority is on the same level as that supporting man-caused global warming?
So mind numbingly ignorant, that it turns listeners brains to the consistancy of oatmeal. Which explains the more extreme rightwingnut posters at THIS site.