Response to "Dems' Favorite Halloween Costume: Patriot"

Coulter has always claimed that Democrats are traitorous because they don't support America in its wars. After all, she wrote a whole book on the topic. In this week's column she tries to make her point by quoting Democrats on … their support of a war?

After some of us began to ask which part of the war on terrorism Democrats support, Larry Kudlow put the question directly to Rep. Barney Frank on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company." Frank said: "What part of the war on terrorism do I support? I voted for war in Afghanistan."

Coulter neglects to mention that she was a guest on this show, so she was able to insult Frank to his face. His complete response actually went like this:

Well, first of all, a very big part, and I am appalled at the extent to which for partisan and ideological debate purposes, Ms. Coulter and others have ignored the war in Afghanistan… I think it was necessary for us to do it … and now I find for partisan purposes, they've made that war disappear.

What part of the war on terrorism do I support? I voted for war in Afghanistan. That was the war that we launched after September 11th. It was Osama bin Laden who engineered September 11th. He was in Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan, tragically, is eroding, and that's, I think, in part because of the war in Iraq. So I very much support that number one war in terrorism in Afghanistan.

Coulter continues:

The one part of the war on terror … Democrats even pretend to support is the war in Afghanistan.

Coulter just quoted Frank as supporting the war in Afghanistan. She also cited Nancy Pelosi’s support and pointed out that virtually every Democrat in Congress voted for the Afganistan war. So how can she justify claiming the Democratic support of the Afghanistan is "pretend?"

Coulter then veers off into territory usually reserved for Miss Cleo by predicting the future in an alternate universe:

If Bush had gone to war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 and waited to attack Afghanistan, Democrats would now be pretending to support the Iraq war while pointlessly carping about Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11! The Taliban didn't attack us! What's our exit strategy? How do you define "victory" in Afghanistan, anyway? It's a quagmire — aahhhhh!

Obviously this is pure conjecture, conveniently drawn to support her own opinions about Democrats. Sorry Ann, you're a lawyer and should know that it’s unethical to manufacture your own evidence.

The beauty of Democrats' pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan is that most people can't remember what liberals said five minutes after they said it, much less five years later.

Now, to support her claims, she needs to pretend that the majority of Americans have inadequate memories. She then makes it sound like Democrats didn't support the war back when it was new:

In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do."

First, that quote was not part of Biden's speech, but was an answer to a question asked at the event — a shameless mischaracterization of what Biden said. Courtesy of The Washington Post, here is the full quote: (emphasis added)

Asked about the risks of failing to defeat the Taliban in the next four weeks, before the onset of winter in Afghanistan, Biden replied that public opinion in the United States and the Muslim world will tolerate continued combat so long as "it is action that is mano a mano … going against other forces on the ground."

He continued, "The part that I think flies in the face of and plays into every stereotypical criticism of us is we're this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do, and it builds the case for those who want to make the case against us that all we're doing is indiscriminately bombing innocents, which is not the truth."

Biden was concerned about the public perception of America by the civilian population at home and abroad, but Coulter distorts what he said to make it sound like he was being critical of the military's efforts.

Coulter continues by claiming Democrats are poor military analysts:

In an Oct. 27, 2001, column titled "How to Lose a War," New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote that the Taliban "are proving Viet Cong-like in their intractability." He stated categorically that "we're losing that battle for Afghan hearts and minds" — proving Rich to be as competent a military analyst as any longtime New York Times theater critic could reasonably be expected to be.

Say, when is the Times going to hire generals to review the latest Broadway offerings? I think more people would like to read Tommy Franks' review of "Rent" than Frank Rich's review of a war.

Never one to pass up an opportunity to slam the New York Times, Coulter seems of the opinion that people are only allowed opinions on a single topic, though apparently she is special and is allowed opinions on pretty much everything. Even though Coulter claims the Taliban were "sent scurrying" only five weeks after the U.S. invaded, it looks like they are back.

In the five years since we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban are still very present in the area, and Pakistan tacitly allows them to operate across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The British were forced to pull out of one area in Afghanistan because they were taking too many losses from the Taliban.

The fighting in Afghanistan has largely been turned over to NATO, and is not going as well as it could. From Time:

Control of Panjwai, which lies so close to the political heart of the Afghan south, is vital, and it seems NATO's hold on the district is slipping. Lieutenant General David Richards called Operation Medusa, a "significant success," but weeks later the Taliban have come back with a vengeance, staging large-scale attacks on NATO bases in the area and scotching NATO claims that they had driven the Taliban out of Panjwai.

Worst of all, the Afghan people may be losing confidence in Western forces:

Akbar Khakrizwal, a tribal elder and former security official in Kandahar city said the Taliban are gaining strength in Panjwai on a daily basis. "For more than four months NATO has been fighting in Panjwai district, " he said, "and they cannot drive 500 Taliban away, or kill them or arrest them. They have the wrong strategy." He contended that NATO troops are playing into the hands of the Taliban. "NATO are very impatient when the Taliban attack them from a residential area and they reply by bombing, and that is what the Taliban want. They want to make NATO look bad."

Ironically, that's exactly what Biden said in 2001, and what Coulter criticizes him for saying in her column this week.

Sources:

October 27th, 2006 Posted by Eric | no comments
| |
del.icio.us:Response to  digg:Response to  newsvine:Response to  fark:Response to  Y!:Response to  gifttagging:Response to