Ann Coulter Compares Iraq to WWII
Rick Sanchez asks their "correspondent on CPAC" (???) Ann Coulter if she thinks the war in Iraq was necessary and she compares the invasion of Iraq to WWII. She actually gets a bit tongue tied when Sanchez asks her if she really meant to make that comparison. It could have been a half way decent interview if Sanchez weren't kissing up to her the entire time. We just got Erick Erickson as a new member of their "best political team on television". Now Coulter?? Geez Louise.
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.
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.
I understand CNN is trying to label themselves as non-biased but to hire the far right fringe of the party seems a little extreme. But to be fair Larry King and Tweety put Maher on.
is intended to be a factual statement
they are failing miserably. They rarely correct a guest when they are outright lying, especially if the guest is a flaming conservatard, their idea of debate is to let two people on the air and let them scream it out-loundest asshole wins, and they seem terrified that someone will accuse them of being part of the "librul media". I quit watching that dreck mid 2008, unless there is a large natural disaster going on somewhere. They cover disasters better than anybody except when that disaster happens to be current American politics.
Lost their lives in WWII, not thousands, and that many, many, MANY families lost loved ones. The whole country sacrificed for WWII, not wearing nylons, rolling bandages, having sugar and other luxuries rationed. We see little effect of Iraq on this country. This war is NOTHING like World War II, except that people are still being killed. But not in the same numbers, and without the same effects on the rest of the country.
Comments are closed on this entry