Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Franny Ward – Part One

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 30, 2006

In this comment thread over at Katey’s Cafe, I found an interesting confrontation directed at me:

P.S. Q: RightwingRocker,are you for real? I am not a fan of the Clintons or Democrats in general, but Ann Coulter? Bill O’ liely? These two idots are nothing more than well paid blathermouths for the Chimp.
Franny Ward | Homepage | 09.29.06 – 10:00 am | #

I responded with a short but simple reply:

They’re actually both right a whole lot more often than idiots who go around calling the President “the Chimp”.RWR
RightWingRocker | Homepage | 09.30.06 – 4:56 pm | #

Which, of course, is true. I doubt Franny was speaking the truth when she said she wasn’t a fan of the Clintons or of Democrats in general, because “the Chimp” is a reference that comes primarily from Kos and DU, sites that could drown people in the Kool-Aid.

Of course, it’s highly doubtful Franny even knows anything about Coulter or O’Reilly, as both disagree with the President quite often. But what of my assertion that they’re usually right? Let’s see, shall we? First, the lovely (though grotesquely skinny) Ann Coulter

September 27, 2006It’s just like old times. Bill Clinton delivers an impassioned speech, and within 24 hours the Web is bristling with documentation, establishing that nearly every sentence was a lie.

Too bad the Web wasn’t around during the Clinton years. We might have avoided the eight years of bullshit that we were subjected to.

The glassy-eyed Clinton cultists are insisting their idol’s on-air breakdown during a “Fox News Sunday” interview with Chris Wallace was a calculated performance, which is a bit like describing Hurricane Katrina as a “planned demolition.” Like an Osama tape, they claim he was sending a signal to Democrats to show them how to treat Republicans. Listen up, Democrats: Let’s energize the undecideds by throwing a hissy fit on national television!

There are even conservatives doing this. It’s not just the Kool-Aid drinkers. Coulter is right.

The Clintonian plan for action apparently entails inventing lunatic conspiracy theories, telling lots of lies, shouting, sneering, interrupting, and telling your interlocutor, “(Y)ou’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever” – all for asking a simple question. To wit: “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaida out of business when you were president?” The only thing Clinton forgot to say to Wallace was, “You’d better put some ice on that.”

Well, Clinton did tell lots of lies, shout, sneer, interrupt, and say everything that was quoted. Coulter is right again.

Let me be the first to welcome Chris Wallace to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! If the son of Mike Wallace is a member, can Chelsea be far behind?

Again, Chris Wallace has never been particularly conservative. Coulter is right again.

According to Wallace, Clinton’s aide, Jay Carson, demanded that the interview be stopped a few minutes into Clinton’s tantrum – just before the part where he threw the lamp at Wallace. The last time Clinton got that red in the face, the encounter ended with a stained dress. Even Muslims thought Clinton overreacted. But the Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers tell us this was a masterfully planned set-piece by their leader.

Right again. Are we beginning to see a pattern here, Franny?

I also think Jessica Savitch’s slurred, incoherent broadcast on “NBC Nightly News” in October 1983 was intentional. Others say it was drug-addled breakdown that ended her career, but obviously Savitch intended to speak in garbled gibberish on air as a brilliantly executed prelude to her death in a ditch weeks later.

This is an illustration of Coulter’s point of view with regard to how stupid she thinks the idea that this was planned is. There’s nothing in this quote that she claims to be factual. It’s her absolutely BRILLIANT sarcasm at work – one of the many reasons people like her. Coulter continues on this pattern, reminding us that there are many silly things that people could say happened on purpose. Then she quotes a Clinton lie:

Clinton yelled at Wallace: “What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”

Clinton DID say that, so she rebutted:

This is so crazy it’s worthy of an Air America caller. Clinton has consistently misrepresented the presidential directive about political assassinations. Clinton did not order bin Laden assassinated. He did not even lift the ban on intelligence agencies attempting to assassinate bin Laden.What he did was lift the ban on political assassinations – provided that assassinating bin Laden was not the purpose of the mission. So if U.S. forces were engaged in an operation to capture bin Laden, but accidentally killed him, they would not be court-martialed.

Again, she’s 100% correct, unless, that is, someone can show that he did something more. I haven’t seen anything to that effect.

Clinton said, “All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much – same people.” As proof, he cites his humiliating withdrawal from Somalia, claiming, “They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in ‘Black Hawk down,’ and I refused to do it.”He added, as if it mattered, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with ‘Black Hawk down.'”

In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton’s transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander “nation-building” exercise – something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

Right again. Clinton lies. Ann corrects the record. Looks to me like she’s doing America an important service.

Democrats long to see American mothers weeping for their sons lost in a foreign war, but only if the mission serves absolutely no national security objectives of the United States. If we are building a democracy in a country while also making America safer – such as in Iraq – Democrats oppose it with every fiber of their being.

There is more than ample evidence that this could be true. Just listen to the likes of John Murtha or the Sheehag sometime. These people are looked up to for their “courage” by Democrats everywhere, so yeah, I’d say that Ann definitely has a point, at the very least.

When Clinton’s “nation-building” in Somalia led to the brutal killing of 18 Americans, some of whose corpses were then dragged through the streets, Clinton did what the Democrats are currently demanding we do in Iraq: He cut and ran.


Republicans didn’t like that either, and it had nothing to do with whether it was al-Qaida we were running from. It could have been Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, al-Dawa or the Viet Cong. We ran, and the terrorists noticed.


Osama bin Laden told “ABC News” in 1998 that America’s humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”If this is the message that Clinton is hoping to telegraph to the American people, I hope the voters are listening.

I hope they’re listening, too. I defy anyone to find ONE false statement in this piece, save from the obvious illustrative sarcasm, which was simply Ann demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

I’ll deal with an O’Reilly article at a later date. In the meantime, enjoy!



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: