Bill O’Reilly Challenges Ann Coulter’s Claim That Afghanistan Is Not A Winnable War

What do we win , Bill ?

It’s a primitive country . They play soccer with a goat’s head .
Time to go .

“you don’t abandon ship right now, you play it out.”

I’m confused. Was Bill talking about Afghanistan or Vietnam?

Jon Huntsman is opening his campaign on the Hannity show.

There’s a friggin’ surprise.

I prepared one comment saying Obama is weak on defense if he pulls out, and one saying he is a war monger if he stays in. Which one do I post?

Was Ann against the afghan war six months after the occupation by bush? I don’t recall this.

How about if he pulls out he had a good time but if he stays in he’s gonna be a daddy Thelonious:)

The war in Afghanistan shouldn’t be about winning or losing. It should be about destroying the people and organzation responsible for the murder of approximately three thousand Americans. Thats it. You go in, kill the cavemen and get out. There is no winning, no losing, just bloody revenge and the removal of a threat to our nation.

Thelonious Funk said:
I prepared one comment saying Obama is weak on defense if he pulls out, and one saying he is a war monger if he stays in. Which one do I post?

Both, Then cite the one that works best later.
Page three of the Rovian Rules of R@tf#cking.

BFD said:
Jon Huntsman is opening his campaign on the Hannity show.

There’s a friggin’ surprise.

Don’t worry. Huntsman’s a non-starter.

What’s awesome? I just got an article that I sent to Hotair posted. WOOT WOOT!!!!!!!!!!

WCinWI said:
What’s awesome? I just got an article that I sent to Hotair posted. WOOT WOOT!!!!!!!!!!

This one?

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/06/21/wisconsin-residents-finally-regain-their-second-amendment-rights/

BFD said:
This one?

“Wisconsin liberals are a particularly potent kind of overlord.”

Yeah, this sounds like you.

Ugh, I can’t stand Mr. Pompous. He thinks he’s just so clever. By using O’reilly’s own logic, we should NEVER leave Afghanistan because ELEMENTS of the Taliban (or whatever we’re calling them these days) might come back in. What a stupid foreign policy.

BFD said:
This one?

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/06/21/wisconsin-residents-finally-regain-their-second-amendment-rights/

It must since this person’s blog http://madisonconservative.blogspot.com/ has links to Olbermannwatch.com

BFD said:
This one?

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/06/21/wisconsin-residents-finally-regain-their-second-amendment-rights/

Nope. A Huff Po one. :) On the main page. Party time!!!!!

Fokker News said:
It must since this person’s blog http://madisonconservative.blogspot.com/ has links to Olbermannwatch.com

I don’t live in Madison. Sorry. I live in one of the deepest Red counties in the nation. We have a few. :)

Ann is wrong about the Taliban not bringing Al Queda into Afghanistan, but I agree that it is time to get out. We clipped UBL and sent the Taliban packing, even if only temporarily. We don’t have the money to stay there indefinitely, and we don’t have the money to build a nation over years and years of conflict. Unless we are willing to take on Al Queda in Pakistan (which would be a disaster), it is just a matter of time until they wait us out and then take over. Same thing in Iraq. We would have been better off with Saddam. He would probably have killed Ahmadinejad by now, to keep Iran from getting the bomb if nothing else. Now Iran is the most powerful nation in the region, and there are millions of young men in the region who are willing to take up arms against us because they blindly hate us like a liberal hates Fox News.

Hmm…I think it is no coincidence that “She Pees Standing Up” (that’s her Native American name) puts out a book shortly after “her” hormone treatment in the Netherlands.

WCinWI said:
I don’t live in Madison. Sorry. I live in one of the deepest Red counties in the nation. We have a few. :)

I was born in LaCrosse, had to grow up in Illinois. Lots of family on the west side from Eau Claire to Viroqua, love visiting family up there, what a beautiful state.

david r said:
We don’t have the money to stay there indefinitely, and we don’t have the money to build a nation over years and years of conflict.

The other question is “Build a nation out of what?” Afghanistan truly is the asshole of the planet, which makes it unsurprising that a dingleberry like Osama set up shop there. This is what we’re working with. This is a nation where a bunch of medieval boneheads like the Taliban are popular. This is a nation where a not insignificant portion of the population is cooking their bad food over fires stoked with feces. There is nothing left to win in Afghanistan.

The real reason that we’re still in Afghanistan is Pakistan. And that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

Rio said:
I was born in LaCrosse, had to grow up in Illinois. Lots of family on the west side from Eau Claire to Viroqua, love visiting family up there, what a beautiful state.

I was just in Illinois (Peoria) a couple weekends ago for a family reunion. My mom’s side is from Illinois. My fam has a lake cabin (typical of WI folks) near the middle of the state. I lived in CA for three years while I was going to grad. school and no offense, but nothing (except maybe Florida) beats the Midwest. Flyover country is great. :)

Truly the negatives about WI are only Madison and parts of Milwaukee. You fix that and WI is awesome. Deep-fried cheese is the best. :)

Oenolicious said:
Hmm…I think it is no coincidence that “She Pees Standing Up” (that’s her Native American name) puts out a book shortly after “her” hormone treatment in the Netherlands.

The LGBT community is pissed at you. You are a bad libby, bad! To the woodshed with you!
(I’m curious. Do libs have their membership cards to the Hope and Change Club yanked when they make misogynist or anti-gay remarks?)

slickerwick said:
The LGBT community is pissed at you. You are a bad libby, bad! To the woodshed with you!
(I’m curious. Do libs have their membership cards to the Hope and Change Club yanked when they make misogynist or anti-gay remarks?)

The LGBT community is gonna be mad at Obama. He just came out with a Republican stance. He left gay marriage rights to the states.

WCinWI said:
The LGBT community is gonna be mad at Obama. He just came out with a Republican stance. He left gay marriage rights to the states.

Boy, it must be getting crowded under that bus.

slickerwick said:
The LGBT community is pissed at you. You are a bad libby, bad! To the woodshed with you!
(I’m curious. Do libs have their membership cards to the Hope and Change Club yanked when they make misogynist or anti-gay remarks?)

Uh oh. Anderson Cooper is covering a Keeping them Honest segment about Obama on gay marriage. Doesn’t look good.

bring our people back and use it as a proving ground

WCinWI said:
The LGBT community is gonna be mad at Obama. He just came out with a Republican stance. He left gay marriage rights to the states.

The status of individuals (and corporations) within a state has always been a matter of state law. This is why you establish residency in a state prior to filing for a divorce there. I support gay marriage, but I refuse to watch Gay Divorce Court on TV.

cjd ohio 1 said:
bring our people back and use it as a proving ground

its the best way

Pablo said:
The other question is “Build a nation out of what?” Afghanistan truly is the asshole of the planet, which makes it unsurprising that a dingleberry like Osama set up shop there. This is what we’re working with. This is a nation where a bunch of medieval boneheads like the Taliban are popular. This is a nation where a not insignificant portion of the population is cooking their bad food over fires stoked with feces. There is nothing left to win in Afghanistan.

The real reason that we’re still in Afghanistan is Pakistan. And that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

Do you remember those shocking “man on the street” interviews that Al Jazeera did right after 9/11? The ignorance and hatred of the West is incredible. Nowhere is worse than Pakistan. We’ve been giving them $2B/yr and they were protecting UBL. What a bunch of saps we’ve been.

david r said:
The status of individuals (and corporations) within a state has always been a matter of state law. This is why you establish residency in a state prior to filing for a divorce there. I support gay marriage, but I refuse to watch Gay Divorce Court on TV.

I’m coming around to the issue of gay marriage. I think I approve of it if the church has the right to refuse to marry. God can judge in the end. I take Palin’s approach. It’s a more libertarian bent. I’m just pro-life so I can’t help or change the moral fabric of some of my political decisions. I can respect the rights of individuals though so that’s where I differ. I don’t dislike Huntsman because of his civil union talk. There are several other reasons to not like him.

david r said:
The status of individuals (and corporations) within a state has always been a matter of state law. This is why you establish residency in a state prior to filing for a divorce there. I support gay marriage, but I refuse to watch Gay Divorce Court on TV.

hahahaha……

” I refuse to watch Gay Divorce Court on TV.”…..lol….I think it would be entertaining no?

Anyway in all seriousness I disagree completely to give power to the states on any basic human rights…
would it be marriage,healthcare,abortion,minimum wage,working condition or whatever..
I don’t think any basic right should be put in the hands of a governor because it’s too important and the power of more voters forces the man in charge to make a decision based on the pressure of an entire nation,not to please campaign contributors…
IMO any human basic right should be fought and decided by the masses…not professional moneymakers.

WCinWI said:
I was just in Illinois (Peoria) a couple weekends ago for a family reunion. My mom’s side is from Illinois. My fam has a lake cabin (typical of WI folks) near the middle of the state. I lived in CA for three years while I was going to grad. school and no offense, but nothing (except maybe Florida) beats the Midwest. Flyover country is great. :) Truly the negatives about WI are only Madison and parts of Milwaukee. You fix that and WI is awesome. Deep-fried cheese is the best. :)

Never had deep fried cheese, but did go to a fish boil up near the WI Upper MI border. Not to fond of freshwater fish, but, they made it delicious. Key West is one of my favorite places.

Rio said:
Never had deep fried cheese, but did go to a fish boil up near the WI Upper MI border. Not to fond of freshwater fish, but, they made it delicious. Key West is one of my favorite places.

I love the Fort Myers area of Florida. Was just there for a vacation not too long ago. Sanibel Island is beautiful and fairly tranquil. Gotta love a place that doesn’t have fast food restaurants except for DQ on it.

And you have to have Culver’s deep-fried cheese. Or you have to go to a WI fair and have deep-fried cheese from a vendor named Wisconsin Cheese. It’s the best. Mozzarella and Cheddar. So good. I went to a fair in CA and they had no deep-fried cheese, deep-fried butter but no cheese. Sooo weird. :) Try it out. People come here for the cheese curds! And our cream puffs!

Coulter responded, “As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.”

REMEMBER that one, mAnn?

WCinWI said:
I was just in Illinois (Peoria) a couple weekends ago for a family reunion. My mom’s side is from Illinois. My fam has a lake cabin (typical of WI folks) near the middle of the state. I lived in CA for three years while I was going to grad. school and no offense, but nothing (except maybe Florida) beats the Midwest. Flyover country is great. :)

Truly the negatives about WI are only Madison and parts of Milwaukee. You fix that and WI is awesome. Deep-fried cheese is the best. :)

WCinWI said:
I was just in Illinois (Peoria) a couple weekends ago for a family reunion. My mom’s side is from Illinois. My fam has a lake cabin (typical of WI folks) near the middle of the state. I lived in CA for three years while I was going to grad. school and no offense, but nothing (except maybe Florida) beats the Midwest. Flyover country is great. :)

Truly the negatives about WI are only Madison and parts of Milwaukee. You fix that and WI is awesome. Deep-fried cheese is the best. :)

Kettle Moraine, both north and south are brilliant slices of earth… Though the ice age trail is infested with troublesome ticks… I have a higher opinion of the urban areas than you…and wish that folks drank less when driving their snow vehicles.

Get Coulter to talk long enough and she makes it clear she is simply a full of shit antagonizer with absolutely no substance behind her shit flinging.

GuessWhoSuka said:

Anyway in all seriousness I disagree completely to give power to the states on any basic human rights…
would it be marriage,healthcare,abortion,minimum wage,working condition or whatever..
I don’t think any basic right should be put in the hands of a governor because it’s too important and the power of more voters forces the man in charge to make a decision based on the pressure of an entire nation,not to please campaign contributors…
IMO any human basic right should be fought and decided by the masses…not professional moneymakers.

It has already been done by the framers of the constitution. I had to sit thru hours of this stuff so I’m not real excited about regurgitating it, but anyway, the Tenth Amendment says that all powers not expressly given to the federal government is reserved to the states. It’s called federalism. Also, where do you draw the line on what is a “basic human right?” The Supreme Court has identified certain fundamental rights that must pass strict scrutiny to pass constitutional muster. Anyway, on the issue of the status of marriage being a matter of state law, check out Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). (Sorry I don’t know this stuff better. Been too long and now I’m a tax nerd.) Finally, you have a lot more faith in the federal government than I do. Right now, you think it is cool with Obama out there at the vanguard, fighting the fascists for the people, etc., but not too long ago we had Bush. What did you think of the federal government then?

WCinWI said:
Don’t worry. Huntsman’s a non-starter.

What’s awesome? I just got an article that I sent to Hotair posted. WOOT WOOT!!!!!!!!!!

Gratz on the Article, its a Fav site.

Nacho said:
Get Coulter to talk long enough and she makes it clear she is simply a full of shit antagonizer with absolutely no substance behind her shit flinging.

Where you been, dude? Did you know someone else is using your avatar ? I think Ann is the perfect example of what happens with lax parenting. Her parents obviously let her say most anything. I like her better than Rachel, though. Rachel is just out there ridiculing people every night. Ann is usually feeling sorry for herself. Who is the good looking, token lib that O’Reilly has on? I like her.

david r said:
It has already been done by the framers of the constitution. I had to sit thru hours of this stuff so I’m not real excited about regurgitating it, but anyway, the Tenth Amendment says that all powers not expressly given to the federal government is reserved to the states. It’s called federalism. Also, where do you draw the line on what is a “basic human right?” The Supreme Court has identified certain fundamental rights that must pass strict scrutiny to pass constitutional muster. Anyway, on the issue of the status of marriage being a matter of state law, check out Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). (Sorry I don’t know this stuff better. Been too long and now I’m a tax nerd.) Finally, you have a lot more faith in the federal government than I do. Right now, you think it is cool with Obama out there at the vanguard, fighting the fascists for the people, etc., but not too long ago we had Bush. What did you think of the federal government then?

The nature of federalism is not static… As the nation has expanded so has federal authority… The framers established an order that was rapidly amended by Marbury and the establishment of judicial review… Dual federalism has long since perished as natural consequence of expanding complexity… Our federalism and it’s levers are born of the founding but not native to it… Federal authority should always be questioned by sane citizens but to imagine that current federal/ state relations must or should be based on founding insight ignores a history that has evolved past the conditions of newly liberated colonies.

david r said:
david r says:
June 22, 2011 at 12:00 am  (Quote)

Greg said:
Greg says:
June 22, 2011 at 12:18 am  (Quote)

Thank you both for the information and your expertise. And your polite discourse. Very refreshing.

Greg said:
The nature of federalism is not static… As the nation has expanded so has federal authority… The framers established an order that was rapidly amended by Marbury and the establishment of judicial review… Dual federalism has long since perished as natural consequence of expanding complexity… Our federalism and it’s levers are born of the founding but not native to it… Federal authority should always be questioned by sane citizens but to imagine that current federal/ state relations must or should be based on founding insight ignores a history that has evolved past the conditions of newly liberated colonies.

It’s coming back through the mist. . .memories of New Orleans and con law. Have you seen Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 1985 ? There is still some life in the notion of state sovereignty, even though it overruled Nat’l League of Cities v. Usery, which was handed down a few years before I started law school. My con law teacher was the brother of Walker Percy, the novelist. He wrote a law rev. article about the 10th amend which Tribe trashed in a Harvard law rev article. We heard hours of analysis about the damned 10th amend. And all I wanted to do was ride the streetcar down to the French Quarter. Anyway, I agree that the constitution is not static. That is why it has lasted so long and served us so well.

btimsah said:
Ugh, I can’t stand Mr. Pompous. He thinks he’s just so clever. By using O’reilly’s own logic, we should NEVER leave Afghanistan because ELEMENTS of the Taliban (or whatever we’re calling them these days) might come back in. What a stupid foreign policy.

I must agree. Everything anyone could want to know about Afghanistan and how things will work out only need study a bit of history.

Thucydides showed there in nothing new in the acts of man, and what is happening today, has happened several times before. Just Google the First and Second Afghan Wars, during the British Raj period. The End of the second is especially interesting, and in a way, a preview of coming events if wiser heads do not prevail.

The wisest thing we can do is leave just as soon as we can. Afghanistan has never in history suffered a strong central government, and will not now. It is a nation of tribal feuds, betrayal and murder. If the Taliban manage to again take Kabul, it is no business of ours. If they choose to build training camps again, well one FAE bomb and the camp, cave complex or Presidents home and it is gone…and so is the problem.

So the right got us into this now they want the left to get us out interesting. Sounds like vietnam except flipped.

WCinWI said:
I love the Fort Myers area of Florida. Was just there for a vacation not too long ago. Sanibel Island is beautiful and fairly tranquil. Gotta love a place that doesn’t have fast food restaurants except for DQ on it.

And you have to have Culver’s deep-fried cheese. Or you have to go to a WI fair and have deep-fried cheese from a vendor named Wisconsin Cheese. It’s the best. Mozzarella and Cheddar. So good. I went to a fair in CA and they had no deep-fried cheese, deep-fried butter but no cheese. Sooo weird. :) Try it out. People come here for the cheese curds! And our cream puffs!

Yes, you should have seen it 40-45 years ago, it was spectacular. We would spend hours walking the beach looking for shells. Marco island is now a disgrace, but then it had no houses really other than a little store/gas station/post office/marina and getting there was a one lane wooden bridge. We once saw a Fla Panther cross the road ahead of us in the 60′s…It was wonderful. Thankfully Sanibel Is. has had a building moratorium from the Mid 70′s I think, and has not overgrown. Today it is the best place on the west coast.

Its different for Ann. A Republican isn’t president anymore.

The wrong guy is leaving Fox it should Ted Baxter (O’reilly), not Beck.

From the same Ann who claims that the nuclear radiation is good for ya.

By the way, O’Reiley should join the war effort if he thinks its winnable.

Big phonies.

skyfet said:
From the same Ann who claims that the nuclear radiation is good for ya. By the way, O’Reiley should join the war effort if he thinks its winnable. Big phonies.

There is probably plenty of reality based gripes, in your view anyway, to rip Ann about. You should have attempted one of them insted of invoking this obvious joke.

And the “Well you should join then” is always a loser of an argument. He’s entitled to his opinion. Especially when his job is to give opinions and he’s in his 60s anyway. All he’s capable of fighting is Colmes over the desk.

Bug-eyed Bill O’Reilly is a self-involved slut. What a useless old fossil!

insideguy said:
So the right got us into this now they want the left to get us out interesting. Sounds like vietnam except flipped.

You wanted nothing to be done after 911? Even Obama thinks Operation Enduring Freedom is the right war, did you forget?

Leaving only works if your willing to absolutely obliterate, from afar, any new gathering threat that might formulate in there. If we leave and they faulter and Al-queda makes a big come back, are we going back in there in the same way?

Fact: Ann talks and Obama listens and follows her advice in Afganistan.

david r said:
Do you remember those shocking “man on the street” interviews that Al Jazeera did right after 9/11? The ignorance and hatred of the West is incredible. Nowhere is worse than Pakistan. We’ve been giving them $2B/yr and they were protecting UBL. What a bunch of saps we’ve been.

I’m not defending Pakistan at all, but 70% of what our troops in Afghanistan need comes through Pakistan. They do catch the occasional bad guy, kill him or turn him over and they have lost thousands fighting al-queda on their border. Also, Lots of the money is also a blunt “pay off” because Pakistan is the only muslim country with the bomb and Al-queda just happens to infest the place.

I mean i’m all for putting the money back into our bank if thats what you want. But shortly after we may have to wind up nuking the whole place. Are you down for that?

BFD said:
Jon Huntsman is opening his campaign on the Hannity show. There’s a friggin’ surprise.

1. Wrong. The campaign was opened when he announced at the Statue of Liberty.
2. Even if true, so what?
3. This has what to do with O’Rielly, Ann and Afghanistan?

For the first time ever, i’m beginning to think the moderaters here had a point in thretening to remove post that were off topic. Ok, just kidding. But you know what I mean.

insideguy said:
Was Ann against the afghan war six months after the occupation by bush? I don’t recall this.

I was wondering the same thing. Did you come up with anything?

Nacho said:
Get Coulter to talk long enough and she makes it clear she is simply a full of shit antagonizer with absolutely no substance behind her shit flinging.

Replace the word Coulter with any Liberal and you have an equally accurate sentence.

Just curious so only asking and I would really love if all participated:

If we fully withdraw think of all the money that we dont have anyway we would be saving. And if any threats arise, we can just use our military might to bomb them back into the stone age from afar, keeping our troops safe. So in the end, we save tons of money and thousands of lives.

So fellow Mediaite’s, how do we feel about this?

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Ann talks and Obama listens and follows her advice in Afganistan.

fact.you never state any goddamn facts.

Steve_27 said:
I’m not defending Pakistan at all, but 70% of what our troops in Afghanistan need comes through Pakistan. They do catch the occasional bad guy, kill him or turn him over and they have lost thousands fighting al-queda on their border. Also, Lots of the money is also a blunt “pay off” because Pakistan is the only muslim country with the bomb and Al-queda just happens to infest the place.

I mean i’m all for putting the money back into our bank if thats what you want. But shortly after we may have to wind up nuking the whole place. Are you down for that?

Good point about the bomb. Never mind.

America could win any war it’s in (maybe not China), it just chooses not too. We could have decimated Vietnam, we chose not to, and the will wasn’t there. We could wipe Afghanistan off the map and do $11.50 worth of damage, but we choose not too. We have those things, what are they again? Rhymes with shmuclear schmoms. Not that I’m advocating their use, but if the point of war was as it used to be throughout history, we’d kill everyone and take their stuff. America only engages in “compassionate” wars of late. We still kill you, but we apologize and send your family money and voting booths.

Some kind of permanent base(s) is needed in Afghanistan with enough men to direct special operations and air force strikes from within the country. The Taliban isn’t going away but they can’t be allowed to regain power in that country.

potvin said:
Some kind of permanent base(s) is needed in Afghanistan with enough men to direct special operations and air force strikes from within the country. The Taliban isn’t going away but they can’t be allowed to regain power in that country.

Yes, true.

Tony the Fist said:
America could win any war it’s in (maybe not China), it just chooses not too. We could have decimated Vietnam, we chose not to, and the will wasn’t there. We could wipe Afghanistan off the map and do $11.50 worth of damage, but we choose not too. We have those things, what are they again? Rhymes with shmuclear schmoms. Not that I’m advocating their use, but if the point of war was as it used to be throughout history, we’d kill everyone and take their stuff. America only engages in “compassionate” wars of late. We still kill you, but we apologize and send your family money and voting booths.

This here is really what it’s all about. We lose or draw while looking stupid ever since liberals got involved with war making. LIBERALISM KILLS! The only problem is that it kills the wrong people. We could have spent zero dollars and lost zero soldiers while simultaneously absolutely destroying our enemies.

Why haven’t we? LIBERALISM!

Why does this happen? The “Woman and children getting killed” argument is always a favorite talking point of the left. But when we go in boots on the ground without using our superior might, we get accused of killing those woman and children anyway. So whats the difference? Just done on a smaller scale, thats all.

The argument for nukes is so strong I just can’t believe it’s considered so taboo that it dont come up.

Ann Coulter, what a ditz, along with Michelle Bachmann. They both could have been used as blow-out preventers on BP’s Horizon operation. They both would have been better than condoms. Maybe they could have taken shifts.

Ann’s right, O’Reilly’s wrong. The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, if the definition of winning is ending up with a modern democratic Afghanistan as a U.S. ally in Southwest Asia and no effective Al Quaida or Taliban forces in the country. Bill needs to read history.

I suppose that no war is unwinnable (well, maybe not nuclear war), if a country has and is willing to expend enough political, financial and human capital, so in that sense Ann is not correct. As a practical matter, in Afghanistan conditions are such that it is impossible to create a modern, democratic state from the fragmented – ethnically, tribally and religiously – geographic entity known as Afghanistan. This is a place which, when not fighting some foreign invader, keeps its hand in by fighting amongst themselves. To go into Afghanistan in 2001 with limited resources in order to tip the balance against the Taliban which was engaged in an ongoing civil war and had refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden made sense. I believe it is absolutely insane to have 100,000 troops and some tens of thousands of contractors in country a decade later. If we were going to try to occupy a country of roughly 30,000,000 people in some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world, we would need an army several times larger than the one we have.

Coulter is right but: Has anyone wondered why Mediaite has failed to do a story on “Operation Fast & Furious?” You know, the operation where Eric Holder allowed thousands of guns to be purchased from US gunshops by the Mexican drug cartels, one of which was used to murder a US Border Agent?

This woman is completely clueless on foreign policy. It is truly amazing, when O’Reilly confronts her with facts she sticks her head in the sand and refuses to listen. This idiot says, “What are we doing in Egypt and Libya?” Are you kidding me?! First of all the U.S. has not been in Egypt since WWII. She is the idiot that said, because Obama made statements, during the Egyptian situation, that Mubarak must go, that his statements were the equivalent of having U.S. troops, on the ground, in Egypt. Concerning Libya, does Ms. Coulter even know what is currently happening in the Middle East? And does she even have a rudimentary understanding, of Libya’s history?  Here’s a little “Gotcha” history question, has she heard of Lockerbee, Scotland? How about the Gulf of Sidra?  Answer those questions and you’ll start to understand  why the U.S. wants to see Gaddafi out of power. And I’m sure that will sufficiently confuse Ms.Coulter enough, but if it doesn’t give her this one other little fact, the U.S. has no troops in Libya.That is sure to confuse the heck out of her. And then there’s this little bit of nonsense that Democrats “fling” troops all over the world, to places that are not in the interest of the U.S. Now she’s bordering on the edge of absurdity. If she wants to rail against Democrats she should say Democrats are reluctant to send troops to anywhere in the world. But  I guess her rationale for such lunacy is that she read it in a book, so it must be true. Is the title of her book a direct reflection of her own character?