Pay Back Time (tw will like this...)

[Undertoad]

Almost 100% of that turd of a column is unsupportable invective, to the point where it's hard to find provable facts in it to bicker with. She connects the unconnectable, simplifies the unsimplifiable. She paints with the broadest possible brush. I could deliver a smackdown, but it's hard, because every time I try to quote even half a paragraph I find it loaded with this kind of invective, and it's a real drag to try to paw through it to find whatever reality she is pressing for.

I took two courses in Logic in college, (Philosophy 201, Mathematics 204); including a whole section on logical fallacies; and this column should be taught as a part of that course. It is MAJORITY logical fallacies.

Nevertheless, here are a few bones for you to ponder.

- In 1967, Nixon ran on an unstated "secret" plan to end the war quickly, but failed to do so and then failed to really move the conflict towards victory.
- Nixon's removal of ground troops could plausibly be called "cut and run", and surely would be if he was a Democrat and Coulter was evaluating the decision.
- It wasn't the lack of monetary support that doomed the South.
- The North Vietnamese did not attack the South because the Democrats won. The Democrats they were familiar with kicked their royal ass.
- The Democrats did not "invent" Watergate.
- The facts surrounding Watergate appalled a vast majority of Americans, so greatly that in the next election they would put in whatever D was available, especially if he was considered impeccably honest, and a Governor who had never been to Washington with the hope that maybe things would be better with an "outsider".
- In order for a Democracy to win a war, the war has to have public support.
- In general, a "my side is always right while the other is always wrong" approach leads to intellectual dishonesty and a highly irrational view of events.
- Vietnam and Iraq have similarities and differences. The smarter righty pundits point out the differences.