«
»

Glenn, Meet Ann

Saturday, October 18th, 2003

Instapundit slips into Coulter-esque hysterics in characterizing those U.S. senators who voted to make half of U.S. aid to Iraq available as loans, instead of grants, as “near treasonously stupid and destructive.”

Geez. If advocating that half the $87 billion in aid a loan makes one a near-treasonist, I wonder what that makes those of us who think there should be no aid, grants, or loans, and that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq completely?

Do I need to call a lawyer? Or is this an “enemy combatant,” military-tribunal kind of offense?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 18th, 2003 at 9:32 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Glenn, Meet Ann”

  1. #1 |  toshiro888 |  October 18th, 2003 at 10:56 pm

    While when you and Glenn disagree I almost always agree more with you I think the third graf of your post is a bit over the top. Everyone during the whole pre-Iraq hubbub used rhetoric of this sort, and it goes back in time further than that. It’s no big deal.

    And Glenn has been at least a principled defender of the Constitution, so I don’t think that line, directed at him, is exactly fair.

  2. #2 |  Doug Murray |  October 18th, 2003 at 11:09 pm

    It’s not even that big a deal. The amount to be loaned is only half of the $20.3 billion earmarked for reconstruction. The remaining $66 billion and change is to support military operations and involves no loans.

  3. #3 |  paul |  October 18th, 2003 at 11:37 pm

    radley,

    how can you say such a thing?

    you are so anti-American to be against Iraq.

    Wanting NOT to spend the money on another country but spend it here at home in the US where we NEED it is VERY unpatriotic!

  4. #4 |  Bobby |  October 19th, 2003 at 12:43 am

    paul,

    I don’t want to speak for Radley, but I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t want it spent here either. I would guess he would want it returned to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.

  5. #5 |  Brady |  October 19th, 2003 at 3:24 am

    I don’t trust anyone with a blog that doesn’t have the balls to give readers the capability to comment.

    Without comments blogs are just rapid fire pretentious diarrhea.

  6. #6 |  paul |  October 19th, 2003 at 3:34 am

    bobby

    perhaps Radley WOULD want it returned to the tax payers.

    which inclines me to wonder if these libertarians are actually closet REPUBLICANS who are trying to be too cool to be mainstream.
    watta ya think???

  7. #7 |  Radley Balko |  October 19th, 2003 at 7:12 am

    Um…Paul –

    Since when do Republicans want to return money to the taxpayers?

    Have you seen what Bush has done with federal spending?

    Tax cuts don’t mean a damn thing when you continue to grow the federal government. Someone, somehow is going to have to pay for it.

  8. #8 |  dude |  October 19th, 2003 at 10:19 am

    The word “treason” is tossed around so casually nowadays that it is almost meaningless, like “racism”.

    The thing I don’t understand is, how on earth to we obligate the people of Iraq to repay a $10 billion loan? There is no government of Iraq. We are the government of Iraq at the moment. How do we even have the right to obligate some future government of Iraq to pay off a loan that it isn’t a party to?

  9. #9 |  Chris |  October 19th, 2003 at 10:54 am

    Iraq can make billions a day once it gets up and running. I don’t agree with letting them have any, but if they are, let it be a loan. They have enough oil to pay it back by next week. And by the way, toshiro888, how can anyone be a “principled defender of the Constitution” that wants to give BILLIONS to another country? He’s as principled as the idiots that get voted in to run this place.

  10. #10 |  PAUL |  October 20th, 2003 at 1:44 am

    Radley,

    you claim to follow politics but you are unaware of the fact the Republicans have allways used tax cuts as their sales pitch to the public?

    Republicans have allways given big tax return checks only to put us in more debt.

    It’s part of what’s called “borrow and spend”

    I am dissapointed in you Rad.
    I thought you knew these things.

  11. #11 |  toshiro888 |  October 20th, 2003 at 9:06 am

    I meant “principled” in that he opposed the dententions Radley referred to in the third paragraph. Whether he’s absolutely perfect or not is none of my concern, 30 years of Tomas Torquemada antics (lewrockwell.com for starters) to “purify” the cause has given us all of this incredible success of the last 30 years after all. Oh, wait, never mind…

  12. #12 |  qmony |  October 20th, 2003 at 2:52 pm

    Why do we have to pay for Iraq. Why not use all of that oil money that will be rolling in shortly. Where will that money be going?

  13. #13 |  Jon H |  October 22nd, 2003 at 1:18 am

    Getting tough on the money is no worse than parents demanding their kid show signs of shaping up before they cough up more money for college tuition.

    Threatening to revoke the funding is not a sign that the parents don’t understand the importance of the education. It’s a sign that they are the *only* parties who understand how important it is.

    It’s entirely responsible to withold the money with a demand that the White House and Pentagon start showing up to class, start doing their homework, stop smoking dope, and stop associating with unreliable, irresponsible people like Ahmad Chalabi and his stooges.