Rowley destroyed on Hardball

Democrat uber-liberal Coleen Rowley was on Hardball debating radio talk show host Mark Williams. The transcript of the debate is here.

What this shows is how Rowley, who is not "throw[ing] [her]self in with any political agenda" is actually deep within the anti-war extremist camp. She had nothing but talking points and buzz words and never really answer any questions. Partisan hack...we cannot ever believe another word from her mouth that as being anything but partisan fodder from the Michael Moore faction of the Counter-American left.

O'DONNELL: You're a Democrat running for Congress. It was reported that Republican leaders in your state were just thrilled that you had decided to align yourself with anti-war extremists. Do you think that this could affect your race for Congress?

ROWLEY: Well, I will quickly correct the record, that they are not anti-war extremists. The majority of the people I saw down in Crawford were actually veterans groups. ...

O'DONNELL: But, Coleen, they do oppose the war in Iraq, do they not?

ROWLEY: Yes, they do. But that does not make I guess the term extremists. They're really I think reflective of mainstream America in many ways.

Uh, No they are not reflective of the mainstream in America. They are reflective of ONLY the Counter-Americans and the Hate-America crowd.

O'DONNELL: The president also said today, Coleen, that the war in Iraq must be won and that a policy of retreat and isolation will not bring us safety from terrorism. Do you disagree with that?

ROWLEY: Well, I disagree with even the point about winning the war, because I don't think we have had an honest debate what winning will even look like.

President Bush seems to use a very vague and ambiguous reference to these types of things, really to stifle people from asking the hard questions. How are we getting there? And what actually will "winning" look like?

Sorry, we have been having nothing but debate about the war since 9/11. Remember that the MoveOn.org freaks of nature were against us even going into Afghanistan. Even before your spotlight-seeking 2nd memo we were having a debate. The only group that has been trying to prevent any debate on any issue has been the left. But since you obviously have been closing your mind to opposition let me try through writing. "Winning" will look like a "free Iraq" with elections and a democracy...uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush has been very specific on that.

If we fall into this other speaker's [Williams] mode, we simply will not have a country that is acting judiciously, because we will all simply have to be quiet. We won't have our freedom of speech either and none of us will be able to challenge incorrect and actually very dangerous policies.

Where the hell have you been the last few years? Obviously you are not paying attention to this country. We have our freedom of speech. We have been pretty judicious about Iraq. In fact, if we were doing right we would have bombed the snot out of Fallujah when those animals were burning bodies. But we were judicious and slow and fairly unable to respond because of the dead weight (like you) dragging us down in our defense.

Williams reminded her of what the left's panacea would result in.

It's our obligation as a society to stand up and support those men and women and make sure that the 1,800-plus who are now dead didn't die in vain. And I'm not quite sure what your alternative is, but perhaps we should open the doors to Saddam Hussein's prison cell, reinsert him as the leader of that country, allow him to start feeding people into wood chippers again feet first, give him back the chemical weapons and nerve gas weapons that the United States and that the United Nations was in there destroying, rescind the war authorization of 1991, and just go along our merry way, with our apologies to all of his future victims.

And he got in a very important point.

What about the 300,000 in mass graves that he engaged in acts of genocide? If this was anything but an American action, the American left would be all over the White House to get involved in this country.

Now Rowley was asked a number of times what is the Democrat strategy. Her answer? Talking points to deflect the question, no solution, no plan and no answer (because she does not have a solution).
Attempt One

O'DONNELL: Coleen...what is the alternative? The president saying again a policy of retreat and isolationism will not bring us safety. What is the policy of the Democratic Party?

ROWLEY: Well, I'm just going to back up. The last speaker, of course, kind of exhibits this mentality that has not allowed us to have a fair debate. [Author's note:Not allowed to have a fair debate. Answer the question and participate in the debate!] When he said that we debated this and voted on it, he is ignoring what most Americans now know, that the weapons of mass destruction arguments that were used were very misleading, false and deceptive.

Did you catch that? Avoid the question, make false and deceptive claims about stifled debate and then attack with lies and deceit.
Attempt Two

WILLIAMS: And how do we do that? By cutting and running and leaving them to their fate?

ROWLEY: Yes. I think the other speaker is pointing to some of the problem with the deaths that have already occurred. And I will agree to a limited extent that the nature of a quagmire is simply that it is very difficult at this point to resolve and still, you know, justify those earlier deaths.

What? What is that 'problem with the deaths that have already occurred' specifically? Oh, talking point #2: always throw in the word 'quagmire' even if it makes no sense. What is difficult, Coleen, about answering, "What is your plan?"
Attempt Three

O'DONNELL: But, Coleen, what are you specifically suggesting is done? What is the position of the Democratic Party about how to do a better job than what the president is doing in Iraq?

ROWLEY: Well, this is the tough part, ... I keep quoting Albert Einstein. You can't solve a problem with the same level of mentality that created it. And the Bush administration ... stay the course is their motto. And I don't think, frankly, that's going to work.

Three attempts to find out what Rowley's solution is. Just like every other liberal in this discussion she has no solutions, only buzz words; she has no answers, only false accussations; she has nothing positive, only negativity--pure abject negativity and personal attacks. She attacks Bush's intellect, but for someone as stupid as the left portrays he sure is smart enough to get a majority of the people to elect him, be a dictator, fool most of Europe's leaders...and still dupe you into thinking he is dumb.

I take that back. She has a plan...stabalize Iraq. How? Not by staying the course. In other words she wants to stabalize Iraq by pulling out. That worked so well in South Vietnam, right. And pulling out of Beirut ended the terrorism in the region, right?

Let's see, what did staying the course in Iraq provide so far?

WILLIAMS: Well, you know, staying the course, staying the course has brought us free elections. It's got a constitutional convention under way, more free elections coming up, an Iraqi stock market that didn't exist before, no more innocents being slaughtered by weapons of mass destruction, no more people, no more soccer teams being executed because they lose a game. Stay the course? ... That's exactly what we're doing. And that's why we're doing it.

Now remember, Coleen is in the party of Howard Dean, and Dean thinks that we made Iraq worse. Coleen is towing that same dogged mentality. What then is their panacea? Williams described it for us.

I'm not quite sure what your alternative is, but perhaps we should open the doors to Saddam Hussein's prison cell, reinsert him as the leader of that country, allow him to start feeding people into wood chippers again feet first, give him back the chemical weapons and nerve gas weapons that the United States and that the United Nations was in there destroying, rescind the war authorization of 1991, and just go along our merry way, with our apologies to all of his future victims.

And she thinks her anti-war movement is not extremist? Then give us a non-extremist alternative. Hell, give us an alternative to debate. You want a debate? We've been waiting, provide something to debate. Or shut the pie hole and stop the whining.

In debate we used to have to give debaters scores from 20 (meaning 'please do not speak ever again') to 30 (meaning 'the best thing ever spoken'). The average new person would score around a 23. Rowley, I would score with a 21 (giving her the extra point because she is a friend of my wife). Williams gets a 27. The couple of disrespectful comments were unnecessary.