Another Good One from Ann Coulter

Following up on last week's column describing the fabricated polls the lamestream media intended to use to convice finger-in-the-wind types to oppose the war in Iraq, Ann comes along and documents how the delusion these lamestream media types have spun continues to avoid reality:

N.Y. TIMES, BROKEN CLOCK: BOTH OCCASIONALLY CORRECT

The New York Times has been urgently warning Congressional Republicans to abandon the Iraq War or face ruination in the November elections. Of course, for three years now, the Times has predicted that all world leaders who supported the war would be thrown out of office on their ears.
...
Four major world leaders who sent troops to Iraq have faced elections since the war's inception — Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.

Only in Spain did voters capitulate to savagery and vote in an al-Qaida-friendly government in response to their trains being bombed the week before the election. Unaware that there is NO CONNECTION between al-Qaida and Iraq, al-Qaida's European spokesman explained that the terrorist attack was intended to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war. Spanish voters duly complied, making terrorist attacks in the rest of the world more likely. Muchas gracias, Spano-weenies.

But in the three other elections, Iraq war-supporting prime ministers won historic victories. During the run-up to each of these elections, The New York Times described them as referendums on the war and predicted defeat for any leader who had supported war in Iraq. Only when the war-supporting leaders won did the Times change its mind and decide these elections were really about the economy, privatizing the post office, Tony Blair's tie, "The Sopranos" — anything but the war.

You will want to read the rest here.

Update: Gold Star for Mike R. at "The Solution" for correctly pointing out that Ann Coulter missed the opportunity to rub the recent elections of pro-BUSH governments in Canada and Germany in the face of the lamestream media.

Had those elections gone the other way, you bet we would have read a deluge of stories of how our allies are more opposed to Bush's policies than ever before. The fact that pro-Bush governments replaced anti-Bush governments was apparently not worth reporting.