July 20, 2006
Liberals: Born To Run
Printer FriendlyBy: Ann Coulter
I knew the events in the Middle East were big when The New York Times devoted nearly as much space to them as it did to a New York court ruling last week rejecting gay marriage.
Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.
Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now.
But according to Dean, the Democrats would have the "moral authority that Bill Clinton had" — no wait! keep reading — "when he brought together the Israelis and Palestinians." Clinton really brokered a Peace in Our Time with that deal — "our time" being a reference to that five-minute span during which he announced it. Yasser Arafat immediately backed out on all his promises and launched the second intifada.
The fact that Israel is able to launch an attack on Hezbollah today without instantly inciting a multination conflagration in the Middle East is proof of what Bush has accomplished. He has begun to create a moderate block of Arab leaders who are apparently not interested in becoming the next Saddam Hussein.
There's been no stock market crash, showing that the markets have confidence that Israel will deal appropriately with the problem and that it won't expand into World War III.
But liberals can never abandon the idea that we must soothe savage beasts with appeasement — whether they're dealing with murderers like Willie Horton or Islamic terrorists. Then the beast eats you.
There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases like "diplomacy," "detente," "engagement," "multilateral engagement," "multilateral diplomacy," "containment" and "going to the U.N."
I guess they figure, "Hey, appeasement worked pretty well with ... uh ... wait, I know this one ... ummm ... tip of my tongue ..."
Democrats like to talk tough, but you can never trap them into fighting. There is always an obscure objection to be raised in this particular instance — but in some future war they would be intrepid! One simply can't imagine what that war would be.
Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from.
On "Meet the Press" last month, Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would support military action against Iran if the Iranians were to go "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb."
No, of course not. There is, Biden said, "no imminent threat at this point."
According to the Democrats, we can't attack Iran until we have signed affidavits establishing that it has nuclear weapons, but we also can't attack North Korea because it may already have nuclear weapons. The pattern that seems to be emerging is: "Don't ever attack anyone, ever, for any reason. Ever."
The Democrats are in a snit about North Korea having nukes, with Howard Dean saying Democrats are tougher on defense than the Republicans because since Bush has been president, North Korea has "quadrupled their nuclear weapons stash."
It wasn't that difficult. Clinton gave the North Koreans $4 billion to construct nuclear reactors in return for the savages promising not to use the reactors to build bombs. But oddly, despite this masterful triumph of "diplomacy," the savages did not respond with good behavior. Instead, they immediately set to work feverishly building nuclear weapons.
But that's another threat the Democrats do not think is yet ripe for action.
On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Sen. Biden lightly dismissed the North Koreans, saying their "government's like an eighth-grader with a small bomb looking for attention" and that we "don't even have the intelligence community saying they're certain they have a nuclear weapon."
Is that the test? We need to have absolute certainty that the North Koreans have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting California with Kim Jong Il making a solemn promise to bomb the U.S. (and really giving us his word this time, no funny business) before we — we what? If they have a nuclear weapon, what do we do then? Is a worldwide thermonuclear war the one war Democrats would finally be willing to fight?
Democrats won't acknowledge the existence of "an imminent threat" anyplace in the world until a nuclear missile is 12 minutes from New York. And then we'll never have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" because we'll all be dead.
Posted by redguy at July 20, 2006 06:03 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/539
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberals: Born To Run:
» aldactone side effects from aldactone side effects
[Read More]
Tracked on August 4, 2006 07:02 AM
» auto insurance from auto insurance
spaceship suitability aerated annotating elaborate calories facing auto insurance http://www.auto-insurancedeals-4u.info/ [Read More]
Tracked on September 5, 2006 02:41 AM
Comments
Question: How many times do you have to kick a liberal democrat in the crotch before he fights back?
Answer: This is a trick question. Liberal democrats don't have anything down there to kick.
Posted by: Steve Lisak
at July 20, 2006 08:50 AM
I whole hardily disagree, Liberals WILL fight back, unfortunately though it is against the U.S.A. and Republicans/Conservatives cause you know they are the most vile things on the planet. except for maybe those groups that like to cut innocent peoples heads off???
Posted by: Goman
at July 20, 2006 09:19 AM
Ann, you're forgetting the real threat democrats are protecting us from, the fetal army that is threatening our country with overpopulation and global warming. Come on now, nuclear war is nothing compared to global warming!
Posted by: howard_dj1
at July 20, 2006 10:02 AM
Thanks again for reminding us just what Democrats do--they run. If the same people were in the congress when FDR was there you wonder if we could have won WWII. How long before they just get it (if ever)? I'm also tired of the people that hate Isreal. If they would read their Bibles they would know that it says "Who ever bless them(Isreal) they will be blest, and who ever curses them they will be cursed" This promise was made to Abraham.
Posted by: txconservative
at July 20, 2006 10:12 AM
We know that Democrats are willing to fight...most of the wars in the last 150 years included American involvement because of Democrats. Wilson sent us in to WWI, FDR sent us (correctly!) in to WWII, Truman sent us in to Korea, Kennedy & Johnson sent us further & further in to Vietnam, Clinton sent us in to Somalia & Bosnia. Of course this substantiates the comments of people smarter than I that (something to the effect of...) "the only good bombs are the ones with D's on them". Can we see exactly when the Democrats turned from patriotism?, turned to it's current mode of hating American?, turned to trying to destroy our sovereign nation regardless of the consequences for their almighty agenda? I don't believe FDR was anti-American. Surely Truman wasn't anti-American. Kennedy seemed very American and willing to protect our interests. I think they killed the wrong Kennedy. Johnson? Is that where it started? Is that where the Democrats...getting more and more liberal...started to hate America? The baby-boomer, anti-establishment hippies are getting enough power and money...and they REALLY hate America. They want us to be another France...to "be the U.N."...to emasculate our country like they've emasculated the cops and the courts. Pussy-liberals who will lie and cheat and steal...and kill?...for their precious agenda. Our internal enemy is more dangerous than our external ones. Will we eradicate the infestation of cockroaches and vermin?, or will we let the pussy-liberals like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pilosi and George Soros and all their ilk ruin our country? Where's the leadership who can take us in the right direction? It's there...in Ann, and Ollie, and David Hunt, and Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity, and Bill...and more than half the nation will easily follow...more if the lies of the socialist-left are readily exposed. Our current "leadership" in Congress are a bunch of purse-dogs. We need men and women...like Ann...who calls a spade a spade and DOESN'T BACK DOWN! Ann...you are one of our new Founding "Fathers"...let's retake our America!!!
Posted by: Ziggy Spaz
at July 20, 2006 10:49 AM
“Is a worldwide thermonuclear war the one war Democrats would finally be willing to fight?”
“And then we'll never have the satisfaction of saying 'I told you so' because we'll all be dead.”
Ann, you ought to read what you write!
You have artfully and succinctly articulated the long awaited Democrat plan! With everyone dead, we will FINALLY have peace!
Candidly I find it amusing that the Democrat leadership (?) has done everything in their power to make the events of today a reality. Carter, Clinton, Allnotsobright, most all senators with a “D-“ before the initial of their home state and others have appeased these terrorists, delivered land, goods and cash to them and basically trousered the US and bent us over just for kicks.
But, thank God (can we still say that?) that the dems are right there insuring the terrorists in Gitmo send in a favorable report to the Michelin Guide and to stop those nasty government agencies from listening in on private conversations between “American citizens” and their loved ones in caves in Deanistan.
God Bless and God Speed!
Posted by: Jaksavin
at July 20, 2006 11:08 AM
Ziggy,
“liberals who will lie and cheat and steal...and kill?”
Lying and cheating are coin of the liberal realm but killing? No, never! Unless, of course, the victim did not have the good common sense to be born yet.
Liberals are much more likely to let a killer walk (and generally walk right into an Upper West Side Cocktail party), shed tears for an incarcerated terrorist and similar self-loathing activities than to regard the value of an innocent life in utero.
They would rather hug a tree than a baby, unless, of course, the baby was infected with some nasty disease in Sub-Sahara Africa (provided that a minimum of one of the hug-fest participants was wearing a body condom.) (Location was chosen for purposes of illustration only and does not infer that is the only area where diseases may be found, there are other nasty parts of the world. Your actual disease will vary by location. Void where prohibited, batteries not included. I am trying to be politically correct and not offend, you see)
So, please do not accuse liberals of killing unless they are Americans and preferably the unborn
Posted by: Jaksavin
at July 20, 2006 11:27 AM
Last week I actually heard an individual (obviously a liberal) utter this phrase, "What did George Bush do to insult North Korea and make them want to launch rockets at us?" After picking my chin up off the floor, I asked this person, (political correctness be damned) "Are you retarded? No, seriously, are you mentally retarded? Don't you know that Kim Jong Il is a lunatic, a certifiable psycho and that he hates America?" And this person's response was, "Who?"
At that, I rested my case.
Posted by: Trooper
at July 20, 2006 11:46 AM
I believe it's out of political expediency that many Democrats (half?) are against the war.
I imagine a movie similar to "It's A Wonderful Life" that shows Dems changing positions because Bush lost and Al Gore agreed to fight Iraq. But Gore probably would NOT have gone to Iraq, so alternate world two, where we would see all the continuing murder and rape by Saddams regime. What a miserable time, until we came back to reality and saw the President making the right choice to take down a horrible dictator.
Posted by: Isaiah538
at July 20, 2006 02:22 PM
Most liberals must be non-violent at all costs because they are attempting to compensate for the violent butchery in abortion clinics that they are in favor of. Of course, this is something that makes them raving mad when it is brought up in conversation. The liberals must be against any violence conducted against madmen such as Hezbollah(party of God???) in order to cover up the fact that they are in favor of mass murder of innoncent babies. Let Hezbollan murder innoncent Isreali citizens and do nothing to stop them or punish them. It would just be too much violence to allow Isreal to defend itself. We must "negotiate" with the poor misunderstood Hesbollah. All they want to do is wipe every Jew off the face of the earth. Let us open up Auschwitz again. If Hezbollah were allowed to decimate Isreal, kill everyone of Isreal's citizens and wipe every Jew, part Jew,and any Jewish sympathizers off the face of the earth, they still would not be happy. They are madmen who only want destruction. Isreal really needs to annex Lebanon. Lebanon is one of those countries that is not allowed to be sovereign. Because of this, the intenational community is forced to intervene every few years to straighten it out. Again the liberals go down the same pathway of creating a problem and then griping because conservatives have the audacity to try and solve the problem. Hezbollah needs to be treated as the cowardly, criminal, terrorist, madmen that they are and should be eliminated. The world would be a better place if Hezbollan were no longer with us.
Posted by: commoner
at July 20, 2006 03:24 PM
I do not think anyone would disagree with “commoner” in principle if not in fact. Yet…
1) The Hezbollah are not interested in only eradicating the Jews but all infidels, id est: all non-Muslims.
2) I wonder if Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qa’ada and the rest of these folks should get their wish will they continue on an internecine warpath and eventually take out their own? (See “Democrat Party Platform for Peace” for further information on this topic)
3) If Hezbollah IS the “party" of God does that explain the funny headwear?
4) If these local targets for the Israeli’s were ever to take over Italy, would they rename the popular dish “Spaghetti Hezbollanese?”
I think the bottom line is simply we have given most terrorist organizations and nations more “final warnings” and threats to enter this on their “permanent records” then any of them deserve.
Many years ago Rolling Stone magazine ran a series of articles decrying our activities in Viet Nam. (Boy have things changed! What? They haven’t? Nevermind.) In any event the series was subtitled (as I recall) “A Pitiful Helpless Giant” referring to the US. In retrospect and currently it sadly is apropos. We let our enemies get their way once then again and now it is SOP. After decades of appeasement the first time we really go balls to the wall, the enemy is crying “foul” because we struck back. To compound matters this sense of appeasement has been ingrained into many of our politicians and jurists and truly they are equally as guilty if not more so than the terrorists for letting things happen as they have. And if that is not enough, and correct me if I am wrong, it almost appears that they are trying to help those who we have captured and stymieing our efforts against our enemies.
Cry “Havoc” and let fly the dogs of war.
Posted by: Jaksavin
at July 20, 2006 04:48 PM
Jaksavin,
You are not only a very learned and savvy person, but you have a great sense of humor. Exactly what I like so much about Ann. Of course, she is WAY cuter than you are! But...you already knew that. You work directly with knowledge and I have opinion based on the knowledge of those like you who are smarter than I. But I'm smart enough to know a big load of bullshit when I hear one...and that's all I hear out of the pussy-liberals. Liberals actually killing? Fetus'...definitely. Adults who are in their way? I think some are capable. I bet George Soros' money is capable. Live long and prosper, Jaksavin...
Posted by: Ziggy Spaz
at July 20, 2006 07:01 PM
I have been studying the CIA statistics on the Middle East and note that the Moslem countries surrounding Israel have land of 1,295,550 sq km and a total population of 111.4m (a density of 86 people per square kilometre). In comparison Israel has land of only 20,770 sq km with 6.35m people (a density of 305.8 people per square kilometre). If you include Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran the moslem countries have a further 2.7m sq km and 126.5m people. So who is it who are fighting for their lives against a vastly larger enemy and need the protection of the UN?The Lebanese Prime Minister, who has being providing sanctuary to Hezbollah terrorists, makes out that the UN should take their side against Israel, when he should have asked the UN to help the Lebanese Army to remove the Hezbollah terrorists from Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah will not stop attacking Israel as they do not believe Israel has a right to life.
I firmly believe that the permanent members of the UN Security council need to grasp the nettle and make an expanded Israel, to include all lands historically part the Holy Land, a protectorate. The Israeli Armed services should be given authority to act as the local UN protection agency of the Holy Land, and a protective buffer zone should be put in place where no weapons can be held. Any terrorists in these areas would need to be removed by the UN forces.
Any genuine moslem would support a plan which would allow them to have easier access to their holy sites in the Holy Land and bring peace to whole area. After all nobody owns these lands but God.
Posted by: Redrex
at July 20, 2006 07:59 PM
Good points on North Korea EXCEPT for the details about the two light water reactors that the US, along with Japan and South Korea, were supposed to provide North Korea in return for the commies halting their nuke developement. The construction of the reactors was begun but halted.
The US did NOT give them 40 billion to build the reactors. We started and then halted the concstruction. The North Koreans were cheating by doing uranium enhancemnt. Then they opened up the sealed spent fuel rods and extracted fissile material. What the difference? Just that when you get any facts wrong the bad guys jump on it.
Posted by: tclay
at July 20, 2006 09:32 PM
Since so much of your column was based on the expression "soothe the savage beast", I feel obligated to tell you that there is no such expression. The expression you are most likely thinking of is "Music hath charms to soothe the savage BREAST, to soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak." It's from a 17th century play by William Congreve called "The Mourning Bride".
I'd much rather think about breasts than beasts, but that's just me. It is incumbent upon conservatives to be sharper in all ways, and that, please trust me, is the only reason I subimit this correction. I love your books, I love your columns, and I only want them to be the best they can be.
Posted by: Dick's Deli
at July 21, 2006 02:48 AM
Ziggy:
You are too kind. Your assessment of my physicality is accurate in comparison to the lovely and talented Ann! Candidly I do not think my knowledge is any greater than any other casual observer of the events of the day. As far as being “smarter” I might wish to humbly disagree and please, feel free to check with my wife for support of that statement.
I will agree with your contention of liberal’s ability to inflict terminal punishment and of course their inexhaustible supply of “bovine scatology.”
Interesting and provocative point you make vis-à-vis Geo Soros’ money. While he himself (and most if not all liberals) may be personally incapable of killing I do not think they would become overly upset if their finances were able to carry out their agenda as long as their hands were not directly involved.
Truly, who knows where folks like Soros spend their money. There are quite a few people in the world with his kind of funds who are capable of doing who knows what! Bear in mind that UBL came from a very wealthy Saudi family and he is estimated to be worth more than $100MM. ($125MM including the price on his head.) Yet that wealth did not blind him to his ideology. One would think that someone with that kind of wherewithal might wish to live a life of leisure in contradistinction putatively to living in a cave somewhere. Food for thought!
God Bless and God Speed
John
Posted by: Jaksavin
at July 21, 2006 08:44 AM
Redrex:
Many people fear what they do not understand.
Many people hate what they fear.
This, perhaps, could sum up the feelings towards Israel by the Islamofacists. (Not all Muslims, just those bent on destruction of all things non-Muslim.)
The Islamofascists see Israel as a threat to their way of life just as during the Cold War the East saw the West in similar terms. In one sense it is less the idea of Israel existing as opposed to Israel existing in the same geographical area as their minions.
During the Cold War, Berlin was a perfect example of this thought. West Berlin was vibrant, exciting and at night lit up in manner that rivaled Times Square or the Ginza. On the other side, East Berlin was slightly less stimulating that an Amish wardrobe. Those in the East were constantly exposed to the riches and freedom of the West just over the Wall. They could only vicariously enjoy that which the West took for granted. Berlin was a microcosm of the Communist East and we all know how that story ended.
In a way, Israel is the Berlin of the day.
The small minority of Islamofacists and their brainless followers hate Israel for what it represents and not necessarily for what it is. It is only a matter of time that either the masses of Muslims rise up and take matters into their own hands as did those in Berlin and tear down the wall or we will truly be facing the hordes at Har-Megiddo.
But, as far as getting the UN involved, and please do not take this the wrong way, are you kidding?
First of all the “United Nations” is at this point in time an Orwellian term. The UN has caused more deaths than they have saved. As far as getting the Security Council all on the same page, that will not happen either. Follow the chain: Hezbollah is supported in great part by Syria who receives help and aid from Iran who receives missiles from North Korea who is under the aegis of China who has a seat on the Security Council. Call me crazy, but I do not see China doing anything to help Israel.
As far as “authority” to protect the Holy Land, Israel has the authority and it did not come from the UN. You answer the question whence that authority comes.
Whether you are a Christian or not any person interested in the political struggles in the Middle East ought to read the last book of the Bible. While I am not proselytizing, if one were to read the Revelation of St. John I think you will be amazed at the accuracy it describes that which is happening now and how close we are to the next step. (Yes, there is a great deal of symbolism but there are an equal number of real and concrete references that are easily recognizable today.)
Posted by: Jaksavin
at July 21, 2006 09:22 AM
Right you are, Jaksavin. Muslims fear and hate more of what Israel represents than what it is. Israel represents the inferiority of their religion, in other words, the falsehood that is Islam. Israel is G-d's chosen people and to them He gave the land. The Muslims are the interlopers, not the Jews. Jewish presence means that Mohammed was an idolator and Allah (damned be both of them) is just an idol, like the Ba'alim. That irritates and infuriates the devil and his Islamic hordes.
On another note to some of you above: A couple of you misspelled "Israel." You can remember how to spell it if you remember that "el" is short for Elohim, the Hebrew word for God. Israel means, "Wrestles with G-d." Some have said, "Prince with G-d," but that is incorrect.
Liberal policy desires peace, but if their side wins, then only the murderous thugs would have power. We all know what happens when murderous thugs rule: murder, rape, theft, intimidation, bribery, etc. In other words, EVERYTHING BUT PEACE!!!
Need I say more?
Posted by: Loser
at July 21, 2006 07:34 PM
Loser, I think you a huge point in that the liberal policy of "peace" ALWAYS allows the bad guys to win. Internationally, they would have us negotiate with terrorists...some of the worst the world has ever seen. Who wins if you negotiate with terrorists. Of course...the terrorists. They are doing the same policy within the U.S. by consistently and flagrantly giving criminals rights while making the victim feel like "the bad one", ludicrous judicial decisions at the local, state and national level, a soft penal system that allows gangs and crime to be rampant within the system, constant tear-down of our guns laws that take guns out of the hands of decent citizens and even police capability, etc. We need our government leaders to be making the same comments as Ann and Loser and Jaksavin...and just as loud as Ann. Until that happens...America will keep turning their heads to screeching banshees of the left.
Posted by: Ziggy Spaz
at July 24, 2006 11:57 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
