September 13, 2007

From The Halls of Malibu to the Shores of Kennedy

Printer Friendly

By: Ann Coulter

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

Posted by redguy at September 13, 2007 06:50 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/804

Comments

Wonderful article, Ann!

Again, you point out the lunacy of liberal Democrats.

They consistently and regularly tell us why things won’t work or why things won’t happen, yet, they also consistently and regularly DO NOT tell us what WILL work or HOW to make things happen.

The only thing they are precise in verbalizing is how to secure America’s defeat. As of yet, they haven’t articulated their ideas as how to secure victory.

Also, you have very succinctly articulated the “moving bar” strategy of liberal Democrats. Nothing will ever be good enough for them.

We killed Saddam’s two sons; we captured Saddam, he was tried by Iraqi’s, found guilty and was put to death by Iraqi’s; we caught many of Saddam’s and Bin Laden’s top “henchmen”; we killed al-Zarqawi; we eliminated rape and torture rooms in Iraq; and yet, according to liberal Democrats, Iraq is a massive failure that we cannot win.

Even if we had successfully wiped out all of al-Qaida in the entire world with the exception of Bin Laden, the endeavor would be deemed a failure by liberal Democrats simply because we didn’t capture or kill one man.

And, of course, America would be no safer because of the one terrorist mad man that is still running free.


Posted by: LynnJG [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 09:53 AM

Every time they say, "We are losing this war," folks should realize that they are talking about themselves, not all of us.

As a political party, they are completely committed to American defeat now. And, they know that if our troops, led by General Petraeus, carry out a successful counterinsurgency operation -- one that stablizes the nation -- it will undermine any justification any Democrat may have for seeking the Presidency, or maintaining their very slim margins in either house of the Congress.

Therefore, Petraeus has to be viewed by them as a partisan enemy. They simply have no other choice. So, I would look for them to make some very, very bad choices -- including funding cut-off choices -- in the coming months. Their base will demand it of them.

They are simply not going to tell Move-On to, "move over"!

Corner? Meet the Democrats!

Posted by: Trochilus [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 10:01 AM

Brilliant as usual, Ann. I can't believe this country has come to a point where one party is so invested in losing a war that it will do whatever it takes to make sure that happens. What happened to integrity and honesty? All I see from the Democrats is character assination, rancor, and dishonesty. Not one of the Dem presidential candidates will break with the party line to say what they honestly feel is best for this country. If they all believe the same thing, then who cares which one of them are the nominee? Not one of them has given an original thought.

Posted by: llbrasher [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 10:22 AM

When Clinton was President everyone praised him for lowering the deficet. He did that but making massive cuts in our military. We were left unprotected. If we had a democrat in there now, how strong would we really be as a nation?
Hillary was to pull out, why, so she can make cut backs too?

Posted by: Robin [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 10:54 AM

Always a great column Ann. The idiot libs will ALWAYS vomit a phrase to try and discredit Bush and the republicans.

Posted by: jeffreymcgow [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 11:25 AM

Keep swinging, Ann. Keeping hammering at the flimsy facade of dime-store rhetoric and cheesy imagery that leftists prop up as a "political party."

These are people who encourage opportunistic lying and propaganda as viable political and social methods. They trade on confusion and double-speak. Clearly, to leftists not just in the US but all over the world, the end justifies the means. They represent the worst side of human nature: the side that rationalizes away conscience and rationalizes in the law of the jungle in which anything done to obtain power and control is okay.

These people are so obtuse, so incapable of self-evaluation, they don't bother questioning themselves, their motives or their methods. They believe inswervingly in their innate rightness. They believe anybody who stands in their way is to be defeated by any means possible.

In other words, these are scary people: the kind who can condemn an entire culture to death because it's an obstacle to "the party;" the kind who have no trouble with misinforming entire populations; the kind who see the grandest of human virtues, such as honesty, courage and self-reliance, as weaknesses.

These are not liberals. Liberals are open to other ideas. But these people have their little box of truth, and they are either indifferent or hostile to anything not in it.

You have to watch those social democrats.

Ann, I don't know what you get paid for your researching and writing, but you provide a valuable service, and you do it very well. Your first, last and best destiny is as a columnist, and I hope the job provides you with all you need, material and otherwise, so you'll be happy with it and stay with it.

Posted by: Florida Cane [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 11:52 AM

If I recall correctly, the voter turnout in the 2005 Iraqui Election was much higher than that inAmerican Presidential elections.

Posted by: Tim [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 11:58 AM

PERSONAL TO ANN COULTER:

I love you, Ann! Keep up the good work! Ann Coulter for America's First Female President! LOL~ LOL~

The only problem I have with you Ann, is for some reason, you insist on calling these morons by the title "Liberals" instead of identifying them by their political agenda: SOCIALISM! It's crucial you and all conservative reporters ban together and identify them by who they really are, instead of calling them "Liberals", a term they say they like because the dictionary defines the word as meaning "freeing"!

The Democratic Party isn't the political party of the Southern Democrats anymore! The Democratic Party isn't the political party of the era of our Grandparents and Great Grandparents! The same day Bill Clinton and Al Gore were sworn into office, America's Democratic Party became the Socialist Democratic Party!

I spent 5 yrs. stationed in West Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall (in the 70's), and I tell you without qualification that our American Democratic Party has the same political ideology as the European Socialist Democrats! The Mafia owns America's Socialist Democrats the same way the Mafia owns Europe's Socialist Democrats and Vladamir Putin's Russian Government! The Mafia hires Islamic Terrorists and other Terrorists to do their dirty work for them, so the Leaders of these Socialist/Communist Governments appear to have "clean hands" to the general populace! The real political goal of Socialist Democrats is the destruction of America's Republic created by our Christian Founding Fathers! Their goal is to replace it with a Socialist form of government consistent with the EU/UN! It's crucial you get this truth across, finally, to our US citizens before the next Presidential Election, or else I promise you we will lose that election and they will end up controlling both the Executive and Legislative Branches of our Government! They already own most of the Judges in the Judicial Branch! That will literally enable them to hand over the reins of our US Government to the EU/UN, and Hillary and Billary will become Leaders of America's Westerm Hemisphere puppet government for the EU's/UN's planned One World Government!

Their goal isn't the liberation of the American people! Their goal is to enslave them with big government, i.e., more regulations, more taxes, etc. Therefore, the term "Liberals" is a total misnomer for who they really are! I beg you to please finally be courageous enough to lead the pack and identify the political agenda of these Socialists to the people of America (many of whom are uneducated, naturalized citizens from other Nations), so they will finally realize how truly dangerous America's Socialist Democratic Party really is!

If Reporters had only sounded a rallying cry all over the World to warn everyone about the rise of power of these following Terrorist Dictators, I wonder how many millions would have survived and not been slaughtered?: Russia's Stalin and Lenin; Austria's Hitler; Italy's Mussolini; Japan's Hirohito; Libya's Khadafy; Cuba's Castro; only to mention just a few!

Posted by: BJ1949 [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 12:52 PM

Thanks Ann!

Something to send to my delluded acquaintences, with the note:

Here's a perfect start to your study of the wisdom of Liberals and their uncanny ability to apply that wisdom in predicting the future! :-D

Terry

Posted by: TallT [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 01:27 PM

Please excuse my crappy spelling of "deluded acquaintances".

Rush for president,
Ann for Vice President,
Debbie Schlussel for Secretary of State,
and Paul Harvey, for Environmental protection and to teach Rush that, however fashionable it is for Republicans to mock alternate fuel technology, electric cars are not a joke and synthetic oil -- which blows petroleum away for lubrication (I sold it for years) should be an integral part of "oil independence".

Posted by: TallT [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 01:53 PM

Once again, Ann hits them where they breathe. All this nonsense about political solutions is a straw man to deceive - once again - the American people. I contend that Iraq's politicians are doing the very same things our exalted dumb nuts do. If Iraqi politicians are corrupt, who are they emulating? When significant legislation sits without being enacted,who are they emulating? When they go on vacation for the month of August, who are they emulating?

Libs should be proud - they have a government that they can truly call their own!

Posted by: NTHockey [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 06:50 PM

Thanks, Ann.

If ever you want to show how stupid, dishonest, or treacherous liberals really are, just list their statements on Iraq.

Jimmy Carter, an expert? On anything? He is just the most articulate liar I have ever heard. Bill Clinton was a pathological liar. Jimmy Carter has even lied about the Middle East situation when he was President. He gave us the Iran situation and the Nicaraguan problem. It took Ronald Reagan to solve Nicaragua. Who will it take to solve Iran?

Posted by: Loser [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2007 09:58 PM

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.)


Remember me?


Regular Columnists

Ann Coulter
David Limbaugh
Debbie Schlussel
Rachel Marsden
Chris Adamo

Interesting Reads