June 11, 2008
Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001
Printer FriendlyBy: Ann Coulter
In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.
Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.
But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.
We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.
The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.
The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."
(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")
Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.
Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.
Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.
But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.
We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.
But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.
The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.
Posted by redguy at June 11, 2008 08:48 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/952
Comments
B"H
Even though I am far from pleased that Pres. Bush seems to be encouraging us to give up half of my country {Israel} to Arab terrorists, even more so, the half we half just as much Biblical connection to as the other half, and even though it was promised to us by the Almighty just as much as the other half, if not more so {the far south was included in the original tribal territories}, and even though Pres. Bush appears {I could be wrong} to be allowing oil taint his decision-making regarding "peace in the Middle East" {or rather "piece"}....
...you do do make some good points.
Why hasn't the media been more forthcoming with reports of attacks which were prevented, like the 2006 plot against the CDC in Atlanta?
Could it be that they're biased?
;-}
Posted by: Ben-Yehudah ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.redstatesusa.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 12, 2008 06:50 AM
If President Bush would have used 9/11 to completely shut down illegal immigration, he would have been one of the most effective Presidents ever. His weakness for apologizing, such as he did recently in regard to his tough language on terror, is nauseating.
Posted by: Bernard at June 12, 2008 08:17 AM
Ann;
This is one of your best articles EVER!
I agree with you 100%, George W Bush has brought impeccable integrity back to the White House.
He has kept the Nation safe while enduring unprecedented false and unfair attacks by the Democrats and the Corrupt Media.
I think your count of 20,000 Al Queda DEATHS is way low. With their ongoing recruiting efforts in as many as 7 countries and subsequent reconstiution of those forces on multiple front lines a 50,000 DEAD number is probably more accurate.
Care to guess HOW MANY Iranian Republican guard DEATHS there have been in IRAQ? Thats probably another 5,000 to 10,000 with zero being reported by the Corrupt Media.
Ann, keep up the great work. The Corrupt Media is wearing people down and it is persons like yourself that give us inspiration to "Stay the Course" and fight the "Coming of the Second Jimmy Carter" Administration. Barack Obama NEVER!
Posted by: GAGentleman at June 12, 2008 08:24 AM
Dear Ann,
At the risk of being repetitive of all that everyone else is saying, I agree with you (as usual) 100%. I have always said, to anyone who'd listen, that Bush2 would be treated much better by history than he's being treated now. Without all the hysteria of the elite Hollywood left and the equally loony MSM, the historical arbitrators will recognize what this man has done under
the most difficult of circumstances. You leave out his uplifting the nation's spirits after 911, the quick work he made of driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan and that he guided the economy in such a way that there was no recession following 911 which almost everyone expected and even now they give him no credit for.
How many administrations faced the impasse
that is the Mid-East and did nothing but talk and see conditions only deteriorate. As bad as things
are in Israel, they are better than they were and a whole lot better than they would have been if no action had been taken in this part of the world. It is my solemn prayer that he has enough time left to his administration to have Iraq so far along the road to success that even
the likes of Barak cannot undo what has been accomplished.
Surely Bush has had his faults. He could have managed the war better after the quick (too quick?) toppling of Saddam. His management of the budget is off the charts faulty and
of course his attempt at immigration reform was not what we'd expect from someone whose presidency
is nearly entirely a product of dealing with the war on terrorism.
Posted by: GW Bramhall at June 12, 2008 10:36 AM
Ann, your column makes several excellent and important points.
First, no matter how much they try to be supportive of the United States--their country: the one that guarantees them the freedom to openly dissent--the democratic left's hatred of the country they live in always comes first leaking and then gushing out like diarrhea in church.
Second, leftists have controlled the main-stream media for so long that they expect to be the purveyors of truth for all of us. They bombard us with negative comments about Republican presidents and wait for the rest of the country--the real Americans--to get in lock-step with what amounts to leftist propaganda.
Third, the Bush administrations had some whopping successes, the most prominent of which is the controlling of terrorists and terrorism on US soil.
Fourth, and I quote: "There isn't a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end."
Great job, Ann--tighten your grip on the bat and keep swinging it.
Posted by: Florida Cane at June 12, 2008 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.)
