My girlfriend is fearless.She has known me for three or four months, which is usually plenty to get the lay of the land when it comes to my single mindedness about certain things and, being the bright and intuitive person she is, all that she has learned about me would, were she anyone else, inhibit her from putting Ann Coulter in front of me.
Like I said, though, she’s fearless.
My girlfriend.
Not Coulter.
Coulter is still a moron.
I just got this from G in my email.
And my two cents is sprinkled in italics here and there….
Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001
by 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.
And who among us is surprised that Ann is surprised, even though Bush is now the lowest rated President in the history of the United States of America with an approval rating of less than thirty percent? Does that mean that over 70 percent of Americans are liberal Democrats? If that’s the case, then Obama shouldn’t even bother to campaign, cause the job is a lock.
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."
Seems to me that I remember reading that the 9/11 attacks were in the planning stages for six or seven years before they were carried out. So while Bush gets credit for being on the bridge during these past seven years, the case could easily be made that it’s less about his decisive leadership than it is his pure dumb luck. The words Florida and chads come to mind.
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.
I’m not sure which is more annoying…the fact that this seems to be the best argument Coulter can come up with (and what a tired and unsubstantiated argument it is), but that any invading country could try and rationalize their actions the same way. Did Hitler think that he was invading Poland to protect Germany?
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.
Coulter obviously has no one in her family over there. I do. And he is a West Point graduate, an officer, a gentleman and committed to honor, duty, country and God…..and he tells me that many of “our servicemen” , far from baffled, are very specific in their feelings about how this “stunning success” of a war is being handled.
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.
The reason nobody really takes this non Bumstead blonde seriously is the way she shoots from the hip without ever bothering to make sure that she knows what she’s aiming at. Is the fact that Chicago and Detroit are more dangerous than Iraq really something that she wants to pin on George Bush? Last time I looked at the seal, it said “President of the United States of America”. And the last time I checked, Chicago and Detroit are cities inside states inside America. Which,, if I may be so bold, are the responsibility of…..wait for it….the President of the United States of America…..
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.
Actually, I think people ARE aware that we have not been attacked by terrorists….unless, of course, you count the fact that with gasoline at four dollars a gallon and climbing, the financial existence, let alone the future, of millions of American families is being slowly but surely eroded…..You know, Annie, you might want to consider that there are all kinds of ways to attack this country. Like, say, getting the price of oil to the point that it shuts down our society from the inside out, as opposed to invading us from the outside in…..
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.
And, with all due respect, Ms Coulter, you don’t do a damn thing to be a part of the solution by labeling people as liberals and then bitching about how much “they” hate Mr. Bush…or you, for that matter. I’m just thinking….isn’t the whole “lumping people into groups” thing, as in “liberals” and “conservatives” really just perpetuating the “them vs. us” mindset?.... an erudite way of saying “those people”….as in past usage “those Jews”….and “those blacks”, et al?
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.
Actually, AC, what’s wearying is listening to you prattle on about the virtues of a man who may, in fact, be a good, decent, moral man with the best of intentions but has proven, with seven plus years of opportunity, to be inept as an administrator. A massive home foreclosure crisis, no closer to energy independence than we were seven years ago, unemployment high and rising, environmental concerns either ignored or stalled and the best thing you have to offer as legacy is that Detroit and Chicago are more dangerous than Iraq. I’m sure that Mr. Bush is happy to have such a zealous supporter as your self. The problem with zealotry, I’d offer though, is that blind loyalty to one idea or one man puts an awful lot of eggs in one basket. And the picture of accomplishment and success that you so desperately want to paint of the Bush years simply doesn’t line up with what the very vast majority of Americans see. And jokes aside…we both know that 7 out of 10 Americans aren’t Democrats. So there must be more than a few of “those people” (conservative Republicans) who aren’t too crazy with the job your guy has done.
Admittedly, a guy who can hold his head high after such a disappointing tenure is certainly a man of convictions.
One might even say fearless.
But not as fearless as my girlfriend.
No comments:
Post a Comment