Join The Debate!

My Kerry-ish promise

If I'm elected President, everyone in the US will be conservative multi-millionaires, and world peace will reign supreme.

Can I count on y'all's votes in 2008?

BrianR

Shouldn't that be "all y'all's votes"?

The What-If Man

John Kerry is a tragicomic figure. He is obviously a man of some intelligence -- having graduated from Yale at virtually the same level as George W. Bush. He has a respectable job resume in many respects: county prosecutor, Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, U.S. Senator, author, Democratic candidate for the 2004 presidential race, etc.

The tragic aspect of the man is his self-delusion. It first became public in 1971 during his Senate testimony, which was largely fictional. It has continued mostly unabated since. For Kerry to delude himself into thinking Hezbollah's attacks on Israel would not have happened under his watch is what we have come to expect from this curious man.

Miss Kitty

You're right. Maybe even "all of y'all's votes".

LOL

Don't Vote For Brian!

How absurd to say we'd all be millionaires! Impossible! But, if'n y'all vote for me, I can assure you everyone citizen and undocumented worker in the country will have an above-average income, above-average schools as well as below-average gasoline prices. Because we all have above-average intelligence, this scheme cannot fail.

sloopy

LOL

Y'all sayin' Ahm overpromisin'?

Computer glitch

Over half of my edited post was not shown. Now, it's too late to re-think everything. Oh well!

Why even go after OBL?

After all, all of the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 hijackings were killed along with their victims. If a man kills his wife and then turns the gun on himself, we don't arrest his mother-in-law. Continue to narrow your focus and this is where you'll arrive.

What the left doesn't seem to understand is that our enemy in this current war is unlike any other we've faced before. In the past our enemies have been more like tumors, and we have been able to locate them and destroy them where they live. The current enemy is more like a blood-borne parasite that is festering in every organ of the world's body. Not as easy to remove, and just as deadly.

The enemy is intentionally anonymous. They want to look like everyone else. I have a friend who was in one of the first marine units to march into Baghdad. He says that most of the people did come out and greet them as liberators. There were some, however, who came out with the crowds, pretending to be excited to see the Americans, hoping to get close to the marines so they could injure or kill one of them. It didn't take long before they were forced to err on the side of caution and simply couldn't let any civilians close to them.

John Kerry and his ilk foolishly seem to think we're dealing with an enemy who would stop fighting if only we really understood them and they really understood us. We want to live in peace and liberty, and they want us dead. There's no way to come to any compromise when the two sides desire such disparate outcomes.

Q: "Hey, John. There's a jackal gnawing off your head. What are you going to do?"

A: "I'll go to the UN and have them pass a resolution which explains to him that his behavior doesn't pass the international test and he must therefore cease forthwi . . ." (faints, thankfullly, from loss of blood. Or we'd be reading his response until labor day).

In order for diplomacy to work, you must first be dealing with someone capable of rational thought. We cannot reason with our current enemy and should not be expected to do so. But, since ol' Johnny boy seems to think he's the only one up to the task, we should call his bluff. Let's give him a one-way ticket to Beirut.

Must be his recent revelation....

Possibly John "Kohn" Kerry recent tough talk could be a result of his recent revelation that he too is really Jewish!!
(Something that coincidentally just happened to be brought to his attention during election year 2004)
What a joke this pompous ass is-
Thank God, that he is not Commander-in Chief!!!

The Islamic Enemy

Any cause that's able to recruit members willing to die for it, is a formidable foe indeed, and is very capable of prevailing against a less committed adversary - and likely to do so. In the last century, the Japanese produced just such warriors but too late to make the difference. The Kamikazes weren't recruited by the State so much as they spontaneously volunteered in defense of it when defeat was clearly approaching.

We've been kept free by individuals who devoted themselves to the point of death should it be necessitated by circumstances - we didn't set out to purposely kill ourselves.

The Jihadists have taken this passion to a even deadlier level - death as a goal. It's been said that the deadliest fighter on a nuclear battlefield is the soldier, having been exposed to nuclear radiation and realizing he's finished, turns himself into a suicide weapon in his final hours alive. The Jihadists are even more deadly since they aren't restricted by time or deteriorating health.

Therefore, we are indeed fighting a war of survival and the sooner the West decides that this enemy needs to be taken much more seriously, the better it's chances for survival. Their successes can only strengthen them as more recruits are attracted to the cause. Appeasing them is their success since it is an indication of weakness that may be exploited. That's why we nor the Israelis cannot give in any longer.

Ann has made it quite clear that this world-wide Jihad is growing, expanding and widening. It is suicidal to give these people 'rights' - they extend none to their enemies. She is also exactly right that it makes no sense to put leftists in charge of our defense since, corrupted, amoral and bereft of traditional forms of honor though they may be, delusionally thinking they might 'do business' with these people - sort of one gang negotiating with another ('it's only business') or like Faust dealing with the devil - they're sadly mistaken if they think this animal wouldn't eat them too.

Please leave John Kerry alone

Can't we all just get along?

John Kerry is a man of the people, after all.
Look on the bright side, people. He's probably way too occupied to read any of this drivel anyhow. He's either:

a.) on his Learjet, the Flying Squirrel
b.) on his yacht, the Scallamooshe
c.) at his Beacon Hill townhouse, or
d.) relaxing on the beach on his ISLAND off the Massachusetts coast, Naushon island.

So, again, Mr.Kerry is a hard working chap, a "man's man" if you will (just like you and me).

PLEASE LEAVE SENATOR KERRY ALONE.

Thank You, Ann

Lest we should ever forget.

John F****** Kerry

John F****** Kerry is a f****** nutcase!

Good job Ann!

To TybeeFlip

My frustration with today's liberals is that they are putting party politics ahead of this battle we are in on a daily basis. I think if they get the white house they will continue the fight but today they can't join it verbally for fear that Bush' poll #'s will go up. I contrast that with 1998 when Bill Clinton called for regime change in Iraq and asked for Congressional authorization to bomb people. Now it was mentioned and a reasonable person could assume that Bill was just trying to change the headlines from his Lewinsky problem, but the Senate voted 98-0 to grant him this authority. The republicans would not play politics with our security in that case. You cannot get today's democrats to do that, other than Joe Lieberman--who is a real hero. Today's democrats are like some kids I used to coach in basketball--they'd rather score 25 points in a loss than 5 points in a win. It's not good for the team. And the real question dems should be asking today about the war is not if we knew then what we know now about WMD would we still authorize it. Rather it is if we knew then what we know today about corruption at the UN and in the Oil for Food program would we still call for international approval of our efforts. Other than calling Saddam a bad guy--do ya think?--they refuse to mourn the innocents that died because of Saddam and Kofi Annan and France and Russia and Germany and China. Or even the thousands being killed by their terrorists country men in Iraq. Just those who are used as human shields and killed by Israel or the US. The liberal lack of support hurts us--it lengthens the war because the terrorists get the idea if they just outlast Bush we'll back off.
You sound like an adult but the Democratic Party and their officials try to please the whacko childish side in order to get their support. They behave like children in so many ways. I have read Kos and Huffpo to try to test my thoughts and see where we can find any agreement. It's not there.

TybeeFlip

I don't doubt that the average citizen-liberal wants to win the war, but the actions of the liberal politicians certainly indicate otherwise. And the citizen-liberals keep voting for them. In my book, that makes you an accomplice, along with the MSM, the greatest ally the terrorists have in this war.

Kerry and the liberals

Ann, Great article! The problem that I see when debating (if it can be caled that) liberals is that they seem to think that whatever harm they are doing to America is OK as long as the result is a black eye or worse for President Bush. Removing him from the Presidency takes precedence over all else and to hell with anyone or any country (USA first and foremost) that gets in their way. Somehow, their twisted thinking has President Bush as a greater danger than all the islamofacists combined. "Useful idiots"!

I Hates Me a John Kerry

John Kerry's comment is empty as it is asinine. Only Gilligan should be allowed to spout such inanities.
As for TybeeFlip, you're right. You don't know the answer. But your statement that there 'might not be an answer' reveals what is wrong with the liberal mindset (sorry). Placing the concept of islamic desire to kill all of us out in philosiphical neverland where there 'are no answers' does absolutely nothing to stop them or their desire.
You state that a liberal view is that liberals want 'an end to death and destruction'. Well, that is well and good. But that sentiment shows a paucity of realism in the face of what we are up against in this conflict.
So it falls to me to explain the real world to you.
There are people in the world who want to kill you.
They have already made up their minds to kill you. The will do it if they get the chance.
No reasoning, compromising, appeasement, dialog, concession, talk, ransom, tribute, money or anything else will do. They want two things: your submission, or your death.
We have encountered an enemy who has no use for reason. Dialog is only entertainment before the business at hand; killing you or dominating you. They do not fear death; they approach it with relish and content.
That is the real world. It doesn't matter when it started, or under whose presidency it occurred. Nor does it matter what anyone thinks about it.
They want to kill us and that is all anybody really needs to know.
The other sad reality about all of this is that lots and lots of civilians are going to die before all of this is over. I don't like it. But that's the way it is.
I don't want the innocents of the world to suffer as we fight this war. But we are being forced into a corner where such compassion may be a luxury.
John Kerry's statements show how far down the road a person can get when divorced from reality.

Sick of War

Let me set the record straight as I see it. First, I am a conservative, Republican from a Republican state, and I voted for President Bush in both elections. My state did also. Second, I am sick of this war because we are steeped in ignorance. Here is my take: Picking and choosing who to kill in groups of 1 and 2 will not get the job done. There are hundreds of thousands Islamofacist ready to die for Muhammad. I remember the out come of Stalingrad and how the Russians buried in the rubble of their own city crawled out repeatedly and ultimately won. I remember Grozny-how the Russian army leveled that city and still did not and have not stopped the Chechnyians from attacking deep in Russia. I remember Afghanistan where the Russian army tried to keep the Capital Kabul in tact while taking body bags home until they tired of that chore. I see the US, my country sacrificing our young men in Iraq while trying to keep Baghdad in tact while bombs(IEDs) and possibly a civil war erupts all around us. I remember spending trillions of dollars developing very sophisticated weapons and nuclear weapons for the exact purpose of fighting wars with the intent to win. We spent more money training our soldiers how to employ those weapons. Those weapons sit idly in warehouses while the bodies pile up. We are in fact a paper tiger. On paper our war machine is unbeatable in practice our war machine is in mothballs. Our soldiers are in body bags. As an Army Officer of 26 years, I don't care what the NYTimes says, what Kofi Annan says, what Russia says or any other piss ant country--I care about our responsibility to our citizens--those in uniforms and those that walk our streets. We need to bring all our power to bear on all our enemies and after that is done and they have either lost their lives or their will to continue, then and only then, will we find a way to develop a peaceful world.

TybeeFlip

Ann is not trying to assign blame for those terrorist attacks. She is only pointing out how serious the terror situation has become. Most liberals denounce Israel for fighting the group that is responsible for hundreds of American deaths. Hezbollah terrorists hide among civilians and target civilians. If I'm not mistaken, that is against the Code of Justice. It doesn't violate the Code to target enemy positions that happen to be in civilian areas. What would Democrats rather Israel do, ignore rockets fired from such areas? That is what the enemy is hoping Israel will do.

Based on the fact that the vast majority of liberals are advocating policies that have failed miserably throughout the history of this conflict, yeah, liberals do root for failure. Also, there is no reason that terrorists can't be defeated. Al Qaida is a shell of what it once was, thanks to the no-nonsense policies of the Bush administration. There is no reason that Israel can't do the same with Hezbollah.

As a second note

Why is it that you have to go all the way back to JFK and TRuman to find Democratic examples of "TOugh"?

Repeat

Folks I hate to say what I have said before but the issue is never what is said. The issue is to keep criticizing constantly. The MSM will ensure all of it is printed so as to tear down our government and make our government available to rule by the Socialist. Every day on television I hear people parrot every story published as if it were fact. Someone "latches on" to each and every lie told and each thread of disinformation published. That is the intent. President Bush is far too silent on these rantings and the Republican Party is far too docile (Ann Coulter excepted). Remember : "When the Eagle is silent, the parrots will jabber." Winston Churchill

One more thing

TybeeFlip also writes, "So it won't help to point out that of the 19 terrorist attacks that Ann points out, 12 happened during Republican administrations. In fact, 11 happened from 1982-1988 during Reagan's administration. But he obviously stopped terrorism."

As another poster pointed out, Ms. Coulter assigned no blame for the attacks. (Well, other than the jab at the sanctimonious incompetent under whom they began, and whose utter failure invited all the rest.) Now, if you want to watch Ann assign blame to a party, check out pages 155-157 of the paperback edition of TREASON. To paraphrase Ms. Coulter herself, it's a bit much to blame Reagan for not winning World War IV when he won World War III.

PS -- don't be so quick to flaunt the Ph.D. you're "working on." Some of us have it in hand. For example, I've never brought it up before (mainly because it's really pretentious and, until now, irrelevant), but the "Doc" in my handle is not an honorary title.

Iraq - the lowest-hanging fruit.

Iraq, at the time, simply was the lowest-hanging fruit on the terrorism tree, you Gomers!

Fruit pickers ALWAYS prefer to pick the lowest-hanging fruit first because it is eaier to reach and requires less effort. In this situation, the USA was doing the fruit picking from the terrorism tree! Usually, it is Israel who has to do this, but her ladder cannot reach as high as ours does so she really can't get to too much of the fruit.

She will reach out if she can, but someone within usually has an issue with something for some reason.

Many of her own citizens, like here in the USA, like to kick the ladder out from underneath her just as she is about to pick a smaller fruit from this tree!

My opinions are worth everything you paid to read them! :-D

Rick.

The Reality

I've been in the Air Force for 20 years now and I (like all other service members) pray for peace and would prefer to avoid conflicts when at all possible. However, we are in this war whether we want it or not and total defeat of these fanatics MUST be our only goal. I would never advocate the needless killing of innocents, but we can only win this war by the total annihilation of the enemy. In WWII, we didn’t seek to “hamper the Nazi’s war fighting abilities” or “discourage future attacks” - our goal was their complete destruction. We too often expect our military (and currently the Israelis) to get into the ring with boxing gloves – while our enemy uses a shotgun. Unfortunately, too many Americans (i.e. liberals) live in a “what should be” world and not in reality. Liberals believe that “compassion and understanding” will end all disputes and that “we must have done something wrong” to create this situation. Read your history! This is not a new conflict – the same people have been trying to kill us and our ancestors for thousands of years. When your enemy’s only goal is your death, no amount of “compassion and understanding” will improve the situation. Unfortunately, this conflict may never go away; we can only kill or remove as many as possible and make state-sponsors pay an extremely high price for their support. We can all debate the “perfect solution”, but until, and if, that solution is found we must all be on the same side.

I would love to live in a perfect world, in which we all get along. However, the reality is that someone will always want what you have or disagree with your ideals and believe violence is the only answer. You can defend yourself or die – it actually is that “black and white”.

Gunny, iotally agree

Oh I agree with you regarding JFK. .but. . .he IS One of the two or three examples always dragged out by a LIberal when their desire to fight for the US of A is questioned> ANd. .compared to TODAYS liberals? He woudl be a warrior - I woudl think it woudl be a major improvement over what we have now if we could transfporm todays democrats into JFK clones. Take that as you will. Point is, they have jerked far enough left that JFK looks like a foreign policy hawk compared to other democrats.

Says so,mething.

The Left

AC: "But wait a minute -- Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11! Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?"

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!

AC: "After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad -- just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein. But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!

AC: "Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is. America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al-Qaida and certainly not just Osama bin Laden."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!

AC: "Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:


November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!

AC: "(Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)"

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000."

DEMS: Oh yeah, that goofy one-eyed guy - but Bush is Hitler!


AC: "Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


"November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors."

DEMS: But Bush is Hitler!


AC: "Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans."

DEMS: But hey, you know, we had it coming because we've angered lots of people and we should be asking them why they are so mad at us and what can we do to make things better again like it was during Clinton, besides, Bush is an idiot who should've seen it coming, or maybe Bush is an evil genius who knew it was coming and wanted it to happen, or Cheney and Haliburton did - "No Oil for Blood!" - or, whatever... but Bush is Hitler!


AC: "America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 -- as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House."

DEMS: Democrats are never Hitler!

Classic

exapno, thanks for the BEST READ of the day.

Remember the three tenets of Democrats today.

1. Bu$hitler.

2. We can do it better than Bush but we're still working on the plan.

3. Oh yeah, it's all Bush's fault. All of it from 10,000 BC to the present. (Hint: He used Rove's time machine).

Dem Traitors

BrianR's post got me to thinking about something my dad (WW2 vet) told me about a Democrat Congcritter named Andrew May. He blabbed TOP SECRET stuff and got US sailors killed. He was never punished for that but got jailed for bribery. I guess Hanoi John figured May and Hanoi Jane Fonda set the precedent so he was good-to-go.

http://www.ww2pacific.com/congmay.html

Gunny G

After posting the “rules” in Ann’s last installment, WWJD? will certainly be pleased to see how much of an impact they’ve had on stifling creative freedom of expression -- as evidenced in these latest postings.

Oh... wait a minute, it actually seems as though people are dialoguing, without copious footnotes, or having to define the meaning of, “Is.” And at that, I think some of us are actually having fun! “God bless America, land that I love.”

Not that I’m in the habit of quoting characters from docudramas, but the imagery, as well as the expression were very poignant. In the words of William Wallace in Braveheart, “FREEEE-DOMMMM!”

Cutter

That's what separates us from the libs.

We:

1. Work.

2. Are happy.

3. Enjoy life.

I mean really, take a gander at this frothing moonbat in Bezerkley, Kalifornia. This is a prime example of a liberal moonbat who hates life and wants to share his/her misery with the rest of us.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y187/gunnygail/135-3575_2IMG.jpg

Cutter, you nailed it. The only ones I see trying to limit freedom is the Dems, the UN, and both backed by anti-freedom, anti-American George Soreass.

warrior has it right

The commitment to go to war is an awesome responsibility. When the commitment is made you must fight to win - destroy the enemy until he is willing to fall at your feet and beg for mercy. You fight to destroy your enemy and put them in total submission. The Iraq has given Iran more freedom to operate - we removed from power their enemy. Now Chavez down south is purchasing Soviet military equipment. This can not be allowed to happen. In regards to Iraq, I quote Wellington: I always had a horror of revolutionizing any country...I always said, if they rise of themselves, well and good, but do not stir them up: it is a fearful responsibility.

TybeeFlip

Just a crazy conservative!

Tybee, I applaud you for writing a well-written, thoughtful (though sarcastic) post. This is exceedingly rare from your side of the isle (see: DailyKos).

I don't have time for much, but here are some thoughts.

The better part of the first half of your post seems to be dedicated to creating some kind of higher moral authority than the rest of us. It's unfortunate that you were in NY on 9/11 and your family lives in DC and your cousin is in the Navy, etc... But, that doesn't mean that your position is somehow more moral or valid than someone who's not as close to the hot spots.

I don't think it slipped past anyone that terrorists have been attacking us for decades throughout dem and rep administrations. Rather that was the point, to highlight the ridiculousness of the Democrats obsession with OBL...that if somehow Bush dedicated 100% of our resources to finding him, terrorism would cease. This smokescreen is nothing more than a poke in the eye of the bush administration.

Contrary to liberal belief, conservatives are deeply concerned about civilian casualties...so much so that the American (and Israeli) military go to great lengths, often at their own peril, to avoid them. However, we also understand that it is neither right nor moral to dogmatically hold the only position that will ever stop them completely, i.e. never go to war ever ever. The “proportionate response” argument I keep hearing from liberals re the current situation in Lebanon is also baffling to me. What is the proportionate response to having rockets launched at civilians in your cities? More talk? More open dialog? More “land for peace”? This type of behavior is exactly what continues to embolden these people. Never in recorded history has conflict ever been avoided by appeasing the aggressor. I think we can wipe terrorism from the planet but it’s going to involve the only known formula for victory against an enemy that wants nothing less than our complete annihilation – Complete and total destruction of their ability to make war and crushing their will to keep fighting. Anything less only prolongs the inevitable. For the sake of my children, I hope we have the will.

I don’t believe that the average liberal American is hoping for our defeat against worldwide jihadism, but the words and actions of your politicians, pundits, intellectuals and media outlets certainly point that direction. It’s a shame that the extreme left seems to have hijacked your party preventing any rational discussion.

I would enjoy hearing your thoughts. Good luck with your PhD.

jsh thinks 1+1 =3

Great post jsh.

You complain that most presidents during that time frame were Republican but then whine about the GOP congress not doing anything prior to 9/11 under a Dem president. Might I point out that it was a fully Dem controlled congress for 40 years prior to 1996. Doesn't seem like they accomplished a whole lot in regards to terror in that time.

Besides who was in control, the whole point of the article is to show that Osama is not the only terrorist out there as Dems seem to think. And one of the first things you reply with is why didn't the Republicans get Osama?!

Besides pretty much validating everything Ann said, you also seem to leave out the fact that Clinton was offered Osama and declined. You also leave out the fact that his attempts to "stop terrorism" involved the brilliant strategy of bombing pharmaceutical plants in the Sudan. Quite a success that was.

But you're right about that Reagan guy, he really did nothing at all. That whole economic boom in the 80s that tripled our output, stopping communism (I know, I know, it was actually Truman even though libs didn't believe in communism until it was defeated), and shutting up Qadafi are all meaningless I suppose.

But hey, you raised some great points about how Republicans let 9/11 happen and how all they care about is Monica Lewinsky. Quite impressive and thanks for the two cents but I'd say its back to basic arithmetic for you.

With all the discussion

about time, dates and facts about history. In an attempt to educate Liberals or just to prove who's right or wrong. May be a useless endeavor. We need to deal with the "here and now." As many have pointed out. The Barbarians are at our gate! And the only thing that will stop them is total destruction.

Hey BrianR! If yer reading dis. I'll votes fer ya! No matter what dey seys about ya!

The point?

I didn't see Kerry in the interview she is talking about so I will take what Ms. Coulter says with a grain of salt. However, is her point that we should have invaded Iran in 1979?

A letter..

Got this e-mail from my brother-in-law. A pilot and NASA scientist (ret.) Thought I would share it with you.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?


I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:


Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam.

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).



Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him.



Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.



Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

Gunny on Invading Iran

I am not sure what you mean by "backing the Shah".
I remember many people, Dem and Rep who wanted to do just that. The trouble with these forums if that people slant the facts of their opinions to favor their beliefs so one can't really just accept what is said.

Maybe we should have invaded. Instead of being 5 years into a multi generational war, we would be 17 years into it. I believe the ramification of such an attack is just slightly worse now as then because of the weapons many in the region have. Some or all countries in the mideast, Russia and China, may not have just stood by--they threatened to help the Iranians, just as they are saying now. Still we may have been closer now to some sort of resolution of at least the middle eastern problem.

Hey, Goshawk

Thanks for the vote. That makes two, now; you and me.

LOL

We Need a Hezbollah Attack on the US

Much as I would hate to see it, I'm afraid an attack by Hezbollah (or other terrorist group) in the United States with at least as many civilian casualties as 9/11 might be the only thing that will wake us up before it's too late...if it isn't already too late.

Where is OBL?

If you ask me, OBL is tied up in a cell waiting to be paraded either about the time of the '06 election or the '08 election.

Since none of us really works for the intelligence and some of us appear, rather, to be lacking in some, THAT is what MY guess is.

Somehow, we will be told, that he suddenly popped up out of a cave somewhere in either Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, or one of the other Stans and that we nabbed him! This will be great news, of course.

Lazlo

"So it falls to me to explain the real world to you.
There are people in the world who want to kill you.
They have already made up their minds to kill you. The will do it if they get the chance.
No reasoning, compromising, appeasement, dialog, concession, talk, ransom, tribute, money or anything else will do. They want two things: your submission, or your death.
We have encountered an enemy who has no use for reason. Dialog is only entertainment before the business at hand; killing you or dominating you. They do not fear death; they approach it with relish and content.
That is the real world. It doesn't matter when it started, or under whose presidency it occurred. Nor does it matter what anyone thinks about it.
They want to kill us and that is all anybody really needs to know.
The other sad reality about all of this is that lots and lots of civilians are going to die before all of this is over. I don't like it. But that's the way it is.
I don't want the innocents of the world to suffer as we fight this war. But we are being forced into a corner where such compassion may be a luxury."

I'm quoting you at length because it bears repeating again and again. That is the entire truth and not much else matters.
It's time for us to take the handcuffs off our military, remove the kid gloves, and secure our borders, and STOP LISTENING to all the garbage the appeasers and the terrorists spew.

One more time hearing how the big bad Israelis are the agressors against the poor little innocent palestinians and hezballahz and I will hurl.

More than 30 years, Ma'am

The second line of the Marine Corps Hymn refers to our troubles with these folks quite a bit longer than 30 years ago.

Liberal Victory

It's funny, all this talk and bickering between "Republicans" and Democrats about foreign and domestic policy obscures the larger issue, which is this: Liberalism has triumphed on the American scene and Conservatism is dying a slow and agonizing death. To me, Liberalism stands for Big Government, restrictions on individual liberty, and a misguided, delusional belief in the power to fundamentally shape the world via government means (military or otherwise). By that standard, George W. Bush is one of the best Democratic presidents we've EVER had.
Despite the fact that we have a "Republican"-controlled House, a "Republican"-controlled Senate, and a "Republican" president, the Federal Government has expanded, the Welfare State has increased, civil liberties have been curbed or ignored, and spending and deficits have skyrocketed. I find it interesting that Bush is starting to compare himself to Harry S. Truman, a liberal. I guess he realized that passing himself off as "Reagan's Heir" ain't playing too well among genuine conservatives. Actually, a more fitting comparison for Bush would be Woodrow Wilson, one of our most liberal (and worst) presidents. As you know, at the outset of his second term - and despite his re-election campaign promises to the contrary - Woody took time off from feeding the ravenous appetite of Big Brother and praising "Birth of a Nation" to drag us into World War I. To rationalize this heinous act, he proclaimed that American boys "must make the world safe for democracy." The result: The slaughter of thousands of young American males, the prolonged death and suffering of millions of Europeans, the survival of oppressive European empires, the Russian Revolution, the Rise of Fascism and Nazism, and World War II and the Holocaust, not to mention the Cold War. In a similar moment of megalomania, Bush proclaimed that we "must end tyranny in the world." I shudder to think of the consequences of this statement.

Rambling! No structure! Boo! Shill!

Coulter again discards the necessary structure a political essay ( at the minimum, state a premise and back it up). Her title promises us "More of John Kerry's retroactive campaign promises" but we don't get that - her essay clearly diverts, presenting a list of Muslim terrorist attacks and ends with a different conclusion altogether, addressed nowhere in the essay, that ALL democrats are bad. Whether or not you agree with her individual statements, can anybody here recognize that she cannot craft a basic argument?

If her premise was that we need to beware John Kerry because he is asserting he would have prevented this war, she should have established that, citing how she believes it to be so and developing the argument using as much relevant facts, research and statistics as possible. Clearly, neither she (or in fairness Kerry himself) could know for sure if he would have beeen able to prevent this. Contemplating such possibilities and hypotheticals is a complete waste of time for informed adults, Kerry included. I could not find Kerry's complete statement, but Ann quoted only the two isolated Kerry's sentences we see here, without their full, original context. Based on what little we've been given, Kerry looks pompous, but as Ann's essays only present the right side of an argument, it's fair to say we have no idea what Kerry was out promoting or what his main talking points were Sunday.

Ann then heaps on inferior logic, using the exaggerated, unsupported extension of the idea that since Kerry accused Bush of focusing on Saddam instead of Osama, that Kerry couldn't have gone after Hezbollah and is therefore a hypocrite. The faulty reasoning is that this assumes the U.S. can only do one thing at once. Kerry never stated this anywhere, nor did the U.S. military ever actually stop looking for Osama (I hope).

So Ann's question "Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?" comically distorts the criticism of Bush going into Iraq without justification, as if the U.S. had to be stifled from doing anything else until Osama was found.

She states: "Democrats can't come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the "Where's Osama?" incantation to pretend that they'd be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden."

However, this wildly overgeneralized assertion could easily be disputed and disproven by finding only one Democrat willing to fight ANY war in defense of America. She already knows Hillary Clinton does not oppose the war, so Ann's use of ALL Democrats here is unfair and inflammatory, the same unjustified broadbrushing we've seen throughout history's greatest propaganda campaigns. As a pundit however, Ann has no legal or ethical obligation to tell the truth, present balance or make logical statements, or even prove her premises with factual evidence.

"Thus, in the third presidential debate, Kerry complained about the cost of the war in Iraq, saying the war was "the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."

This, in itself is a fair statement as Bush personally made a comment about Osama that lefty radio hosts love replaying constantly, saying "I don't know where he is, I really don't think about it that much".

She states: "After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad --..."

I think here she unfairly uses the word "sole". This is a scathing accusation that ALL Democrats are so inept as to only be able to do one thing at a time. This is only fair to state if you can back it up with facts, which she doesn't. It's the same Ann Coulter 'valley-girl' style of using 'absolute' language to (humorously?) exaggerate the situation any time she doesn't like something.

She continues: "--- just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein."

This suggests Saddam had an ACTIVE program for such.

"But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic."

No Democrat I saw ever advocated being "merciless" with anyone, distorted, exaggerated comedy again.

"Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is."

WOW! (Though I'm not a Democrat) is it absurd for me to want Osama to be brought to justice? Sorry, but she's not representing most Americans here. If she's means to criticize the Democrats always holding the fact that Osama is still at large over Bush, she should state so, but not give Osama any kind of pass.

Here's her statement now trying to establish some kind of pattern:

"America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al-Qaida and certainly not just Osama bin Laden."

And not just Muslims, right Ann? How about extremist right wing militia?

"Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:"

Note how she slips in her anti-Democrat message without supporting how Democrats in particular contributed to the attacks happening.

"America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 -- as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House.

Ann here irresponsibly makes the prediction that Republican leadership will end the war with Muslim fanatics! But six years of GOP control of both houses has only worsened the problem. We have more terrorist incidents across the globe under Bush (see Colin Powell's figures), more "radicalization" of moderate Muslims (see polls of Iraqi anti-American sentiment as only one example), and the escalation of tension and conflict in the MidEast (see a newspaper).

If she started out trying to convince me John Kerry was a jerk, she instead went on to convince me that Muslim extremists like to attack U.S. interests, and concluded by stating that you, dear reader are fools unless you follow her party inclinations. This is more akin to the structure of William Burroughs' writing then that of a professional newspaper columnist. So goes the decline of literacy in the U.S.

If you would like to see a well-reasoned, extremely well researched, rationally formed opinion piece on Mideast politics, see Tom Friedman. Here we see an example of a writer who is far more informed on the intricacies and complexities of the region, armed with facts and figures, and far more in touch with the "street". Minimally, he knows the basics of how to structure a persuasive essay.

Ann Coulter's latest diabtribe continues a pattern of cheerleading for the supposed greatness of the U.S., without actually doing anything great to contribute to this country. What good is a long list of terror attacks without tying them into a related conclusion? Just stoking your right-wing fires and then hoping you won't see call her on the fact that her summation proves no pattern regarding Democrats. Maybe she got tired. Yawn.

In this essay, she is telling you all to oppose ALL Democrats without giving you a substansive reason to do so!

If this 'monopolizes' this forum, feeel free to continue any discusssion here: http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=110433&forum_id=4

Cutter Bench – We should ignore

The best way to handle DJWW would be to totally ignore and not respond. In all likelihood DJWW is not a teacher but some liberal advocacy/action group. I wouldn’t be surprised if DJWW were in fact a group/team of college aged activists. The “I’m a 5th grade teacher” is just a ploy to create legitimacy; reminds me of a recent “reverend” posting.

I wasted my time with 2-3 rounds of point and counter point with DJWW and it was literally worse than debating a 5 year old with a pathological lying disorder. The kicker was DJWW providing the link to an article and quoting a quote from the article as proof that Pres. Bush had admitted error. When I took time to review the article the original quote didn’t even exist; DJWW had googled an article and didn’t even take time to read. DJWW is just shot gunning words, thoughts, premises etc and engaging in deflection, vagueness, hearsay, red herring, obfuscation, double-speak etc and hoping something will stick to the wall.

Reaganite - WWJD?/WWJD???

When I posted "Object Lessons in Moon-Battery" to Ann's column, "Liberals: Born to Run" my use of battery was intentional. Two points in my Moon-Battery acrostic read (in part) as follows: 1) "Trojan Horse; using the name (WWJD?) is the shell." When I wrote Trojan Horse, I meant it in the classical sense. 2) "Really needs to get a life... If this is an individual and not a team (as I suspect it is) a hobby might be in order." WWJD took exception to a lot of things but never my insinuations they were a team. Additionally, the user names posted are: WWJD? and WWJD???. When I first saw WWJD??? I questioned it's use and never received a reply.

I think the posts in "Liberals: Born to Run" make for a good case study in the Wacky World of Jangled Deconstruction. Follow some of the threads. I did, and posted one under Woo Woo Jape Dew!

"Wisdom is known by her actions."

Cutter Bench - Spot On

I now recall you mentioning in a post that DJWW was probably a team/group. Once you made that observation it was obvious to me also that DJWW wasn't a genuine hack like the rest of us. In addition to the irregularities you note DJWW's postings read as a collection of input/findings by committee, not a continuum from a single author. When I finally got DJWW to respond to a challenge the reply was double speak with “nonexistent” supporting evidence – a bogus reference to an actual online CNN article. I then envisioned a bunch of bright, college-aged activists employing divide and conquer and googling. The ring-leader probably being some disenfranchised, middle-aged or older, self-loathing liberal (think typical college professor!!)

Another red flag (for JDWW and others) is when the posting is premised with personal credentials, i.e. I’m a 5th grade teacher …, I’m a Presbyterian Minister … etc. When that M.O. is employed it’s given that somebody is starting with a lie and trying to fit logic and creditability around the lie.