Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Incoming Congress prepares to launch 'Operation Surrender'
by Ann Coulter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.

Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism. They've started a runaway train and can't stop it now.

The Democratic base is at a fever pitch with visions of storm troopers listening to their phone calls and ruthlessly torturing innocent accountants at Guantanamo, where the average inmate has his own lawyer, his own prayer rug and is wondering what to do about that extra weight -- known as the "Gitmo 20" -- he's put on since being captured. They are oddly copacetic about actual storm troopers' daily harassment of actual citizens at airport security checkpoints. Liberals have no problem with government oppression as long as it's mandatory and applied equally to all Americans.

In a broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, NBC's Matt Lauer tried to nail down the Manhattan portion of his audience by aggressively questioning President Bush about the possible use of "waterboarding" against terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Lauer said ominously, "It's been reported that with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was what they call 'waterboarded.'"

At NBC, they apparently expected most Americans to react to this fact by exclaiming: They did WHAT to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Wait -- are you sure about that? OK, that's it. I will never vote Republican again!

President Bush refused to discuss techniques used on terrorists, saying, "We don't want the enemy to adjust." But Americans "need to know," he said, "we're using techniques within the law to protect them."

While normal people would be happy if we were using cattle prods on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Lauer was testy about the possible use of waterboarding against him. "I don't want to let this 'within the law' issue slip," he said.

"I mean, if, in fact, there was waterboarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- and for the viewers, that's basically you strap someone to a board, and you make them feel as if they're going to drown. You put them under water. If that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why'd you have to go to a secret location around the world?"

In point of fact, we strap people to wooden boards and make them feel like they're drowning all the time in this country. Mostly at theme parks like Six Flags.

Bush again said he wasn't going to talk about techniques. But Lauer's relentless grilling was getting to him. If he'd been at Gitmo, at this point Bush would have demanded a lawyer, another copy of the Quran and a couple of chocolate eclairs.

Lauer continued to pester the president, demanding to know whether these "alternative techniques you use ... if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there's a blurring the lines of -- between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"

Hey, I forget: When did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed use aggressive interrogation techniques against a known mass murderer in an effort to thwart another 9/11-style attack on thousands of innocent civilians?

There are few better examples of how out of touch liberals are. They go right to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and expect Americans to be outraged that he may have been waterboarded.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is believed to have played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the filmed beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a thwarted 2002 attack on a bank tower in Los Angeles, and Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 11 commercial airliners simultaneously. Oh, and he took home the coveted "world's craziest terrorist" prize at al-Qaida's end-of-season office party last year.

I think waterboarding should be a reward for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: OK, you've been good, Mohammed, we're only going to waterboard you today. Let's get you out of those cold electrodes and onto a nice, warm waterboard, OK?

Now that they're our new best friends, how about we turn to Iran and Syria for help on our interrogation techniques?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Right on Ann!
Yep, just what we need. Crawl to Iran and Syria and beg.. er.. negotiate with them to play nice. That will show them how strong we are! These terrorist Dictators have always known the Demo/Libs are fools and "Useful Idiots." Now the Dems are about to prove it!

Chivalry will be the death of us all.
You can't play by the rules with people who don't know what rules are... Why is it us who have to take the higher ground? The higher ground is all fine and dandy but not if it means we'll lose on it. We have to play on the same field as our enemy.

Waterboarding With Panache
____ If it was me I'd conduct the waterboarding in the effluent pond at a hog farm. Make him feel right at home. ____ And who would he complain to? It's not something a Muslim would want getting out. He'd have a tough time convincing his homeboys that gum disease caused his bad breath.

Fools in Charge
Today it was confirmed that the Iraq Study or Survey Group tells us, and the World, we need to 'engage' Iran about Iraq security.

How stupid can we get? My goodness these people are idiots!

Now Iran can boast that the US cannot control the violence in Iraq, we will not support Iraq until they gain strength and most deadly; Iran must come to the rescue! Iran is more powerful and wise than America! The Infidel is Inferior! Allah Is Great!!

IRAN MUST SAVE US?

IRAN WANTS TO KILL US!

What planet are we on here?

Bush made mistakes in Iraq, (not that he was elected to be the great war hero in the first place), but he is correct in the main focus; getting an indepentent government in the middle of the Middle East who does not hate democracy, in particular, the U.S..

And again I bring up the point that the revenue from the Iraq oil fields could finance terrorism for a lifetime and can certainly afford to buy Nukes.

If we abondon Iraq we should fulfill the wacky claims of the Leftists that we did this for the oil. Control the oil fields and sales and give the money back to the Iraqi people for whatever they want, except WMD's.





the reunion tour
From where I stand it looks like the ISG is made up of has beens trying to have that last successful tour. Only with them it's not their voices that are suffering the ravages of old age.

What did they put in their Geratol to make any of them think it's wise to ask the fox and coyote to sit down at a meeting and discuss how best to guard the hen house? Was this just a going away party for the old guard as a reward for years of faithful service?

My advise to those representing the U.S. at those talks, which as stupid as it sounds will probably happen, would be to open with " do any of you guys remember the old story about the U.S. and Momar Kadafi?"

But Ann, none of this matter
don't you know?

Bush is for amnesty for illegal Mexicans....Bush & the GOP has NOT stop pork barrel spending...They did NOT create smaller government.

Who cares if we are in the middle of a war or that thousands of professional soldiers gave their all to bring the Bill of Rights to 2 nations, stopped female apartheid, and cut off the funding to the terrorist cells?

Who cares if the Dems are going to create another generation of "baby killers"? Who cares if we lost Rumsfeld on one side and Bolton on the other?

Certainly not the base.




Before completely disregarding
Before dismissing out of hand Mr. Baker's recommendations (not all of which I agree with, by the way), just remember that he was the Secretary of State during Gulf War I, when we masterly put together a coalition of countries, including (unprecedented at the time) Arab countries, to repel the Iraqi aggression. At that time, we DID have the support of Syria, although I can't remember if it was the current boob in charge or his father.

We also received assistance from Iran when we went into Afghanistan, so it isn't completely beyond the realm of possibility that they could prove useful. Again, there was different leadership then, but the President of Iran bows to the will of the mullahs anyway, and they haven't changed.

Using diplomacy with governments that aren't exactly allies isn't always a lost cause, you just have to manage expectations. The problem is that we had much more leverage over Syria after the Hariri assassination, when Assad was in real danger of a losing his despotic grip on the government of Syria.

As to waterboarding, forget for a second whether or not it is right or wrong: is it effective? I've read where such physical means are very ineffective at extracting actual intelligence of value, as the person will say anything to stop the "torture". Seems to me that using drugs would be much more efficient, and would prevent embarrassment when the methods become public.

Bleeding-Hearts
Yeap, It won't be long now. When they start asking Iran and Syria to help it just proves that they are at the onset of Alzheimers. Well, I just hope the ones that put them there are really proud of themselves when this is said and done. They are really opening a can of worms that is going to wiggle all over them.
But, I guess this is what it is going to take for many dunderheads to realize that they have just really really screwed up!
Then again, they will never admit it to anyone, they will blame it on this or that and try to wriggle out of it somehow.
It would be hoolawrious if it weren't so sad:-(

Surrender This!
It is nothing less than criminal that the dems are advocating our surrender and defeat to a third world country the size of California. Apparently they have everyone convinced that we can't defeat some pissant little sewer in the desert.

Is that how far that they have gone destroying our military, national security, patriotism, and most of all, our pride in being a strong and free country? Obviously dem control of education has left a generation with no knowledge of history.

Treasonous is too kind of a description for this behaivior.

Maybe we should send a big dem delegation over to Iran on a Friday afternoon to try to negotiate with these savages that they support and wish to surrender to..

Torture
What government program, pray, "is applied equally to all Americans"? Can anybody name even one? Well, yes, one: airport screening. Of course that applies only to AMERICANS. Our dusky southerly complected bedouin guests have only to pray loudly, and they get a pass.

One wonders if lefties would approve of, say, waterboarding if IT were applied equally to all Americans. Not so much a share-the-wealth as spread-the-misery. Of course now we are enjoying a paradigm shift, where the race-mongers nolonger want a "colorless" society. Affirmative action and reparations and what not, according to pigment. Somehow I think they'd be in favor of some sort of reverse affirmative action re waterboarding, on those of a certain palor and poliical bent.

I'm saying they're racist hypocrites, if you didn't catch it.

So what about torture? Is deliberately inflicting pain permissible, to save the innocent? Is torturing the guilty (and I'll not debate the term) to save the innocent legitimate? A ticking-timebomb scenario. A buried-alive baby scenario. The question revolves around pain, doesn't it. Is it allowed to cause deliberate pain -- the kind that brings no benefit whatsoever to the recipient? Not surgery pain, not spanking pain -- torture pain. Planned, and as bad as my not inconsiderable imagination can make it.

Enemies (and I will not debate the term) who have information that could save lives, need to give up that information. Period. I would gladly trade the life of a terrorist for the life of my son. Quite gladly. Eagerly, even. I am a tenderhearted guy (I will not debate it) but I suppose I could steel myself to flay someone alive, or far worse, to prevent a nuke from taking out New York City. I really, honestly, would. I'd have tormenting nightmares. But I'd keep the blade sharp.

The objection is made that we are diminished, if we commit or countenance such acts. We would be as bad as the enemy. It's a stupid argument. More delicately, it's a false analogy. We don't target the innocent, so how could we be as bad as the enemy? Oh, we'd be as bad as they are because they torture and we torture? That doesn't make us as bad. That makes us as determined. The very obvious difference is, obviously, that we would do it only to save lives. They do it for, um, uh, well, I don't know why they do it. They like it? They hate us? The demons that animate their cause command them? But the surgeon is not the same as the slasher, for all that they both cut flesh.

The grotesque idea that a terrorist would achieve his aim of unlimited destruction, because we balk at the hard job -- the idea is grotesque. If the power lies in our hands to prevent mass destruction, and we let it go forward because we imagine we're being ethical -- well, how are we not terrorists, the dupes of terrorists? If we will kill them, how can we justify avoiding some lesser response? Lesser? Do the math.

This may be too practical, too pragmatic for some. Well, we don't torture anyone for being stupid. They ARE stupid, but that's not why. We torture them -- I hope we do -- for being terrorists. If you say we're terrorists too then -- well, see above. And don't worry, you can't be tortured just for being stupid.

J
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/

Some home facts
The war was an illegal and predatory operation with the goal of establishing CORPORATE American control over the oil reserves of Iraq.

The war was never intended to establish democracy in a foreign country when it is increasingly clear that the host country is losing its democratic traditions very quickly. Note the dissolution of habeaus corpus in the military commission acts of this year.

Without American people coming to terms with these salient facts no positive change can occur.

The Democrats are in alliance with the Republicans because they both represent CORPORATE America.

Until, Bush and his Administration are brought to trial and charged with war crimes and crimes against the American people and CORPORATE beneficiaries such as Halliburton, Exxon etc are liquidated with their assets used as part compensation for Iraqis and Americans who have suffered, the disaster will know no bounds.

Rise up America

Barabara Boxershorts from CA
said she really liked the findings of the comittee, especially the part where they said that we were not winning the war.

Doesn't surprise me. Like most of the other Dimms Ms. LadyBoxer is a natural born loser and is at her happiness when the rest of the country is losing as well.

Oh, and have you heard that the media is all excited about having another race for outer space that would replace real war (what a poet I am).

Like the Islamic extremists would go for that! They have already demonstrated they want to take the world back to the fifteenth century!

Failed policy?
I am always amused by the continued charges of "failed policy" in Iraq. If the critic is questioned for specifics (assuming s/he is liberal) the answer will always involve some hemming and hawing about "failed prewar intelligence", usually "no WMD's" will be mentioned, and of coures there is the ever popular "Mission Accomplished" rant.

Now we can add "talk to the enemy".

What exactly does any of this have to do with actually fighting the war? None of this is policy. This is pipe-dreams, pie-in-the-sky, and meaningless criticism, used simply to demoralize people who aren't paying close attention to world events.

Iran and Syria aren't just our enemies in this case, what they want is diametrically opposed to our goals in the region. They won't accept compromise, and neither should we.

It seems very strange to me that the same media that predicted 10,000 dead in urban fighting to secure the country, post-invasion, are complaining about a number that is less that 1/3 of that 3 years later...

Mondamay- nothing will make the Left
madder than if we win in Iraq. They are determined to MAKE us lose, and will be satisfied with nothing else.

It is really disgusting.

"Bipartisan"
That word always rubs me wrong. It just sound too risque, too kinky. I'm fairly certain being bipartisan is banned in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. The very notion makes me feel unclean - abominable.

Off the deep end...
I began reading this Ann Coulter column with the expectation that she would express her opposition to the Iraq Study Group report, but instead she basically copies and pastes an interview George Bush had with Matt Lauer. Did the Democratic victory cause her to suffer a serious case of writer's block? I can only hope.

The title of her essay _Operation Surrender_, really crystallizes her opinion of the ISG's conclusions. Supposedly, trying to establish some sense of order in Iraq, even with the possible support of Syria and Iran, is "surrendering." However, this term is horribly misplaced. Even if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq we would not be surrendering to anyone. We would still have our Bill or Rights, the Constitution, our country, our freedoms, and our civilization. We would lose nothing. Iraq was never an existential threat to our country and withdrawing from Iraq would not threaten our country. In fact, all it would do is embarrass the supporters of the war in Iraq because it would expose them as fools.

In other words, those who counsel us not to leave our Iraq are not interested in winning a war, but in saving face. They don't want to give the anti-war crowd the satisfaction of hearing them say "Iraq was a mistake." Although now everyone knows it -- the stubborness of the Bush supporters is no reason for more troops to come home in coffins.

Finally, many posters on here still think that we are fighting a war in Iraq, and that's understandable because they hear their favorite talk show hosts refer to the war in Iraq as part of the War on Terror. But the war in Iraq is not a war because the definition of victory -- a stable, democratic Iraq that supports the United States and Israel -- is not achievable through military means. We are trying to affect a social outcome in Iraq, not kill more people and blow up more buildings. This is not a war, but a nation building enterprise, and that's why we're "losing."


The Plain Truth
Bravo, Ann. Not only are we at war; we're at war with a fundamentally cowardly enemy that has disavowed the rules of war between civilized states. In such a conflict, with the agents of such a foe, I have no problem with any interrogation technique that doesn't involve permanent damage...and I'm beginning to reconsider that constraint as well.

Hey, when do we get to use pig-offal-boarding? I understand that's REMARKABLY effective? A bit hard on the pig, though.

I see....
... our friend Kimberly is back into "drive-by" mode -- depositing a one sentence guano drop and moving on.

And I see...
... Tanabear has reverted to form -- "neo-con" this and "neo-con" that! Jeesh!

Not That You ALL Didn't Know This
But in 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a secret agreement called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It defined the spheres of territory that Germany and the USSR would own after a succesful Third Reich conquest of Poland, and it included a bit more than just Poland, namely, the Balkan states. All non-German inhabitants in the German area were expelled to the Soviets.

Solution
Historically speaking, winning the peace is more difficult than winning the war whenever the enemy is left with any means or desire to continue the fight... THAT is the mistake being made in Iraq.

Brother "tanabear" may not like all the references to WWII... but the fact remains that it is the most recent war America fought to a successful conclusion.

There is a solution to this conflict and it requires no other nation to accomplish it.

It DOES require more troops in the short run... to secure all Iraqs borders and ports of entry to prevent any more non-Iraqis from joining the insurgency. Those that try to enter Iraq illegally need to be killed on the spot.

Then the fight with our gloves off. No more PC fighting. If the enemy hides in mosques, or hides behind civilians... so be it. But they have to be killed, their weapons caches destroyed, their funds confiscated, and the survivors imprisoned and interrogated for intelligence (water-boarding if necessary).

Sooner or later, the population that truly wants to live in peace, to raise their families and to prosper WILL conclude that their best interest lies with the U.S., and will start handing over the people who are causing them to live in fear.

Historically speaking... the enemy (the minority) loses its ability to fight when the population (the majority) around them loses its will to support them.

THAT'S the lesson of WWII (tanabear).

Francis
"Bravo, Ann. Not only are we at war; we're at war with a fundamentally cowardly enemy that has disavowed the rules of war between civilized states."

And that's just the DEMOCRATS! Wait till you see the terrorists we have to fight!

MacZed
If they impeach the Vice President, are you sure that Bush wouldn't just appoint Ann Coulter as his new Vice President? I'm pretty sure that's how it works. And if the President is impeached, the Vice President becomes the President and then appoints the new Vice President.

aussiejoe...
... provides the perfect example of someone who has completely bought into leftist propaganda and conspiracy theories!

Textbook moonbat talking points, Aussiejoe! :-)

Ha, ha, ha...
Jerebaal! You've given me a wonderful morning belly-laugh!

Can you just imagine the likes of Kimberly with their heads exploding at the mere mention of "President Coulter"??? How about "Vice President Malkin"??

I'd give real money to watch their reactions!

Thanks!!! :-)

New World Order?
Whenever I see those words strung together, I start to get a little skeptical.

It is, of course, better than hearing them in person, when I have to smile, and begin edging toward the door... =)

My apologies, MacZed
I did not intend to offend.

I'm just not fond of the phrase; it conjures up everything from the Trilateral Commission to professional wrestlers...

Iraq not WWII
The hackneyed comparisons to WWII are wrongheaded and confused. In WWII we were fighting a war and our military efforts were straightforward: kill the Germans, sieze Berlin, and capture or eliminate the Nazi leaderhip. The goal was not to "train" the French or the Poles and then hope they would eventually overthrow their Nazi occupiers and establish a democracy.

President Bush has already defined the non-military definition of victory in Iraq: when the Iraqi people are ready to stand up, we'll stand down. This definition of victory isn't achievable through military means because killing more Shia or Sunni or whoever isn't going to make the Iraqi army a more effective fighting force. This is why the recent report by the Baker Commission had to make diplomacy with Iran and Syria an integral part of bringing stability to Iraq. If Iraq's neighbors do not assist us in bringing order to Iraq "victory" will permanently elude us.

Those who compare the war in Iraq to WWII obviously think the problem in Iraq is that we have not yet killed enough people or bombed enough cities. So who do we need to kill to make Iraq work? Do we need to kill Muktada al-Sadr? Do we need to eliminate the Madhi Army? Do we need to kill Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and eliminate the Badr brigade? If we do kill these people, can we then call it a victory and leave?

The problem we must confront in Iraq is how do we take the sectarian divisions, tribal loyalties, and religious divisions and transform them into a seemless, workable democracy. This cannot be done by dropping more bombs and firing more bullets. It does require controlling the violence, but that is just the beginning; it also requires diplomacy, education (propaganda) and economic solutions.

Of course it would have been best to avoid this catastrophe altogher, but if there is to be a real solution in Iraq we must drop the idea that the problem in Iraq is that there are not enough dead Iraqis.




On Ann Coulter
Give me the "McCarthyite" Ann Coulter over Paul Greenberg any day.

At least she has something worthwhile to read.

Trying to get rid of her
All you fans of Ann Coulter, go to http://www.robesonian.com and vote "No" on the poll; just scroll down a bit. My newspaper is trying to stop publishing her column, so we conservatives need your help!
My county is full of Dems, so it may be close!
Help!!

Red Tooth
Well written rebuttal...

But you miss the point. What I am alluding to is breaking the will to fight on violently... where peace becomes preferable to war.

Once Nazi Germany was defeated to the point they were willing to accept an unconditional surrender, it was not necessary to train the French or Poles to overthrow the Germans... that had been done for them.

Do we need to train the Iraqi security to maintain the peace? Of course we do... but after a real peace has ben established.

Nice post though! :-)

Sequels Stink
And the Iraq Study Group is nothing more than a rehash of failure bureaucrats from Bush 41.

John Galt:

James Baker did such a great job in 1991? Puh-lease! James Baker, GHW Bush and Colin Powell created a mess that festered for 12 years. GW Bush started a war without having the spine (I think spinelessness is a Bush trait: probably genetic) to do what needed to be done.

He didn't have enough troops.
He didn't have the resolve to tell the press to blow it out their ear.

So, now we're faced with 41-redux telling us that the whoel thing is Iraq's fault and we need to get Syria and Iran to fix the problem.

(Most people didn't read the last page of the report, where Baker and company recommend getting some foxes to guard henhouses arounf the country, firing all nurses at Mental Institutions and putting the "saner" inmates in charge and placing guns in the hands of Prison Trustees to save on guard salaries.)

Whether James Baker is a senile old fool or just an old fool doesn't change the fact that he is a roaring disappointment, a complete incompetent and still thinks, if he kisses enough liberal butt, he'll get the peace prize.

the solution
This from a military guy who has spent too much time in the middle east...1)we need to find an alternative to oil, 2)until we do, the only thing these folks understand is undiluted power, applied liberally and often - how do you suppose saddam maintained control? 3)for every terrorist act perpetrated against us, a middle eastern city or revered religious site needs to vaporize - our biggest problem should be the impending virgin shortage

To Allen, et al...
You and those of similar mindset can never understand that you can't negotiate with bullies. The big difference between those who support action and those who don't is this:

We think that the terrorists are the bullies, you think that we(America collectively) are.

Have things gone wrong? Gods yes, nothing in this world is perfect (except the liberal ideal, of course). Does that mean to turn tail like a scared pup and run home? I hope not, because terrorists only see that as a weakness and they laugh at it.

But, that is the way this is going, so Allen, buy a burka now, you're going to need it...

syria and iran are enemies not friends
doesn't anyone see that syria and iran are enemies and not friends of either democracy or the US. engaging them is like saying " let's just hold hands and sing kumbaya and we'll all feel better and be friends." sorry not everything is like a Disney movie. this is just sheer stupidity.
let's face it. it appears that the only way that the Left will be happy with war is if no one gets hurt, including feelings. can't have anyone have their feelings hurt or lose their self esteem.
if we want to win, we need to focus on those that are out to kill us, iran and syria. we need to stop the rearming of the insurgents from these countries.
it appears that the new congress and the ISG are willing to surrender now so that the situation gets worse (iran gets nuclear weapons and takes out israel) so that we have real casualties in our military. the democrats never liked the military anyway. best way to exterminate them is in a nuclear conflict with iran. oh and of course a democrat would not retaliate in kind with nukes. that would be lowering ourselves to their level. if we did that, (gasp) we would actually win a war. we can't have that.

I agree with JackH
Right on target, there is no moral equivelancy if you are trying to save lives...period.

One of the reasons this insurgency is growing is because Saddam is still alive. Given that he terrorized the population for 30 years it is no wonder that the people who voted for democracy are reticent to point out the insurgents while there is any possibility that this animal might wind up pardoned and back in power. Look what happened to the Kurds and anyone else who stood up to him. When fools like ramsey clark help defend him, they have to be wary.

Sadr should have been taken out when he had 600 troops, now he has 20,000 and 30 seats in the parliament, he's gotta go.
As to Iran, we should have popped that loonytune when he flew into NYC,his plane should have crashed about 500 miles off the coast where the water is reallly deep, let the world speculate on how it happened,it'd be good for them to think on these things. Might get chavez thinking a little more clearly as well.

As to the ISG, we don't know what messages are delivered behind the scenes....the whole report is a no-brainer [wonder what THAT cost us?]but during the 1st gulf war it has been widely reported that saddam was told,use gas and we use nukes,so maybe the loonytune in Iran got a similar message...we can only hope.

The world was a better place when those who envied us also feared us. We have shown the world the better way to do things for over 200 years,if they don't want to do it that way, let them starve, I really don't care, but they need to hear loud and clear that if you try to bring our system down, we will make you disappear.


Mission accomplished...
...I'm a bit tired of having to reiterate this, but I guess, after all, there still are a lot of non-military folks out there who believe that the Mission Accomplished banner was a claim that the Iraq war was over. Here's the military point of view:

1. An assignment (mission) is given.
2. Groups of military personnel (battalions, SEAL teams, battleships: whatever) engage the enemy.
3. The enemy is routed (killed, captured, surrounded, defeated, whatever).
4. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Furthermore, GWB had, and continues to have, every right to fly onto, deplane, and enjoy the moment, as Commander in chief, as president, as a man respected and loved by the military. (unlike a Clinton...male or female.)
Could you please pass this on so I don't have to keep rewriting it? Thanks.
And thanks, Ann. We appreciate your wit, wisdom and even most of your nasty cracks!

The libs scare me
Allen, Kimberly, Red Tooth, hosekuervo and others scare the crap out of me. What we have in the Middle East is a group of radicals whose only goal is to destroy Western Civilization. You cannot negotiate with them, you cannot reason with them. You can only destroy them. Which negotiating tool would be effective with an enemy for whom death is a promotion? The only thing this enemy understands is total humiliation and destruction. That is required to get their attention and only after that can you begin to talk to the survivors. Democracy will work in the Middle East but only if coupled with Free Market Capitalism.

In the meantime, in this country we have libs whose only enemy seems to be Bush and the conservatives. Apparently someone telling you that abortion is murder while allowing clinics to perform abortions under the auspices of the Supreme Court is more dangerous than someone slitting your throat for not having your wife and daughter shrouded in a burka. The lack of rational thought scares me. The lack of focus on who the enemy is and what constitutes a real threat to our country and way of life is terrifying. Yes, our troops are in harm's way and it is terrible that any of these fine young men and women are lost in any war. But we have trained them and equipped them to kill people and destroy evil and then sit back here in the safety of our coffee shops and wonder if they haven't committed a war crime by being too harsh when we don't have a clue what they are facing. We do need to change course in Iraq. We need to commit every troop over there to a search and destroy mission to clean out every terrorist cell. Their destruction needs to be complete and humiliating so that little tinpot dictators in Syria and Iran and Hezbollah understand the result of trying to destroy freedom and freedom-loving people. We need to unleash Israel (whose greatest crime in terms of the Middle East is properity and freedom for its citizens) and allow her to destroy Palestinian opposition to the already generous offers that have been made. Complete and utter victory is the only solution in the Middle East.

Kimberly...
...Kimberly is a lost cause and might want to consider returning to the country of his/her birth.

hosekuervo...
....is that supposed to be a cute way of saying "Joe Crow?"

Make your enemies your friends
I agree with Lydia....The massive takeover of our country by illegal immigrants is the war we should be paying attention to...CLOSE THE BORDERS...Why is it that my son couldn't be enrolled into highschool until they got the results of his TB test...Excuse Me!! Who is TB testing the thousands who are pouring over our borders..Who is checking them for Chincas..Spanish for Bedbugs..which are now taking over New York !!! Folks..get with the program....Drop a nuke on the Anbar Province...and close our borders...PLEASE !

FDR dear...
With a handle like that, you should be wise enough to know that war is not only hell, but also not predictable.
Have you reached the point where you rely totally on PR for your info and can't/won't analyze what's really occurring?

Seawolf...
...agreed. We can be thankful that the 2 that Saddam whelped are not longer alive.

Ms. Coulter.....
Ann Coulter never ceases to amaze me with what she will dream up next. She must lay awake at night and try to convince herself that if I say this enough people will listen. The past four years of the current "plan" is not working and Ray Charles could see this. The United States must do one or two things....increase military strength or get the hell outta' there....you don't go half stepping into a situation like this; you either come prepared for the long haul or you don't come at all.

hosekuervo...
...I'm not an old, conservative, white man. I think Ann is doing just fine. We need her point of view, if only to flush out the libs who hide, and do it with a quick wit and sense of humor.

FDR...
...several premises leaked out of your comment. I gather you expect us all to swallow them.

About the "waterboarding"
C'mon people... Bring up your mental image of Sleek Khalid Mohammed.
There's a difference between waterboarding and helping someone with their bath.

FDR...
...yes, the mission was accomplished. No, it wasn't a dumb mission. No, it wasn't possible at that time to consult a crystal ball.
Get a grip.
And, being the capitalist I am, I gotta go to work now.

Lydia...
...it's interesting to learn how many folks like Lydia are bothering to post here, when they already are in the White House and know everything going on, the main players and what they've said, how GWB listens or doesn't listen to them, etc .....

Mr. Right...
... "Right" you are.

As Reagan once said, "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant... it's that they know so much that just isn't so."

The debate over Iraq has never brought this quote into better focus!

What history?
Libs do not like comparisons to WWII (or any historical events whatsoever) because they are incapable of comprehending that we can actually learn from our past.

In order to be a liberal you must awaken each day as if it is the first day of human existence.

Only someone with absolutely no memory of yesterday (liberals) would believe:

- Appeasement of our enemies is a successful strategy
- Giving everyone equal rewards regardless of effort (socialism/liberalism) is good for society
- The amount of money you take from your citizens is directly proportional to the success of the economy
- Milder criminal sanctions leads to less crime
- Unlawful discrimination can be eliminated by increasing legal discrimination
- Eliminating all values and ethical standards leads to a better society

History has demonstrated repeatedly – usually with tragic and horrendous results – that these are all failed philosophies.

To be a liberal you must be so egotistical as to believe you are smarter than the previous hundreds of generations and billions of people – or you have to be stuck in some bizarre and twisted version of the movie “Groundhog Day”.

Icedog
Great post.

One of our fellow posters (I can't remember who) has lately been positing that liberalism might me a mental illness.

I'm starting to consider his/her point of view!

:-)

And just for points
People like Mondamay (nice Zelazny ref, there!) may be irritated by comparisons to World War Two, but unfortunately such comparisons are in fact the only ones which are valid.

World War Two was a global conflict fought by democracies (and, after June 1941, one dictatorship) against enemies with a militaristic, collectivist, anti-reason, anti-Semitic and anti-Western Enlightenment philosophy. (Germany wanted a return to mythic Germanism; Italy wanted a return to mythic Romanism; and Japan wanted a return to mythic imperialism under the Shintoist faith.) All of the three fully intended to conquer and rule vast sections of the world, wherein they would treat the natives as little more than slaves, forcing them to work for and/or pay tribute to their new rulers. Unless the locals were Jewish, Romany, black, or Christian (especially in the Far East); such "inferiors" were to be eradicated.

The present war is essentially the same thing, against an enemy with almost precisely the same philosophy and objectives. (If you don't believe the Islamists are racist toward Africans, and hate Christians as much as they do Jews, I'd suggest you don't look too closely at Darfur. Your eyes might not like what they see. Oh, and BTW, they don't like animists, either.)

The fundamental difference between World War Two and World War Three (which is now underway) is that this time around, the enemy has spent more time preparing. There are still some gaps in their TO&E, mainly in the area of strategic weapons and delivery systems, but they are working very hard to rectify this. (And unlike the [people you are not supposed to mention in these debates] they are not turning up their noses at nuclear physics on the grounds that it is "Jewish science".) So far, their unconventional (asymmetric) warfare tactics have provided them with a less-than-satisfactory substitute; they can, and have, inflicted casualties, but so far, they have yet to defeat their enemies (us) decisively. Anywhere.

What is going on now equates to a peculiar cross between the "Phony War" of October 1939-May 1940, with overtones of the period of the "anschluss" and Munich(1936-38) in Europe, and the Japanese conquest of Korea and Manchuria (or "Chosen" and "Manchukuo" as they insisted on misnaming them) in the 1932-37 time frame. As yet, the primary enemy states (Iran, Syria) and their non-governmental allies (various Islamist groups) have yet to take the field in open warfare. (Mainly because for the last half-century, every time they have, they've been defeated in no uncertain terms.) The logical conclusion is that they will not do so until they have a trump card that will prevent or dissuade the enemy (us) from committing conventional forces against them.

Nuclear weapons are such a trump card. And they are openly pursuing their development.

Once they have them, all bets will be off.

Should we negotiate with Iran and Syria? Not at this juncture. We would simply be repeating the colossal stupidity of the European powers (England and France) in 1936-38, and the United States in the Far East in 1937-41. Negotiations will only be appropriate if, as, and when we have the aforementioned regional powers in the position we had Germany and Japan in in 1945. At which point, our demands should be reduced to two words; unconditional surrender.

But so far, I have seen no evidence that anyone in the halls of power, in any party, has grasped the seriousness of the situation. I find myself wondering how many casualties we will have to suffer, and what kind, and where, it will take for them to recognize the reality of the threat we face.


eon

Eon
Outstanding post. Probably the most informative comparison I've read.

Unfortunately, most liberals will not be able to comprehend this information. Some type of mental blockage. So sad.

Yo Allen & FDR4 Rushmore
I could expect no less comments from one who admires the first socialist president. Hang on to your hat sports. Although the strategy in Iraq needs to change, if you're complaining about our soldiers needing to be brought home because they are "dying for nothing" you don't understand our enemy who will not stop until they occupy the White House. Thinking the struggle against militant Islam will end by our leaving anywhere in the world is not only foolish, but dangerous. We didn't choose the fight against this brand of Islam, it declared war on us. We now have the luxury of choosing the battlefields. With the mentality of the cut and run crowd, the choice in the future will be made for us.

FDR
Your comparisons are faulty.

- The IRA and ETA have become mostly harmless due to failing support in their own countries (you can't have a revolution with no "soldiers" or funds).

- The Soviet Union collapsed due to their economy - couldn't keep pace with Reagan's defense build-up. (the communist leaders didn't just have a change of heart)

However, if you believe Islamic aggression against the West will end due to failing support, kind words, or lack of funds you are mistaken. I promise you, one side will clearly and dramatically lose by the time this is over. Just pray that your daughter or granddaughter isn't wearing a burka one day.

FDR4Rushmore writes:
"Looking at the recent history of counter-terrorism, surely a more valid comparison, it is clear that conventional fighting doesn't work. Was the IRA disbanded because the British army killed all Irish republicans? Have ETA renounced violence because the Spanish army killed them all? Did the Cold War end because the Russian army was decimated in battle? The answer to all three is no."

And you are correct.. but the one area of comparison where your argument falls apart is that the parties you named didn't see dying as a martyr with a ticket to paradise preferable to life on Earth.

You could learn alot from re-reading "eon's" above comments... he says it well.

Let's just stay the course . . . .
. . you know, with more and more Americans being killed as less and less gets accomplished.

Baker is the new McCain
Ever notice how much the Dems drool with anticipation when they think they can throw a "bipartisan" position into the argument?

What they don't understand is that the Republicans are not the Democrats. We don't have a "party uber alles" concept; unlike the dems, who will forgive anything to keep party unity, we are willing to critcize party members.

So, to Republicans, just because some soft-headed party members signed on to a position does not mean it is any good. Nor does it mean that it will receive any support.


The people in the WTC & Pentagon died
for nothing. Killed by Islamic Terrorist Scum who right now are wondering why they killed themselves to go to a place hotter than the Middle East and without virgins. Saddam Hussein will see them soon. Nice article Ann. For too long Matt Lauer has gone under Commie Katie's radar. He's the new reason why "Today" is bad for America.

Forgot to mention the brave people
that died in Shanksville, PA, sorry for the omission.

Hugger of trees
"Let's just stay the course . . . .
. . you know, with more and more Americans being killed as less and less gets accomplished."

Not sure why you felt the need to reprint the Carter and Clinton policy on terrorism.

But, thanks for reminding us why ignoring multiple terrorist attacks only results in more American deaths.

lol
*Rove is at the bottom of the disinformation about Muslims*

And what, praytell, is the "disinformation about Muslims"?

The Iraqi people are our best hope that not all Muslims ARE the same.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
The government(and Ann Coulter) would be smart to leave any mention of this man out of the public arena.

It would be difficult to find an American who wasn't in agreement with the capture and interrogation of the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

But the government wants it both ways. They want to totrture the suspect and gather as much information as possible. That is as it should be. However, the government has turned around and used his "testimony" from transcripts in the 9/11 commission report as well as the Moussaoui trial.
This testimony is hearsay, unless the actual interrogators are put under oath and cross-ezamined as to the validity and methods used to extract said testimony.

Instead, it's just put out for public consumption as "truth," and anyone who questions it is immediately branded as a terrorist sympathizer, supporter and America-hater, when, in reality, the opposite is true.
Subversion of the justice system, for purposes of propoganda, is what is truly anti-American.

The government either needs to capture, interrogate, glean the intelligence, use it to further our national goals and keep quiet about it, or bring the suspect to trial and allow the courts to function as they were meant to.

FDR4Rushmore
We may not be able to convince the martyrs through military means, but if we convince those around them that the martyrs are bringing the wrath of the US down on them, we may convince everyone around the martyrs to refuse them support and turn them in to the US. That would be another way to stop martyrs, and a bit more effective than trying to "win the hearts and minds". Much as it disturbs you, fear is a great motivator, and the military is very good at instilling fear.