New global warming threat: Hot air on Iraq
10/10/2002 12:00:00 AM - Ann Coulter
Democrats don't think it's too close to an election to be switching Senate candidates in New Jersey, but its definitely too close for a vote on Iraq. All summer, Democrats were huffily demanding that Bush come to Congress for approval before taking any action against Iraq. So Bush comes to Congress for approval, and now the Democrats are indignant he's come to Congress for their approval.
This is no time to vote on a vital issue of national importance! It's an election year.
Sen. Bob Byrd, D-KKK, tut-tutted the need for a resolution on Iraq, saying Sept. 11 was "over a year old." What's the big hurry? Why is it so imminent? Why here and now? Why before the election?
But back on Aug. 30, Byrd was denouncing Bush for bypassing Congress before taking action against Iraq. "Congress needs to act and vote," he said. "There needs to be a vote in Congress." Byrd said he had contacted "constitutional scholars, recognized constitutional scholars" and every one – "to the man and woman" – said the president was required "to ask the Congress for permission and to get authorization, new authorization to invade Iraq."
The vain, ranting windbag of a kleptocrat said Bush should stop reading polls – "and read this: the Constitution of the United States." (Historical note: President Nixon was so enraged by the Senate's rejection of his Supreme Court nominees, he planned to retaliate by nominating Byrd, so he could really show them mediocre. According to John Dean, Nixon gleefully said Byrd was an ex-Klanner who "has no [qualifications] ...")
So anyway, Bush goes to Congress for a vote and Byrd gets his white sheet in a knot.
In addition to the indignity of having to vote in an election year, Byrd said the resolution on Iraq was diverting attention from important issues. Imminent military action to remove a madman with weapons of mass destruction who watches torture videos for fun and longs for a mushroom cloud over the nation's capital is crowding out the big stuff like naming another building in West Virginia after Bob Byrd.
For months and months now, the Democrats have been whining that we needed "more discussion" about Iraq. The insistent demand for discussion tended to leave the impression that these Democrats had something on their minds. But they never had anything to say – except that we needed "more discussion."
Then, when the president of the United States gave a speech this week on the topic they all claim to be burning with desire to "discuss," Fox News Channel was the only station to cover it. (Nielsen ratings during speech: Fox: 4.6 million viewers; CNN: 2.6 million viewers; MSNBC 1.2 million viewers. The only thing media executives care about is the bottom line!) I think we can "move on" from the We-Need-More-Discussion argument.
Even for a naturally gaseous body, Democrats in Congress have outdone themselves with their palaver about Iraq.
Sen. Jim Jeffords, who traded to the Democrats last season (nominally, he's an independent), made the novel argument that Saddam wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction after he has "paid so dearly" to acquire them. As the saying goes, when Jeffords switched parties, it improved the average IQ of both parties.
Every single Democrat called Saddam Hussein "despicable." "Despicable" is evidently what Democrats call problems they have no intention of addressing. Republicans should start referring to inadequate arts funding and large class size as "despicable." The kleptocrat ex-Klanner one-upped them on "despicable." He said Saddam was "lower than a snake's belly."
Liberals pretending to be Americans always make a big show of using hokey expressions.
On a single night, CBS' Dan Rather unleashed: "like a tornado through a trailer park," "like a squirrel in a cage," "like a boll weevil through a cotton field," "like a cat in a creamery," "like trying to scratch his ear with his elbow." Returning to his Manhattan roots, earlier this year Rather was on the BBC complaining about "patriotism run amok."
Lawyer and "True Grit" character Gerry Spence had a million "ooooold cowboy" sayings in defense of Clinton that were utterly incomprehensible but managed to go on and on through six commercial breaks. You almost forgot the president was a felon while lost in a reverie trying to figure out why, exactly, if the rooster was on the roof, the cowboy says you don't harness the filly (or whatever).
The felon himself was constantly promising to do this or that "till the last dog dies." This impressed the New York media deeply. (It's going to be hard for him to keep up with Southern aphorisms from Chappaqua.)
Byrd's invocation of the average American was also highly believable. If you credit Byrd, the concerns of "John Q. Citizen" are identical to the concerns of left-wing academics and Hollywood celebrities. "John Q. Citizen" evidently wants to know: What's this going to cost me? What will happen to our sons and daughters? What will happen when Iraq is defeated?
Yes, that's why they're having peace marches in West Virginia, while Malibu and Manhattan are ablaze with war fever. Byrd forgot to claim that "John Q. Citizen" is puzzling over "why they hate us." The average red-blooded American male is just dying to get to the bottom of that one.