the wonderful writings of Ann...and yes, I am copy and pasting the highlights...then just sit here and enjoy the perfection...
For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Ironically, the Democrats' ability to sneer at President Bush hinges on Bush's successful prosecution of the war on terrorism, despite the Democrats. It's going to be harder to persuade Americans that the "war on terrorism" is George Bush's imaginary enemy — the Reichstag fire, to quote our first openly Muslim congressman Keith Ellison — if there is another terrorist attack.
In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent — notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. — until George Bush invaded Iraq.
In the past week, B. Hussein Obama said the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Americans are "more at risk," he said, "and less safe than we should have been at this point." We would be safer with "better polices" — such as, presumably, Bill Clinton's policy of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist and leaving the problem for the next president.
Sen. Chris Dodd miraculously straddled both arguments — that the threat of terrorism is a fraud and that the Iraq war had increased its danger. He said "al-Qaida is insurgent again" because we've "turned Iraq into an incubator" for jihadists. But simultaneously with warning of a terrorist attack, Dodd also said he was "more skeptical than I'd like to be" of the Bush administration's warning of a terrorist attack. Damn that Bush! He's inflamed an imaginary enemy!
But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago, al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil." Say, wasn't the attack of 9/11 an "attack on U.S. soil"? How could that have happened since we hadn't invaded Iraq yet?
What a weird aberration. How about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?
Friday, July 20, 2007
THE 'BUMPER STICKER' THAT BLOWS UP
Posted by The Game at 10:13 PM
Labels: ann coulter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ann?
You don't mean that anorexic crack whore that one can read about in the morning, and bet on in the afternoon?
"THE HORSES-ARE-ON-THE-TRACK!!"
Christ, you mooks slay me!
another brilliant comment showing the huge intellect of hash...go away.
GAME---I would miss hash the hack,
as he is your best example of all the comedians who post their tripe
of someone who obviously has no clue at all,which makes it even more funny around the insults.If the comments are that "profound" they need to be gone keep removing
them,and we'll all know by the intelligent debating posts who the
clueless,jumbled,moronic style responder is being eliminated.Maybe
that way my comedy time each day may continue.
I can't believe you READ this crap, much less cite it in a post. There are so many falsehoods in Coulter's spittle they are too numerous to repeat.
Well, pick one or two and lets go...
Here's one: "a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks."
This generalization is as intelligent as stating that Bush hates children who lack health insurance since he opposes the funding requires for SCHIP reauthorization at its current levels.
Post a Comment