I rarely come across a woman who is as thought provoking (or beautiful) as I am.
This is a rare exception… I don’t care whether you hate everything she has ever written. I certainly don’t agree with her much of the time. But this analysis is accurate and timely.
“IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS…
Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we’ll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
well, except for those ANTHRAX attacks. Oh, but I guess those didn’t count to right-wing wacko, truth hating Republicans.
The whole Bush Administration is still caught in a 20th Century mentality thinking about nation-states as the real enemy. These “Cold Warriors” who run Bush (all of them got deferments from Vietnam, mind you) weren’t interested in Bin Laden because Bin Laden doesn’t control a country.
Oh, and can we here the GOP whine some more about how the rules of war have changed in the 21st century, and from now on our enemies won’t be wearing uniforms or lining up in formation?
Oh, and from 1993-2001, there were no attacks by terrorists on US Soil. So by MAN Coulter’s logic, Clinton kept us even more safe than Bush.
And those that perpetrated the first WTC attack? In SUPERMAX. Those that planned 9-11? Bush isn’t concerned about them.
Republicans = a Terrorist’s best friend. Wasting our blood and treasure.
You lying right-wingers never quit. You and “cut-and-run” Reagan from the 80s who made this whole mess in the first place.
I originally wrote this for Gunny Bob, but I guess you all should read this too:
This was Dubya’s job. He did nothing.
handle from Pacified to “Grouchy ‘ol Liberal”.
Geesus Khrist, mellow out some. Your are more radical than I usually am.
while still the majority of the 9/11 commission recommendations have not been enacted.
You want us to mellow out while Bush didn’t read his PDBs, because if he did he would NOT have gone in that classroom.
Clinton held a meeting a week about Al Qaeda while Bush held one the first 11 months of his Presidency. Condi Rice was due to give a speech about missile defence on Sept. 11th. That is what was on this administration’s mind while they disregarded Richard Clarke’s warnings because it wasn’t part of the Republican agenda.
And now we have gone into a voluntary war with a country that had zero to do with 9/11 and we have taken our eye off the ball on the war on terror and Afghanistan.
So don’t sit here and tell me or anyone else to mellow out and don’t tell me that this all started and ended with Clinton and the Democrats because while Coultergeist is rewriting history I hope she doesn’t forget the Republican strategy of the 1980s where Reagan and Bush Sr. armed and financed Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorists because that worked out so well.
Speaking of Bush and Republicans making deals with the bad guys – How is Pakistan doing with telling us which areas Bin Laden is fine to hang out in…as long as he remains a ‘peaceful citizen’?
I wasn’t talking to you………….
This is an open discussion forum. Did you think you were writing email? There were some very good points there. Sorry if you can’t be bothered to hear someone disagree with you. If that’s the case, there are other less neutral places you could discuss things.
Man, that law thing gets in the way everytime – except when you discount it and then – voila – solution solved?
The rule of law has made this country srong and respected. In my opinion, I would rather have a President who stood for the clarity of law (international and domestic) rather than a President who flouts laws (international and domestic).
Clinton and Bush both hurt the office of the United States Presidency. Bush, however, has decreased America’s standing in the world, increased the amount of terrorist activity in the world and ignored US laws to the detriment of his own citizens.
Give it up Ann. You’ll have to do better than this to convince me that the US is safer now than when the rule of law actually meant something in this country.
Call me crazy but there is a laundry list of facts in the Ann Coulter piece. So go ahead… even if we take the Cole off the hit-list, what about everything else? Bottom line is that Clinton repeatedly did nothing; Bush has consistently gone after Islamic terrorists whose primary mission is the destruction of anyone who is not a muslem.
was a secular state, which the Senate Intel Committee said Saddam hated Al Qaida just as much, if not more, than the US.
And, taking out Saddam has actually empowered the Shit’te radicals in Iran and Syria.
There were not Islamic terrorists in Iraq until your pal Bush got rid of Saddam.
Islamic terrorists are world-wide. We just happen to be fighting them in Iraq. Would you prefer New Jersey? Or perhaps Highlands Ranch?
Iraq was invaded in 2003.
These are all acts of terror committed by Islamic fundementalists (i.e. “Islamic terrorists”) BEFORE we invaded Iraq thereby demonstrating that Islamic terrorism was plenty healthy well before we headed over to the Middle East to get rid of a guy who – oh yeah – happened to kill 60,000 or 70,000 of his own people due to – you guessed it – religious differences. Oh and one quick note – this is not an exhaustive list – just a smattering here and there.
* 12 October 2002 – Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured.
* 24 September 2002 – Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.[29][30]
* 7 May 2002 – Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured
* 9 March 2002 – CafГ© suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured
* 3 March 2002 – Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured
* 13 December 2001-Suicide attack on India’s parliament in New Delhi. Aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. Allegedly done by Pakistan-based Islamic terrorists organizations, Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba.
* 11 September 2001 – September 11, 2001 attacks 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.
* 7 August 1998 – 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured
* 25 June 1996 – Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
* 26 February 1993 – World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed.
* 18 April 1983 – April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. 63 killed.
Christians are way more dangerous than those poor radical Islamics doncha know?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that terrorism is a global issue and has been for a long time.
Democrats argue that using those on the ground, law enforcement agencies throughout the world, who have been doing this for years, is a more effective way of halting attacks.
Republicans argue that the military, filled with volunteers, many of them who have never left their hometown, is more effective.
Coulter would have us believe is that if Clinton wasn’t gettin’ some in the Oval office and concentrating on killing more terrorists, we’d be a safer world today.
Show me one proven instance of Iraq committing a terrorist attack against the US. I think Republicans like Coulter misunderstand the Democrats (big surprise). Dems aren’t anti-force, pro-terror, yadda, yadda – we’re anti-incompetence. Coulter accusing the Dems of incompetence it is like Bill Clinton becoming a marriage councilor.
Republicans have ruled this country for five solid years after a great tragedy and what can they show for it? Every morning I wake up thinking there will be another headline like I saw on 9/12/01. You think we’re safer because Coulter says so, because she’s able to spew a list of terrorist attacks at us?
I read the first line of Ann Coulter’s piece and I had to click back. She has zero credibility. This is a person who advoctes the same thing as terrorist, death to america’s freedom. She advocates, among other things, assassination of sitting US Senators and Supreme Court Justices, hates the idea of freedom of press, and wants a totalitariam extremist government in the US.
I would say that Reagan was the first president to empower terrorist. What was the response to the Marine Barracks bombing in 1980? Cut and run. This did two things. It showed that suicide bombing is effective and America wll not stand up to terror.
Your post proves nothing. just because you have a list of terrorist attacks that occurred throughout the world over doesnt mean anything. I can provide a link to abortion clinic bombings. What does that prove? Nothing as well.
So we removed a man who killed due to ethnic differences and we did what? Established an Islamic, sharia law imposing state. During Saddams time there was intersectarian marriage. Now there is massive sectarian violence.
If you want to post Ann Coulter garbage go to Free Republic.
The history and woulda shouldas are irrelevant.
What’s important is the Democrats’ plan for protecting American and whether they have the credibility to be put in charge of our national security.
They have no plan and no credibility. At least Bush is working on the problem, adjusting strategy and determined to win the war on Islamofascism and Islamic terror. If only he would face the facts that religious fanaticism is the problem, he would accomplish much more.
Nobody has been or will be perfect in the war against terrorism, but political nuts will pretend otherwise.
And that’s why they have even less credibility than the sorry sounding Harry Reids, Ted Kennedy’s and Howrd Deans of the political class.
Reid, Kennedy and Dean may mouth off as Democrats but they don’t speak for me.
The Dems have as much credibility as the Republicans. Do you actually think that if the global war on terror was an issue in 2000 Bush would have gotten elected?! A man who served in a champagne unit of the Guard to avoid Vietnam? You may disagree with the Dems plan but the war on terror found Bush flat footed picking his nose while reading My Pet Goat. This administratin has used a national tragedy to follow an agenda they made up without our approval.
The Dems plan of using law enforcement to prosecute a war against fundamental Islamists makes much more sense than the path Bush has brought us down.
I agree with your statement about focusing on religious fanatics, but if that is the case, why would you support Bush for attacking Iraq, a secular state?
Please enlighten me. What did Clinton not do? And where did your prognasticating, nostradamus ability come from that you know Kerry would have surrendered, and Gore would have done nothing.
If gore would have been elected and sept. 11 happenened, I am willing to bet he would not have been given 1/100th of the carte blanche Bush was given. And I really believe he would not have trampled over my civil rights. I will take the Constitution of the United States over Bush’s inaction any day.
And how the Republicans are adjusting it. Because I haven’t seen it yet.
What, we take our Special Forces troops out of Afghanistan (where they were authorized to be), and send them into Iraq (where they’re not) to prepare for an invasion of a country that had no links to al Qaeda, no training camps (at least in regions where Saddam had more control than we did…), and no WMD programs? Not only a bad plan, but also an illegal one.
Or maybe it was a great idea to just take whoever someone turned in for $200 into secret prisons for three years of torture and humiliating/degrading treatment, even if they had not a single link to terrorism. And then, after all that time, just *maybe* you’ll give them a banana court “trial” so you can just barely say you’ve given them “justice”. Because of which we are losing credibility with our fellow nations and are no longer able to speak from the moral high ground on human rights issues.
Or maybe the plan to keep us safe is best described by the 9/11 Commission – the one whose recommendations were almost universally not followed, just like the Hart Commission’s recommendations. Defending Amish Popcorn factories is obviously more important than upgrading port facility security or chemical and nuclear plant security according to the Republican “plan”…
Democrats want: better security at places where goods can enter our country, better security where large numbers of people gather, and better security where dangerous substances are made and/or kept. Democrats plan to invest in sustainable energy to lower our vulnerability to events in unstable regions like the Middle East. If placed in charge of Congress this year, Democrats will be re-investing money poorly spent in largely useless missile defenses and permanent Mideast military bases into actual Homeland Security investments where they will do direct good.
And let’s talk more controversial subjects… Translators of Mideast languages in the military – who happen to be gay – have been fired without weighing any of the consequences of those actions. While we’re chronically short of translators of these languages which are vital to intelligence in the “War on Terror”, we’re more concerned about someone’s private sexual preferences? What lunacy is that???
National Republican officials aren’t truly engaged in fighting the “War on Terror” – they’re paying lip service to an Administration that’s been obviously out of touch with reality in the hopes that being close to power would rub off. There’s no plan in “stay the course”, no plan in torture, no plan in advocating the violation of human rights over the rulings of our court system, no plan in running our military to the point of being broken-down. If America wants a plan to be secure, it doesn’t lie with the Republican Party, but rather with a new direction towards a better future – the Democratic Party.
I’m not going to sit here on the Internet and research facts to dispute one of the most partisan, divisive voices alive today. I have a life.
Clinton and his team may have been wrong but they repespected the rule of law in making their decisions (save me the reference to Bush taking the fight to the enemy – he has helped multiply the enemy). Bush and his team have thumbed their noses at many laws, creating the situation we are in now.
If asked if I would choose between Clinton’s inaction and Bush’s action – I would take the role of law (i.e. Clinton) everytime.
as in…
no wmd.
no post war planning in Iraq.
no clue on how to get Americans home.
no respect for domestic laws.
no help in making America safer.
no chance of having a legacy other than death.
and
no friggin’ way any Republican will ever convince me that just because Clinton cheated on his wife, that made America open to attack from terrorists.
Can we please, for the love of God, get over the fact that Clinton had an affair? What did this do to the country as a whole? NOTHING. Of course it could be argued that the irrelevant investigation was a distraction for his administration, and impeded his attempts to do government work. But that is neither here nor there. The fact that the only attack Republicans have is that Clinton had sex is so stupid and childish that I am beginning to wonder why I am even responding. Pick apart something that had an impact and then we can talk.
These conversations never end up going anywhere . . .
Citing Anne Coultier as a credible source pretty much ruins any chance at a reasonable discussions anyways. She’s a professional pundit, and anything she writes or says is meant to advance her career as a hardcore idealogue rather than actually add a insightful perspective. Go to some fact check sites on the net – Coultier literally has no problem just making stuff up for her books. Anybody that takes her seriously, well, I guess I just feel sorry for them.
The whole “Clinton’s Fault!” argument is one of the most poorly reasoned sour grapes arguments around. In order to buy into it, you have to ignore such an immense number of facts that whenever I hear anybody actually trying to advance this BS, well, once again, mostly just pity. If you really believe that stuff, then you’re just a partisan robot.
People like that don’t want a real understanding of the matter, they just want a black and white explanation of why they’re right and everybody else is stupid. The Anne Coultiers of the world make a handsome living placating these individuals.
There’s a hundred ways to tear apart the “Clinton didn’t do anything” argument. But, the people that are actually convinced by that sort of thing hate Democrats for many other reasons than Clinton, so they won’t actually be taking any of it under serious consideration.
it lets those of us who hate her vent for a bit, which is always fun.
that’s only thing she’s good for.
I have to admit, while I can tolerate the Ann Coultiers of the world, when I hear average citizens buying into her brand of propganda wholesale . . . that’s when I lose it.
Her one redemptive quaility is that her immensley poor reasoning is a great platform for setting the record straight.
http://dir.salon.com…