Posted on 07/19/2006 3:27:29 PM PDT by Spiff
I knew the events in the Middle East were big when the New York Times devoted nearly as much space to them as it did to a New York court ruling last week rejecting gay marriage.
Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.
Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now.
But according to Dean, the Democrats would have the "moral authority that Bill Clinton had" -- no wait! keep reading -- "when he brought together the Israelis and Palestinians." Clinton really brokered a Peace in Our Time with that deal -- "our time" being a reference to that five-minute span during which he announced it. Yasser Arafat immediately backed out on all his promises and launched the second intifada.
The fact that Israel is able to launch an attack on Hezbollah today without instantly inciting a multination conflagration in the Middle East is proof of what Bush has accomplished. He has begun to create a moderate block of Arab leaders who are apparently not interested in becoming the next Saddam Hussein.
There's been no stock market crash, showing that the markets have confidence that Israel will deal appropriately with the problem and that it won't expand into World War III.
But liberals can never abandon the idea that we must soothe savage beasts with appeasement -- whether they're dealing with murderers like Willie Horton or Islamic terrorists. Then the beast eats you.
There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases like "diplomacy," "detente," "engagement," "multilateral engagement," "multilateral diplomacy," "containment" and "going to the U.N."
I guess they figure, "Hey, appeasement worked pretty well with ... uh ... wait, I know this one ... ummm ... tip of my tongue ..."
Democrats like to talk tough, but you can never trap them into fighting. There is always an obscure objection to be raised in this particular instance -- but in some future war they would be intrepid! One simply can't imagine what that war would be.
Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would support military action against Iran if the Iranians were to go "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb."
No, of course not. There is, Biden said, "no imminent threat at this point."
According to the Democrats, we can't attack Iran until we have signed affidavits establishing that it has nuclear weapons, but we also can't attack North Korea because it may already have nuclear weapons. The pattern that seems to be emerging is: "Don't ever attack anyone, ever, for any reason. Ever."
The Democrats are in a snit about North Korea having nukes, with Howard Dean saying Democrats are tougher on defense than the Republicans because since Bush has been president, North Korea has "quadrupled their nuclear weapons stash."
It wasn't that difficult. Clinton gave the North Koreans $4 billion to construct nuclear reactors in return for the savages promising not to use the reactors to build bombs. But oddly, despite this masterful triumph of "diplomacy," the savages did not respond with good behavior. Instead, they immediately set to work feverishly building nuclear weapons.
But that's another threat the Democrats do not think is yet ripe for action.
On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Sen. Biden lightly dismissed the North Koreans, saying their "government's like an eighth-grader with a small bomb looking for attention" and that we "don't even have the intelligence community saying they're certain they have a nuclear weapon."
Is that the test? We need to have absolute certainty that the North Koreans have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting California with Kim Jong Il making a solemn promise to bomb the U.S. (and really giving us his word this time, no funny business) before we -- we what? If they have a nuclear weapon, what do we do then? Is a worldwide thermonuclear war the one war Democrats would finally be willing to fight?
Democrats won't acknowledge the existence of "an imminent threat" anyplace in the world until a nuclear missile is 12 minutes from New York. And then we'll never have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" because we'll all be dead.
bump
I love it!
One of the best things I've read in a long time!
"no wait! keep reading"
rotfl
Despite her moment of insanity, Ann is back and telling it like it is!
What moment of insanity? Saying you can't criticize Dim martar/spokesmen like the Jersey girls and having the Dims rise up to underline her point?
Democrats will get you killed in war.
I mean her attack on Evolution.
I agree with her on the Jersey Girls -- she was right.
The question going forward should never be "how much is Israel willing to give up" for a peace that is never forthcoming. The question should be reversed; how much will the arabs give up in return for peace.
Democrats like to talk tough, but you can never trap them into fighting. There is always an obscure objection to be raised in this particular instance -- but in some future war they would be intrepid! One simply can't imagine what that war would be.
During the run-up to the war in Iraq, there was a long line of DNC politicians and pundits parading across the television-scape demanding war with North Korea, assuring us that they were the real threat. The North Koreans were doing their part, rattling their sabers, trying to get us to divert our attention away from Saddam.
It was truly amusing. Dems got to strut and preen like little warriors, ready to fight the war we weren't going to fight, while doing everything they could to undermine the war we were preparing for (everything they could do except vote against it; another profile in courage, watching them vote for war at the same time they were denouncing it and obstructing it outside the chambers).
Ann's writing is spot on, as usual.
Now if we only had a high level politician who would speak these truths, straight up, no semantical obscurity.
Can you tell me which of her sources were wrong or can you point me to a website that takes on that part of her book? I thought that part of her book was an effective presentation of that point of view.
Can you specifically tell me if you think or know:
1. The Scopes trial was not the put on she claimed?
2. Is the fossil evidence not as she claimed?
3. Was her information about the black/white moths in the UK incorrect?
I think the idea of natural selection makes sense. On the other hand I thought her points on the fossil record and the lack of evolutionary dead ends missing in the fossil record were interesting.
George Will, are you listening? LOL!
"..get you killed in war."
Or drowned in a tide pool.
On the other hand I thought her points on the fossil record and the lack of evolutionary dead ends missing in the fossil record were interesting.
Ann is a political commentator, not scientist. Her "analysis" is a layperson's argument and has been destroyed multiple times on the CREVO threads.
I don't claim to know brain surgery. Ann should stay with politics, not science. She made herself look ridiculous.
Start Here
Ouch! A devastating attack on the Rats national security policy.
Ann is always right.
Hit it right on the head again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.