Posted on 08/23/2006 4:19:01 PM PDT by Blue Highway
What part of the war on terrorism do they support?
Ann Coulter
posted: August 23, 2006 6:23 p.m. Eastern © 2006
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror – absolutely in favor of that war – they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's MySpace page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember – the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music – more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" – a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry – the man they wanted to be president – called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Not this.
Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts
Thanks,
"They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat"
perhaps because they were stopped before they were able to push the button and kill americans..
The pork barrel spending is very nice...
Power
Tell it, sister.
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Ping to the weekly Coulter.
As always...she hits the non-politically correct nail squarely on the head, in verbiage designed to make liberals cry. They hate her, because she addresses them in language they understand all too well.
Dems say they support the war on terror, but not the means to fight that war.(phone surveillance, profliling, etc.)
On and on it goes.
That simple question is brilliant:
"What part of the War on Terror do you support?"
That is a slam-dunk hands-down game-over winner question in every political debate to be held for these mid-terms.
If they are evasive, break it down for them:
"Do you support the Patriot Act?"
"Do you support putting terrorists in Guatanamo Bay?"
"Do you support the war in Iraq?"
"Do you support the war in Afghanistan?"
"Do you believe that Iran is sponsoring terrorism?"
"Do you believe that Iran is intending to build a nuclear weapon?"
"Do you believe that Iran will use a nuclear weapon if they have one?"
"Do you fully support the nation of Israel against terrorism?"
There is no way for a democrat to win, because they have almost all joined the anti-war forces. If their feet are held to the fire, they will melt.
Democrats oppose
1. War in Iraq
2. NSA monitoring of terrorist communications
3. Guantanamo Bay prison of terrorist
4. Patriot Act
5. Profiling muslims at airports
Many more items could be added to this list.
6. Stopping illegal boarder crossings
7. Imprisonment/deportation of illegal aliens
8. Spies on the ground that must deal with shady characters
9. Military operations without UN approval
10. agree that our enemy is evil and the war on terror is righteous
11. Terrorist should not have lawyers or civilian courts
12 A free Middle East greatly reduces the chances they will engage in terrorism
13. Politics stops at the water's edge and Congressional leaders should never criticize the President while on foreign soil (especially concerning war)
This was a really good article!
A great question, what part of the war on terror do they support?
GOOD JOB ANN
Any killing of terrorists outside of Afghanistan is a distraction from the killing of those in Afghanistan, who were the ones who attacked us on 9-11.
Pause...
That, without exageration or sarcasm, is the part the democrats are for, which shows how FATAL to us it would be to allow them back into power. Like their hero BJ Bill, they think of this as a matter for police officers and lawyers, since War would make them like the evil pigs who got us into Vietnam (Democrats...but, never mind).
The Dems think once you knock off just the right guys in Afghanistan, this problem is all over.
They support any part of the war on terror that specifically arrests and puts on trial ONLY those who were directly involved with 9-11.
There's your answer, Ann. Crazy, wrong, suicidal, but that IS the answer.
I'm surprised they haven't been clamoring for the US to hand over all Muslim prisoners to get Steve Centelli and the camera-man held hostage to meet the terrorists demands.
You know, as much as I disagree with what almost every Democrat is saying, I really can care less. I am conservative. The chance of me voting for a democrat is about the same as being struck by lightening. In addition, what conservatives say about Democrat leaders doesn't really make a Dem go, "uh, well, that's a good point." No, it makes them think, "those 'pubs are a bunch of intolerant ignoramouses." So, Ann, and other Conservatives who like to lash out at the Dems for what they say and think, here's a different approach. Don't argue fools, or you will be counted a fool. State valid and compelling reason or evidence as to why certain things like the War in Iraq, or the NSA surveilance is necessary and effective. Beat the Dems at a game they cannot and are not willing to play, logic. Let's stop this back and forth bickering from our side!! If they wish to continue to call us names, and say that our opinions are wrong without presenting any proof, let them, it's what they do and they'll never change, IMO. But I have seen some very effective arguments from the right that have and will continue to cause the left to at least just shut their mouths. Why? Because those arguments presented very compelling and valid evidence when making their point.
For instance, when a lib starts to tell me that Bush is evil, that his war in Iraq is for his own self interests, I counter with fact. President Bush has done more for this country than the last two presidents ever did. This makes them begin to couter back until they realize that one of those presidents was the current one's dad. I tell them how his policies have helped the economy grow to new levels of record, how there hasn't been an attack on the U.S. since 9/11 (Bush 1 attack on U.S. or U.S. territory, Clinton 5). I tell them that they have no basis for saying that Bush's reasons for going to Iraq stem from self interest because there is no real evidence that they can present that the President has benefited from the war.
It is rather funny to watch their reaction. They blabber, they begin to attack the President, conservatives, and me instead of making any kind of logical rebuttal. And I sit there with a smile on my face, laughing on the inside (hysterically I might add) knowing that I never once made any reference to Democrats, their obvious disdain for our safety, the absolutely rude and disrespectful comments most of them make on a regular basis. I don't have to. They do a fine job of making themselves look like complete idiots. And when I do it in a crowd, and some of those who watch may be moderates, Democrats even, I leave with the hope that those people see what the Democratic Party leadership has really become. A group of haters (very similar to Islamofacists, IMO) who are jealous of the right's successes, who see the crumbling of their social programs due to their ineffectiveness, whining bumbling idiots with no direction. I like to think that I am fighting to convert moderates to conservatism, because I am quite aware that almost every liberal is beyond hope.
Well said Phoenix.
Ann was on Hannity today, skirmishing with some moonbat I'd never heard of. That was *exactly* the tack that was taken. Moonbat kept evading and barking about McVeigh.
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.