Ann Coulter: BUSH PAYS HOMAGE TO THE FETISHISTIC RITUALS OF LIBERALISM

Yahoo ^ | Wed Jun 19, 7:01 PM ET | Ann Coulter

[Keyes For President]

Interrupting the endless 30-year Watergate retrospective and getting back to the war for a moment, I've noticed that liberals are having trouble making any good arguments against Bush, so I thought I'd help them out this week.

In the third presidential debate, George Bush responded to a question about racial profiling by spontaneously denouncing the profiling of Arabs at airports: "Arab Americans are racially profiled ... people are stopped, and we've got to do something about that."

Admittedly, this was before Sept. 11. If Arabs were being stopped at airports before Sept. 11 -- and that's a big if -- that was probably wrong. There had been only one terrorist attack here in America by Arabs -- the bomb at the World Trade Center in 1993. (This is excluding Sirhan Sirhan, the first Muslim to bring the classic religion-of-peace protest to American shores, when, in support of the Palestinians, he assassinated Robert Kennedy.)

But now it's after Sept. 11, we're at war, and Bush is still vexed about profiling Arabs.

Last week, Bush's Department of Transportation required airport security to search former Vice President Al Gore ( news - web sites). There's a lot not to like about Al Gore, but he's not a terrorist. Gore said he was glad he was searched. Why? So that a potential terrorist could be spared the trouble?

Searching Al Gore is a purely religious act. It is the purposeless, fetishistic performance of rituals in accordance with the civic religion of liberalism.

It's not just Bush's Department of Transportation swearing fealty to the left's civic religion. A few weeks ago, FBI ( news - web sites) Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee ( news - web sites) that "immediately after Sept. 11" when the FBI was trying to stop "a second wave of terrorists out there," FBI policy was this: "We were not looking for individuals of any particular religion or from any particular country."

Evidently, the only people the Bush administration thinks it appropriate to search are angry men with smoke pouring out of their trousers.

Fortunately, Fitzpatrick and O'Malley out on the street appear to have had a different idea about whom to roust after Sept. 11. If not, then valiant and hardworking FBI agents are to be commended for their rapid surveillance of 280 million Americans -- cheerleaders, dentists, nursing home residents, Amish, performance artists, professional baseball players and so on -- before settling on about a thousand Muslim men to detain.

If it weren't a laughable lie, Mueller should be fired for demanding that FBI agents chastely ignore religion and nationality when investigating terrorism.

But instead of calling for Mueller's head, Democrats on the committee demanded that Mueller issue yet more ritualistic professions of faith in liberalism's civic religion. Only a religious cult would require people to appear before committees and say things that are demonstrably false.

Mueller dutifully complied, repeatedly assuring the assembled clergy that "The bureau is against -- has been and will be against -- any form of profiling." He said the new guidelines do not address "members of a particular group and not members of a particular political persuasion or anything along those lines."

Galileo put up more of a fight.

In his inimitable Stalinist way, Sen. Russell Feingold demanded that no one at the FBI even consider whether racial profiling might have prevented 9/11. Liberals treat racial profiling like the Victorians treated sex. It is not a topic that may be discussed, except to recoil in horror at the practice.

Feingold said he was "very troubled" at seeing government officials "quoted in the press saying that they believe concerns of being accused of racial profiling led the FBI to not act on the Phoenix memo."

The Phoenix memo was the one noting that a lot of Middle Eastern men were enrolled in American flight schools. Inasmuch as all of the leaders of the terrorist attack were Arabs in American flight schools, it's not crazy to think that an aggressive investigation of Arabs in American flight schools might have thwarted the attack.

When Mueller came back with some flaccid response, saying he had heard an "indication" of "a possible concern" about racial profiling, Feingold imperiously informed the director: "I was hoping for a different answer." Not the truth -- just a different answer. The only thing he left out was "Comrade."

Muslim terrorists are trying to nuke Manhattan, and the Senate is conducting Soviet show trials on whether anyone at the FBI is wistfully daydreaming about racial profiling.

Relentlessly pursuing incipient thought crimes at the FBI, Feingold pronounced it "a distortion" to suggest that acting on the Phoenix memo would have constituted racial profiling. The memo, he said, "contained specific information about specific individuals."

The specific information was this: A lot of Middle Eastern men were attending American flight schools. Excising the portion of that statement that liberals refuse to consider -- Middle Eastern men -- the only "specific information" is: "People were attending flight schools."

These are the lunatics the Bush administration is hoping to propitiate by refusing to engage in racial profiling. If an attack comes, I assure you: No one will be praising Bush for abiding by the rules of the cult and carefully searching Al Gore.

[pragmatic]

To follow up my own post with paranoia - Al-Queda et al aren't stupid. The next John "Taliban" Walker they get their hands on, they aren't going to stamp "fanatical convert" on his forehead. They might well clean him up and put him in a three piece suit with mission directives - and I'd hate to see him stroll through security just because they were only checking every Arab rug merchant that came into the airport.

[Sir Gawain]

lol

[Keyes For President]

May be its your time of the month too, KFP. =^)

I won't even dignify that remark with a response....wait a minute...I just did...DOH!

[EternalVigilance]

Gee, where are the hoards of mind-numbed "Bushies" calling legitimate criticism treason? They don't seem to exist, except in your imagination.

Obviously you haven't seen the treatment Keyes threads (no matter the subject matter) have received from certain 'Bushie' FReepers for the last year or so. I wouldn't call them 'hoards'...or even 'hordes', although their numbers do seem to have grown of late. But no matter their numbers, their tactics and bile towards Keyes have been remarkable.

One thing that sets most Bush supporters aside from the "Keysters" is they know they won't get perfection from any politician.

I know lots of 'Keyesters'. In the main, they are quite realistic in their expectations of politicians. I, personally, expected a third-way politician in Bush, triangulating from the right, instead of Clinton's triangulation from the left. I got just what I expected. (If anything, I was a bit too optimistic about what point he would triangulate from, but I'm an optimist by nature.;-)

From what I've seen they are more than willing to acknowledge legitimate criticism when warrented.

Many are. Some here aren't at all.

That doesn't mean they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree. We have to live with the reality of what we have, and make the best of it.

Regards,
EV

[Dr. Frank fan]

They might well clean him up and put him in a three piece suit with mission directives - and I'd hate to see him stroll through security just because they were only checking every Arab rug merchant that came into the airport.

But again, no one "strolls through security"!! Not now, not even before 9/11!! No one!! Argh!! I'm so tired of reminding people of this simple fact!!

Now you're right if they give some sophisticated 007 type gear designed to get through regular screening to a white Johnny Jihader kid and send him on a plane, he just might get through the extra screening if we're profiling.

Heck, for that matter he is probably just as likely to get through extra screening if we're not profiling and only doing more or less "random" in-depth checks!

So you're right, profiling is not a panacea and will not usher in a new world utopian order of perfect airplane safety. You're right, a white kid could get through (just like a white kid could get through right now with no profiling!). In other words, good point: Profiling will not be 100% effective.

But why do you think that means it shouldn't be done at all? The mind boggles.

Do you wear seatbelts?

[ned]

Is it because it's simply easier to attack the pro-profiling position if you get to pretend that we're saying something we're not? Let me know,

What particular security advantage do you think would accompany a public announcement assuring persons possessing any particular physical feature (e.g. blonde hair) that they can expect a reduced level of scrutiny? Aside from just giving some people a sense of personal satisfaction, what good would it do for the President to announce that our security procedures will employ a quota system?

I thought it was great that Gore was searched. Our enemies should understand that there is no dependable strategy to penetrate security.

[Dr. Frank fan]

What particular security advantage do you think would accompany a public announcement assuring persons possessing any particular physical feature (e.g. blonde hair) that they can expect a reduced level of scrutiny? that?

Heck, I agree with you, better not to say anything at all, why give our hand away?

I thought it was great that Gore was searched. Our enemies should understand that there is no dependable strategy to penetrate security.

Just keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, we're using FINITE resources searching people like Al Gore. (Which necessarily means: NOT searching people who could actually be terrorists..)

[EternalVigilance]

When Mueller came back with some flaccid response, saying he had heard an "indication" of "a possible concern" about racial profiling, Feingold imperiously informed the director: "I was hoping for a different answer." Not the truth -- just a different answer. The only thing he left out was "Comrade."

Truth is, most public officials in DC have been trained over the years...kinda like Pavlov's dogs...any non-PC comments, even when true, can be expected to cause the truth-teller years of grief from the media and the left (sorry for repeating myself;-)

So they just keep right on slobbering out the same spittle, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

[tomkat]

perhaps my (current ;-) personal favorite of all your outstanding graphics work, mr. R !

not that anyone gives a sh!t, but W's losin' me fast ...

[Enemy Of The State]

"here's a lot not to like about Al Gore, but he's not a terrorist."

That is a debatable point.

[tomkat]

So you think Bush should encourage racial profiling?

YES

clear enough ?

[ned]

Maybe the Government should just continue to design its own strategy without telling Ann Coulter the details. Don't you suppose that that is what has been going on? She's just writing a column.

[RAT Patrol]

ROTFL! Gutsy, Registered, haha, I'm glad you're on my side.

[Endeavor]

"I don' think Anne gets that Bush is saying that Arabs should not be singled out at airports: ALL should be inspected the same; thoroughly."

Huh? I think Ann gets it quite well. I'm not sure about Bush on this point.

I'm also glad to hear someone calling for Mueller to be fired. So should Tenet. And so should the entire heirarchy of the INS. Finally, W should name Rudy to head "Homeland Security" (and I'm with Peggy Noonan, change the name of that org, please.)

[Travis McGee]

Another great one by Ann!

[Amelia]

What particular security advantage do you think would accompany a public announcement assuring persons possessing any particular physical feature (e.g. blonde hair) that they can expect a reduced level of scrutiny? Aside from just giving some people a sense of personal satisfaction, what good would it do for the President to announce that our security procedures will employ a quota system?

I agree entirely. In fact, I don't think too many announcements ought to be made about what our security system is or isn't.

Look at the Dims in Congress....they are already complaining that visitors from certain countries will receive increased scrutiny. If the government said they were going to profile, can you imagine all the screaming & lawsuits that would ensue?

[1rudeboy]

Get ready, Ann, to be labeled a "traitor" for having the audacity to even mildly criticize President Bush.

A little sensitive . . . too much criticism perhaps?

[Travis McGee]

If you only have the manpower to search 5% of the people getting on an airplane, and you waste that manpower randomly searching Al Gore, 88 year old Swedish grannies and 6 year old Chinese kids, then you are in effect saying "Right this way Mr. Atta, your seat is ready for you, have a nice flight, and please don't cut the stewardess's throat".

[Torie]

The sensible policy is just to do it, and not publicize it. But that is probably too much to expect.

[Travis McGee]

19 out of 19 of the 9-11 mass killers were arab muslims from 18-40.

Ditto the 1993 World Trade Center attack, (which failed, but not for lack of trying).

Ditto the COLE.

Ditto Khobar Towers.

Ditto the East African embassies.

Hopefully you are just a troll getting reactions for your jollies. You really can't be THAT stupid. Anyone THAT stupid would need help turning on a computer.