SSN Vet
Member
she's feisty as ever....but I think her logic flows pretty well in this one...
-----------------------
THE 'BUMPER STICKER' THAT BLOWS UP
by Ann Coulter
July 18, 2007
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.
But now with the U.S. government - as well as the British and German
governments - warning of major terrorist attacks this summer, the
Treason Lobby is facing the possibility that the "bumper sticker" could
blow up in their faces.
The Democrats' entire national security calculus is based on the premise
that "we have no important enemies," as stated by former senator Mike
Gravel. He's one of the Democratic presidential candidates who doesn't
know he's supposed to lie when speaking to the American people.
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.
So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war
in Iraq.
The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that
we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically
repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago.
The venue of the terrorists' latest attempt, a hot London nightclub,
might even shake up the young progressive crowd. Apparently their
soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.
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.
Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities. Let's
stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single
child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents.
"Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular
checkups!"
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!
As with the Democrats' claim that the greatest military in the world is
"losing" a war with camel-riding nomads, the claim that the war in Iraq
is what created our terrorist problem - a terrorist problem that began
about 30 years ago - has entered the media and is now stated as fact by
the entire Treason Lobby.
CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week:
"President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. 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?
Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux's report with
the somber news that "the president was warned before the war in Iraq
that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give al-Qaida more
opportunities to expand its influence."
Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United
States - not, that is, /until we started fighting them! /
But as soon as we entered the war - taking the bait of Hitler's
declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid
falling for in the case of al-Qaida - Hitler began portraying FDR as a
pawn of the Jews. Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the
United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes. Fake dollar bills
with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.
According to the Democrats' logic, FDR's policies made the United States
less safe. Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Was Hitler able
to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes. Fighting the
enemy always seems to make them mad. It's as plain as the nose on your
face.
Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that
jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I
assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has
galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War
II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the
world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question
is: Which side are the Democrats on?
-----------------------
THE 'BUMPER STICKER' THAT BLOWS UP
by Ann Coulter
July 18, 2007
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.
But now with the U.S. government - as well as the British and German
governments - warning of major terrorist attacks this summer, the
Treason Lobby is facing the possibility that the "bumper sticker" could
blow up in their faces.
The Democrats' entire national security calculus is based on the premise
that "we have no important enemies," as stated by former senator Mike
Gravel. He's one of the Democratic presidential candidates who doesn't
know he's supposed to lie when speaking to the American people.
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.
So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war
in Iraq.
The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that
we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically
repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago.
The venue of the terrorists' latest attempt, a hot London nightclub,
might even shake up the young progressive crowd. Apparently their
soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.
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.
Hillary Clinton said we need to start "reversing our priorities. Let's
stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single
child." Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents.
"Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular
checkups!"
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!
As with the Democrats' claim that the greatest military in the world is
"losing" a war with camel-riding nomads, the claim that the war in Iraq
is what created our terrorist problem - a terrorist problem that began
about 30 years ago - has entered the media and is now stated as fact by
the entire Treason Lobby.
CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week:
"President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. 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?
Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux's report with
the somber news that "the president was warned before the war in Iraq
that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give al-Qaida more
opportunities to expand its influence."
Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United
States - not, that is, /until we started fighting them! /
But as soon as we entered the war - taking the bait of Hitler's
declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid
falling for in the case of al-Qaida - Hitler began portraying FDR as a
pawn of the Jews. Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the
United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes. Fake dollar bills
with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.
According to the Democrats' logic, FDR's policies made the United States
less safe. Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Was Hitler able
to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes. Fighting the
enemy always seems to make them mad. It's as plain as the nose on your
face.
Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that
jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I
assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has
galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War
II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the
world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question
is: Which side are the Democrats on?