Ann Coulter takes some big swings with a clue bat.

[Otherguy Overby]

From:  http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=139

LIBERALS: BORN TO RUN
July 19, 2006


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 "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.

[RevDisk]

Am I the only one that thinks we should stay the hell out of the "peace process" ?  Funny, it doesn't seem to be working very well.  Cut our aid to all sides and say "To hell with all of y'all!"  Either that, or build a wall around the entire region, airdrop plenty of 7.62/5.56 and tell 'em we'll buy oil from whomever survives.

Still, we're in Iraq and probably stuck there for a while.  Things could get very messy in a hurry if this Lebanonese-Israeli conflict draws in other players.  I have no idea if they will or won't.   But if we tried to turn Iraq into a spring board to attack Iran, Syria, etc...  

Things would get messy in a hurry.  First off, we don't have the personnel and equipment for the occupation of any additional sizeable countries, unless they called up just about literally everyone in the Army and kept 'em overseas for the duration.  That'd be real popular, and we'd be screwed if anything happened domestically.  And I doubt the taxpayers would want to foot the bill.  Iraq is somewhere north of half a trillion thus far.   Expanding our invasion to surrounding countries would probably get expensive in a hurry.

[grampster]

Our non action diplomaticaly serves a purpose.  We do not lend legitimacy to Hezbollah by identifying them as a legitimate state; they are terrorists and John Bolton squarely expressed that with his statement a day or so ago.  That allows us to stand by and let Israel do what it must to protect itself.  We don't actually have a dog in this fight.  No one does except Israel, Iran, Syria and their terrorist lapdogs, Hamas and Hezbollah.  We don't negotiate with terrorists.  That puts the ball in Iran's (and Syria's) court to continue to support Hezbollah, or call them off.  I think that Israel is baiting Iran through its actions.  If Iran rises to the bait, Israel may just do what it needs to do.  So long to the status quo in Iran and it'll be about time.  Iran may have an army, but Israel could destroy it on the march with air power.  Israel can not let Iran nuke up.

If Carter hadn't sold out the Shah, and Clintoon did his dirt with China, N. Korea (which gives Iran a bedbug buddy with nuclear armaments and missile tech) and did his mal, non and misfeasance in the Middle East, the troubles would still be there, but at a much lower level.  Geopoliticaly, Carter and Clinton share a good deal of blame for much of the ramped up violence there.  America is now reaserting itself with the Bush Doctrine with regards to terrorism;  that is hit them before they hit us.  A good deal of America needs to wake up in this regard.  Right now Europe is exhibiting its Socialist pacifism, as usual, but they will wake up as well and get a clue.  It'll just take some time.  America will get its "friends" back by being strong and assertive, not by being the wimp that it has been for the last 25 years.  Reagan's dealings with the Soviet Union is a classic example of that.  Who really gives a rat's behind what Europe thinks of us.  they still need us and they know it!!

If you noticed, every time the Palestinians, Hamas, or Hezbollah got in a scuffle with Israel, and were getting their ass kicked, they called for cease fires.  Every time there was a cease fire, the level of terrorist threat was increased/arms were stockpiled and got more sophisticated. They'd try again and continue to get their asses kicked and ask for cease fires and ramp up again.  The point being any cease fire was a breather to get more and better weapons.  They are indeed insane because the definition of that is to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.  Maybe we will get a different result;  Israel will rid the world of the regimes in Syria and Iran.   They hate Israel and will never rest until they are beaten or the radical Islamists are marginalized.  Islam needs enlightenment but it will have to come from within Islam.

[Tallpine]

"Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from."

Yeah, except for WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam ........

[Perd Hapley]

Now, you and I both know that Ann is talking about a very different Democratic Party from the one you have in mind, Tallpine.

[roo_ster]

Am I the only one that thinks we should stay the hell out of the "peace process" ?  Funny, it doesn't seem to be working very well.  Cut our aid to all sides and say "To hell with all of y'all!"  Either that, or build a wall around the entire region, airdrop plenty of 7.62/5.56 and tell 'em we'll buy oil from whomever survives.

You'd end up with half the Israelis dead, but in control of the useful natural resources along the coasts & all the Solomonic lands of ancient Israel and 3/4 of the Arabs dead, the living 1/4 roaming the interior deserts as their grandfathers did.

I wish Coulter's analysis of contemporary Democrat foreign policy as pusillanimous was in error and a slander.  But it ain't.  The Dems just can not be trusted with the security of this country.  That state of affais is bad for the country.

Visualize: Nancy Pelosi as Secretary of State

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Y'know, somewhere in the back of my memory is an old saw supposedly told on Gene Roddenberry. Someone asked him why there were no Arab characters on Star Trek (the original series). As I recall, the answer went

because there are no Arabs in the 24th century

or something to that effect.

Y'know, Israel seems to have always exercised more restraint militarily than I've ever expected. I guess part of that has been because of all the political party factions since 1973.  One of these days the leash is going to break and the new game is going to be a mix of Manifest Destiny, Israelis and Indians, and 'Look Bubbie! I made glass!'

Iran may get (or have) the bomb, but the Israelis have a delivery system that doesn't involve a 5 ton Volvo truck.

This is going to get a lot more interesting as it plays out. Wish my Dad was here to burn up the comm lines with his old spook buddies and I could listen in.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Perd Hapley]

jfruser, NEVER EVER MAKE ME "VISUALIZE" NANCY PELOSI AGAIN.  Got it?  

there are no Arabs in the 24th century

Oh, Snap!!

Very amusing post, BunnyMan.  Not that I'm hoping for the genocide of the Arabs - far from it.

[Antibubba]

No, not genocide of the Arabs-just to the savages who call themselves Moslems.

[Stand_watie]

No, not genocide of the Arabs-just to the savages who call themselves Moslems.

You know it occurs to me that I hear there are large groups of Arab Christians - I wonder if there are any large groups of Arab Jews? And if so, are they as lukewarm in their support for the right of Israel to exist or as lukewarm in their condemnation of extremist Islamism as the Arab Christians (or the representatives of them that I see in the press anyway, which may or may not be a realistic representation, I readily aknowledge)?

[Tallpine]

Now, you and I both know that Ann is talking about a very different Democratic Party from the one you have in mind, Tallpine.

The point is that the Democrats have never been an anti-war party, and have in fact gotten us into most of the wars in the last hundred years.

Not even Kerry ran on an anti-war platform - only that he could manage the war "better"

I'm not defending the Demoncrats at all - just pointing out that they are every bit as much the warmongers as the Repugnicans.

And of course. the current Republicans are not the party of Goldwater, but much closer to the party of Lincoln (who pursued an aggressive war against the CSA, suspended civil liberties, and advocated sending the negroes back to Africa)

[Otherguy Overby]

And of course. the current Republicans are not the party of Goldwater, but much closer to the party of Lincoln (who pursued an aggressive war against the CSA, suspended civil liberties, and advocated sending the negroes back to Africa)

'Cept George isn't advocating sending any Mexicans back...  

[The Rabbi]

No, not genocide of the Arabs-just to the savages who call themselves Moslems.

You know it occurs to me that I hear there are large groups of Arab Christians - I wonder if there are any large groups of Arab Jews? And if so, are they as lukewarm in their support for the right of Israel to exist or as lukewarm in their condemnation of extremist Islamism as the Arab Christians (or the representatives of them that I see in the press anyway, which may or may not be a realistic representation, I readily aknowledge)?

Yeah, they are called "Sefardim" and they largely left or were kicked out of: Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.  Most live in Israel or the U.S. Families were generally Arabic-speaking.

[Antibubba]

Yeah, they are called "Sefardim" and they largely left or were kicked out of: Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.  Most live in Israel or the U.S. Families were generally Arabic-speaking.

Rabbi, I thought the Mediterranean Arab Jews-Northern Africa, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Turk-were Sephardim, and the Persian, Yemenese, and Eastern Jews were Mizrahim?

[Werewolf]

Am I the only one that thinks we should stay the hell out of the "peace process" ?  Funny, it doesn't seem to be working very well.  Cut our aid to all sides and say "To hell with all of y'all!"  Either that, or build a wall around the entire region, airdrop plenty of 7.62/5.56 and tell 'em we'll buy oil from whomever survives.

That's a plan I could support.

Unfortunately it makes way too much sense and has a high probability of success so it will never be implemented. Politicians don't want solutions that lead to success - enough of those types of plans and the politicians would work themselves right out of a job.

[Stand_watie]

Am I the only one that thinks we should stay the hell out of the "peace process" ?  Funny, it doesn't seem to be working very well.  Cut our aid to all sides and say "To hell with all of y'all!"  Either that, or build a wall around the entire region, airdrop plenty of 7.62/5.56 and tell 'em we'll buy oil from whomever survives.

That's a plan I could support.

Unfortunately it makes way too much sense and has a high probability of success so it will never be implemented. Politicians don't want solutions that lead to success - enough of those types of plans and the politicians would work themselves right out of a job.

I wonder what 3 or 4 million dead Jews and 50 to 100 million dead Arabs and a couple of million (non-Jewish) dead Americans would do for world peace, and the peace of America at large? I'm guessing that at the least, Pakistan would have a go at seeing if their nukes were actually capable of hitting the U.S.

[Ron]

Cut our aid to all sides and say "To hell with all of y'all!"

I would like to see an immediate end to foreign aid to our enemies AND so called allies who work against our interests.

Then I would like a phased withdrawel of aid over time to our allies so as not to damage their economies.

[RevDisk]

Am I the only one that thinks we should stay the hell out of the "peace process" ?  Funny, it doesn't seem to be working very well.  Cut our aid to all sides and say "To hell with all of y'all!"  Either that, or build a wall around the entire region, airdrop plenty of 7.62/5.56 and tell 'em we'll buy oil from whomever survives.

That's a plan I could support.

Unfortunately it makes way too much sense and has a high probability of success so it will never be implemented. Politicians don't want solutions that lead to success - enough of those types of plans and the politicians would work themselves right out of a job.

I wonder what 3 or 4 million dead Jews and 50 to 100 million dead Arabs and a couple of million (non-Jewish) dead Americans would do for world peace, and the peace of America at large? I'm guessing that at the least, Pakistan would have a go at seeing if their nukes were actually capable of hitting the U.S.

It ain't our fight.   Not sure how you came up with those numbers, or how the dead Americans are involved.   Why do you think Pakistan would nuke us if we went neutral?   First off, Pakistan has only a handful of nukes.   Second off, they'd be ten times more likely to use them on India than US under any circumstances humanly imaginable.   Thirdly, thus far, no country has never nuked another country with nuclear weapons, for seemingly obvious reasons.

The US is pretending to be neutral, which we ain't.  When you sell arms to specific factions and hand aide out to one side but not the other, you're not neutral.   We're picking sides in a fight that ain't our's.   My point is that the peace process has never worked, and likely never will.  We can pretend that it works, and dump tons of money into the process.    It'll never cause any real peace.   Only a long chain of very short cease fires.

We can pick a side and get fully involved in the mess, which is a very bad idea in my opinion.   Or we can stay the hell out of the entire mess and let the folks decide for themselves.   This fantasy neutrality is absurd.

I wish Coulter's analysis of contemporary Democrat foreign policy as pusillanimous was in error and a slander.  But it ain't.  The Dems just can not be trusted with the security of this country.  That state of affais is bad for the country.

Eh, there have been one or two Dems thus far that became President.   They've also been the majority party occassionally.   Funny, but the United States is still here.  With the way our geography works, it's very very unlikely another military will invade the United States.   A successful invasion and annexation of the US is also unlikely.  Yea, we might take some knocks.  Japan hit US soil a couple times back in WWII, the commies infiltrated various agencies, and terrorists hit us a couple times.   Bombing a military base, planting a couple spies and knocking down a handful of buildings will not bring down our country.   Even a handful of nuclear weapons couldn't bring down the United States.  We're a very large country with a lot of resources.  Even if the entire US military vanished overnight, no military on the planet could successfully invade our country and take it over.

Seems to me the best way to secure our country would to be continue securing our own freedoms.   I know, neither party seems to agree with me on that thought.   No two bit terrorist group is going to bring down the US.   The British empire failed, so did the Axis and the USSR.   For people to honestly believe that terrorism could end the US seems rather odd to me, but I'm funny that way.  Terrorism will always be a problem.  Domestic or foreign.   We need to work on domestic security and keep a strong military.   But overestimating an enemy can be as disasterous as underestimating them.

[roo_ster]

I wish Coulter's analysis of contemporary Democrat foreign policy as pusillanimous was in error and a slander.  But it ain't.  The Dems just can not be trusted with the security of this country.  That state of affais is bad for the country.

Eh, there have been one or two Dems thus far that became President.   They've also been the majority party occassionally.   Funny, but the United States is still here...Even if the entire US military vanished overnight, no military on the planet could successfully invade our country and take it over.

Seems to me the best way to secure our country would to be continue securing our own freedoms.   I know, neither party seems to agree with me on that thought.   No two bit terrorist group is going to bring down the US.   The British empire failed, so did the Axis and the USSR.   For people to honestly believe that terrorism could end the US seems rather odd to me, but I'm funny that way.  Terrorism will always be a problem.  Domestic or foreign.   We need to work on domestic security and keep a strong military.   But overestimating an enemy can be as disasterous as underestimating them.

You might note that I was referring to the contemporaryDem party.  The party of Truman & Scoop Jackson is no more.  It is now the part of Howlin' Howard Dean.  It is a party that is trying to run Joe Lieberman out of it for views contrary to Democratic orthodoxy on Iraq & the war with militant Islam.

If our military vanished overnight, all it would take is X number of freighters to bring foreign troops to our shores & raise havoc.  It would be mighty difficult to get ammo to American patriots engaged with them when supply routes have been blasted to bits by enemy aiircraft who have unchallenged dominion in the sky.

Terrorism could end the US as we know it,  The WTC pushed our economy over the edge into recession.  Several WTCs could drive us into a depression.  Couple that with an ever-expanding fed.gov, and the fever dreams of the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd may actually come to fruition.  

I would much rather blast countries that harbor terrorists to cinders and fill the hearts of enemies & their supporters with dread.  None of this nation-building pablum.  Rubble does not make trouble.  In addition, an absolute restriction on visas from countries most middle eastern & N african countries combined with secure borders would help.

Our enemies hate us and want us destroyed.  Pulling back won't change that.  On the contrary, it will embolden them.

[Stand_watie]

That's a plan I could support.

Unfortunately it makes way too much sense and has a high probability of success so it will never be implemented. Politicians don't want solutions that lead to success - enough of those types of plans and the politicians would work themselves right out of a job.

I wonder what 3 or 4 million dead Jews and 50 to 100 million dead Arabs and a couple of million (non-Jewish) dead Americans would do for world peace, and the peace of America at large? I'm guessing that at the least, Pakistan would have a go at seeing if their nukes were actually capable of hitting the U.S.

It ain't our fight.   Not sure how you came up with those numbers, or how the dead Americans are involved.

I made them up. Does it really matter if it's 3 or 4 million dead Jews and 50 to 100 million dead Arabs, 1 million dead Jews and 53 to 103 million dead Arabs or 5 million dead Jews and 47 to 102 million dead Arabs? Any thinking person knows that if you turn a pack of pit bulls on a tiger with no place for the tiger to retreat and no one calling off the pit bulls, you're going to have a bunch of dead pit bulls and a badly injured tiger. Sure, back Israel into a corner and give the radical islamists no incentive to back off. That's going to help things.

Why do you think Pakistan would nuke us if we went neutral?   First off, Pakistan has only a handful of nukes.   Second off, they'd be ten times more likely to use them on India than US under any circumstances humanly imaginable.   Thirdly, thus far, no country has never nuked another country with nuclear weapons, for seemingly obvious reasons.

Maybe because a substantial % of their population would blame us if they saw a few million islamo-facists and a few million of the people around them dead. After all we all know that there isn't a significant portion of Pakistan that are islamo-facists don't we? We all know how stable a country it is and how difficult it would be for their current, less radical administration to be deposed in a military coup don't we? The evidence is there in the fact that they currently don't have a Taliban problem in Pakistan, no Osama Bin Laden types could possibly be running around in Pakistan and certainly couldn't have any access to political or military power in Pakistan, Musharef doesn't have to worry about assasination or military coup, and he's able to just kick ass and take names with no fear of losing power.

After all just a "handful" of nukes. Heck, how much damage could they possibly do with that?  And they'd "probably" use them on the Indians. Sure. The Indians are inorexably tied to the Israeli's in the Muslim world. After all the "great Satan" in the islamist world is India, and "humanly imaginable" doesn't include them being pissed off at us at all. After all that's a far fetched possibility we all know, there aren't any current "death to America" types of islamists in the world, they're all too busy calling for death to India.

How do you "nuke" a country with non-nuclear weapons? I suppose you could split hairs and say we did it with uranium fission bombs to Japan, but after all, "it's never been done before", therefore nobody could possibly hate us that much.

The US is pretending to be neutral, which we ain't.  When you sell arms to specific factions and hand aide out to one side but not the other, you're not neutral.   We're picking sides in a fight that ain't our's.   My point is that the peace process has never worked, and likely never will.  We can pretend that it works, and dump tons of money into the process.    It'll never cause any real peace.   Only a long chain of very short cease fires.We can pick a side and get fully involved in the mess, which is a very bad idea in my opinion.   Or we can stay the hell out of the entire mess and let the folks decide for themselves. This fantasy neutrality is absurd.

Oh really? Could you specifically quote W where he claims the Israeli actions are the same as Hezbollah's and that the US supports Hezbollah equally to support of Israel? Europe pretends to be neutral. America supports Israel.