What Part Of The War On Terrorism Do They Support?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, Aug 24, 2006.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    I wish more Republicans would be as blunt and as direct as Ann Coulter.

    It is time to take the gloves off and lay it on the line to the voters.


    WHAT PART OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM DO THEY SUPPORT?
    August 23, 2006


    http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
    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, 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.

    COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

    DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

    4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
     
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Just my opinion, but it seems to me that the Dems want to treat terrorism as a "crime" rather than an act of war. This is what leads to the great division/confusion.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Here is the Dems way of fighting terror....
     
  4. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,915
    Thanks Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,804
    Why can't Coulter run for Prez? :clap:
     
  5. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Exactly!! Problem is we don't have enough jail space, courts, or time to accomodate millions of terrorist..........
     
  6. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Anne Coulter is simply bat-shit crazy. Anything she has to say has only a nodding acquaintance with reality or fact.

    And, I'm sorry to say that terroriism is more a matter for law enforcement than the military. In case you've already forgotten, which seems likely, it was police work in co-ordination with intelligence agencies that rolled up the airline bombing plot in Britain...Warrants were obtained...Due process was observed. What role the military would play would be a supporting one, providing the spec-ops forces to take down terrorist facilities uncovered by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Large scale military operations against terrorist operations, as was recently demonstrated in Lebanon, are of little use against an enemy that blends in with the civilian population...Unless one is wlling to inflict large scale civilian casualties.

    But don't let reality stand in the way of your delusions.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    Exactly. We're fighting Iraqi militias in Iraq now and acting as a policing force between the opposing Shia and Sunni factions, not fighting terrorists. If we want to fight terrorists, let's go to places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria, where the terrorists ARE instead of policing Iraq--a job for which the blunt force of the military is ill-suited.
     
  8. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    And YOU know this, HOW?:smoke:
     
  9. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Bully that would be fine if we were fighting an handful of terrorists, obviously we are not. And if Muslim countries are continually run by Islamic Fascists the people will forever be kept oppressed and ripe for indoctrination, which means a never ending supply of rabid killers and the western world forever fighting terrorism via intelligence and law enforcement. How is that even feasible? It would be different if we could encourage government coups from within like Iran for example, but that takes a lot of time if it even happens at all.
     
  10. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Islamic fascists our govenrment has supported since the end of W.W. II, like Saudi Arabia. And, more recently, the government of Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan. It's just the chickens coming home to roost.
     

Share This Page