What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What Part Of The War On Terrorism Do They Support?

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
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.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Here is the Dems way of fighting terror....
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
38,744
Reaction score
29,582
Points
2,905
Location
Arizona
Why can't Coulter run for Prez? :clap:
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
670
Points
48
Location
Wherever
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.

Exactly!! Problem is we don't have enough jail space, courts, or time to accomodate millions of terrorist..........
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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.
 

Hagbard Celine

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,756
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Location
Atlanta, GA
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.

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.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
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.

And YOU know this, HOW?:smoke:
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
670
Points
48
Location
Wherever
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 terrorism 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 willing to inflict large scale civilian casualties.

But don't let reality stand in the way of your delusions.

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.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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.

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.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
670
Points
48
Location
Wherever
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.

Okay so what now then?? Seriously are you saying Musharaff, and the Saudi government are as bad as Hussein, the new Iranian Hitler, or the Taliban was in Afghanistan?
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Anne Coulter is simply bat-shit crazy. Anything she has to say has only a nodding acquaintance with reality or fact

Oh really? Enlighten us with examples please, Mr. FullaBull.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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.



She seems to nail libs with every article

This one does the job nicely...........



http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=142
BIG FOOT, SCOOP JACKSON DEMOCRATS AND OTHER MYTHS
August 9, 2006



I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.

On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!

As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.

In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.

The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.

Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."

Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.

Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy — Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")

To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,152
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
I like Ann, but to say that "the free world" is the U.S. and Israel is the biggest load of macaca I've heard today. She's sided with the neocons here, and it's disappointing, given her firepower.

Ann needs to sit on the lap of her daddy for a talkin'-to:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/buchanan.html

Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-Social Democratic Left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran into an “Islamofascist” kill box, then let SAC do the rest.

The term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.

But Saddam was about as devout a practitioner of Islam as his idol Stalin was of the Russian Orthodox faith. Saddam was into booze, mistresses, movies, monuments, palaces, and dynasty. Bin Laden loathed him and volunteered to fight him in 1991, if Saudi Arabia would only not bring the Americans in to do the fighting Islamic warriors ought to be doing themselves.

Care to explain this, Ann?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
How would the libs confront terrorism?
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Oh really? Enlighten us with examples please, Mr. FullaBull.

All one need to do to confrim this view is read any of her op-eds or books. She's bat-shit crazy.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
She seems to nail libs with every article

This one does the job nicely...........

She only nails her own foot to the floor...after removing it from her mouth. And your delusions seem to be growing worse. Have you stopped taking your meds?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
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.

Actually, having read a number of Anne's works, she has a very good grip on reality. She just isnt bound by typical political correctness and has no problem emphasizing extreme points to make people think and see whats going on

Also, are people really civilians if they know of terror and help them hide?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
All one need to do to confrim this view is read any of her op-eds or books. She's bat-shit crazy.

She causes libs like you to break out into a state of mouth frothing hysteria, so she must be telling the truth

Truth to libs is like Holy Water to the devil
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$95.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top