Jump to content

RE: THE LEFT


Tigermike

Recommended Posts

RE: THE LEFT

“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... 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!... 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.” —Ann Coulter

Link to comment
Share on other sites





RE: THE LEFT

“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... 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!... 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.” —Ann Coulter

If you read other people's posts, you'd know that crap has already been posted. Maybe you didn't read it because it wasn't labeled "The left".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read other people's posts, you'd know that crap has already been posted. Maybe you didn't read it because it wasn't labeled "The left".

If I had read it or even seen it posted previously, I wouldn't have posted. Obviously you have nothing to say. Got a link where it was posted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...