Democrats' Dilemma
Oh dear, what will the Democrats do if the warnings regarding terrorism this summer come true? The War on Terror is nonexistent, right? We have no enemies, right? In Ann Coulter's latest column, she exposes the obvious contradictions in the analyses of the current crop of liars known as the Democrat presidential candidates.
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.
Indeed, no wonder Gravel is at the bottom of the dung heap. Why, oh Why would Americans even consider putting any of these people in charge of our military and national security?
Now they're trying to limit the damage to their political futures if there is another terrorist attack by claiming that if it does happen, it's all Bush's fault for going into Iraq. Trying to cover all their bases, you know. There's not really a terrorist threat, but if one does pop up all of a sudden, it's all Bush's fault. Coulter puts it this way:
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.
These are the spineless wimps who seek to be Commander-in-Chief of this great nation. God help us if that happens.
JASmius adds: They're not "spineless wimps," Jen; they're enemy collaborators. They're amoral partisan mercenaries who will wade through oceans of American blood to grasp the full reins of total power, as long as none of it is theirs.
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.
Indeed, no wonder Gravel is at the bottom of the dung heap. Why, oh Why would Americans even consider putting any of these people in charge of our military and national security?
Now they're trying to limit the damage to their political futures if there is another terrorist attack by claiming that if it does happen, it's all Bush's fault for going into Iraq. Trying to cover all their bases, you know. There's not really a terrorist threat, but if one does pop up all of a sudden, it's all Bush's fault. Coulter puts it this way:
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.
These are the spineless wimps who seek to be Commander-in-Chief of this great nation. God help us if that happens.
JASmius adds: They're not "spineless wimps," Jen; they're enemy collaborators. They're amoral partisan mercenaries who will wade through oceans of American blood to grasp the full reins of total power, as long as none of it is theirs.
posted by Jennifer at 12:50 AM
<<< Home