Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War-torn Democrats (If this is not treason, then treason has no meaning) ANN COULTER
worldnetdaily ^ | 1/28/2003 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 01/29/2003 3:51:01 PM PST by TLBSHOW

War-torn Democrats

by Ann Coulter

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was looking a little glum Tuesday night. Last week Kerry gave a speech saying: "Mr. President, do not rush to war!" Rush to war? We've been talking about this war for a year. It's been three months since Kerry duly recorded his vote in favor of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

In 1991, Kerry voted against the Gulf War, saying the country was "not yet ready for what it will witness and bear if we go to war." Having been taunted for that vote and that prediction ever since, this time Kerry made sure to vote in favor of war with Iraq. This will allow the New York Times to describe him as a "moderate Democrat" forevermore. Indeed, a surprisingly large number of Democrats voted for the war resolution last October. But as soon as the November elections were over, Democrats like Kerry began aggressively attacking the very war they had just voted for.

These Democrats want to have it both ways. If the war goes well – a lot of them voted for war with Iraq, didn't they? But if the war does not go well, many of the very Democrats who voted for the war resolution will have emerged as leading spokesmen for the anti-war position. A vote for the war, surrounded by Neville Chamberlain foot-dragging, is a fraud.

The Neville Chamberlain Democrats are now claiming they didn't realize what they were voting for. John Kerry says he thought a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq meant that the United Nations would have to approve. Dianne Feinstein said she voted for the resolution assuming it meant we would invade only if "our allies" approved. Joe Biden made the terrific argument that if we don't wait for U.N. approval, it would "make a mockery of the efficacy of the U.N." The Democrats appear to be the only people who still believe in the "efficacy of the U.N." In any event, I believe the United Nations should be more worried about that eventuality than we should.

Kerry claims he is still foursquare behind disarming Saddam Hussein, but not "until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." As George Bush pointed out in his State of the Union address, dictators are not in the habit of "politely putting us on notice before they strike." By the time a threat is "imminent," Chicago will be gone.

That's the short version. The long version of Kerry's position is this:

"[I]f you have a breach that, by everybody's standard, at least in the United States, those of us in the House and Senate, and the president, join together and make a judgment, this is indeed a material breach, and then others – some of them can't be persuaded – if we have evidence, sufficient to show the materiality of the breach, we should be able to do what Adlai Stevenson did on behalf of the administration, Kennedy administration, and sit in front of the Security Council and say, 'Here is the evidence. It's time for all of you to put up. We need to all do this together.' And that's what I think the resolution that was passed suggests."

There's a rallying cry to unite the Democrats! If there has been a material breach "by everybody's standard," then and only then, we can boldly ... go to the United Nations! This is the fundamental problem of the anti-war movement. They can't bring themselves to say it's a mistake to depose Saddam Hussein, and "don't hurry" is not really a call to arms.

But why not hurry? Democrats claim they haven't seen proof yet that Saddam is a direct threat to the United States. For laughs, let's suppose they're right. In the naysayers' worst-case scenario, the United States would be acting precipitously to remove a ruthless dictator who tortures his own people. As Bush said, after detailing some of Saddam Hussein's charming practices: "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." It's not as if anyone is worried that we're making a horrible miscalculation and could be removing the Iraqi Abraham Lincoln by mistake.

Either we're removing a dictator who currently has plans to fund terrorism against American citizens or – if Bush is completely wrong and Eleanor Clift is completely right – we're just removing a dictator who plans to terrorize a lot of people in the region, but not Americans specifically. Even for someone like me, who doesn't want America to be the world's policeman, the risk of precipitous action against Saddam Hussein doesn't keep me up at night.

The Democrats' jejune claim that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to our security presupposes they would care if he were. Who are they kidding? Democrats adore threats to the United States. Bush got a raucous standing ovation at his State of the Union address when he announced that "this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles." The excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats' side of the aisle. The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then treason has no meaning.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; democrats; treason; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

1 posted on 01/29/2003 3:51:01 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
The excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats' side of the aisle. The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then treason has no meaning.

Ann Coulter


2 posted on 01/29/2003 3:58:01 PM PST by TLBSHOW (just a internet liberal; basher that is hated by the leftwing nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
You GO girl!!
3 posted on 01/29/2003 3:59:17 PM PST by BreitbartSentMe (DUBYA (Don't Underestimate Bush You A$$hole))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
God Bless Ann Coulter! She always has a way of hitting the nail smack on the head.

(FYI to those who haven't read her book "Slander" yet, go out and buy or borrow it at once. Fantastic work on exposing the lies of the Left.)

-Jay
4 posted on 01/29/2003 4:02:59 PM PST by Jay D. Dyson (I have no sense of diplomacy. I consider that to be a character asset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Either we're removing a dictator who currently has plans to fund terrorism against American citizens or – if Bush is completely wrong and Eleanor Clift is completely right – we're just removing a dictator who plans to terrorize a lot of people in the region, but not Americans specifically.

Outstanding point. Even if Saddam really has no WMD (hah), removing him is even more justifiable on humanitarian grounds than Clinton's attack on Serbia.

5 posted on 01/29/2003 4:03:18 PM PST by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Coulter is Right.

Hedgecock today talked a little about the League of Nations and its inability to stop the Japanese, Hitler, etc. and so on.


6 posted on 01/29/2003 4:05:23 PM PST by lainie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
As Bush said, after detailing some of Saddam Hussein's charming practices: "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." It's not as if anyone is worried that we're making a horrible miscalculation and could be removing the Iraqi Abraham Lincoln by mistake.
 
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

7 posted on 01/29/2003 4:08:15 PM PST by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Eleanor Clift is completely right

I read the words, but they have no meaning. "Eleanor Clift" and "right." Hmmmmm. I suppose it COULD happen. Stopped clock and all that ...

8 posted on 01/29/2003 4:08:45 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: TLBSHOW
So good I read it twice...
11 posted on 01/29/2003 4:11:48 PM PST by copycat (Ridicule Hillary! to someone you know TODAY!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Joe Biden made the terrific argument that if we don't wait for U.N. approval, it would "make a mockery of the efficacy of the U.N."

Ummm...I think they do a pretty good job of that all by themselves.

12 posted on 01/29/2003 4:13:27 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
A brilliant treatise. I have to put my sunglasses on to read her column.

Democrats--the party of treason. Has a nice ring to it.
13 posted on 01/29/2003 4:14:12 PM PST by exit82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
you can say all you want of her looks but for me, I could read a dozen Ann Coulter's to one Peggy Noonan's piece
14 posted on 01/29/2003 4:16:05 PM PST by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

. . .great line and truth expressed by GW and one that confounds the Libs who are unable to define, distinguish or discern 'Evil'.

15 posted on 01/29/2003 4:16:23 PM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Last year in the SOTU address the president used the phrase "axis of evil" and was laughed at by liberals. It later turned out that he used that phrase much more knowingly than anyone really gave him credit for, I think.

This year he used this phrase: "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." It seems like a rhetorical advice, kind of like that "axis of evil" thing last year. But you know what? This really gets very close to the way that liberals think: nothing is evil, nothing is good, it's all relative.
16 posted on 01/29/2003 4:17:32 PM PST by Mr. Mulliner (There is such a thing as going too far, and you have gone it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Good column. You know that I have been extremely skeptical about the invasion of Iraq. However, my view is rapidly changing. Why? Not due to the efforts/words of the Administration, but due to the lack of any coherence by the opposition. Hell, if there is not better reason for skepticism than they can offer, let's roll.
17 posted on 01/29/2003 4:17:57 PM PST by jammer (We are doing to ourselves what Bin Laden could only dream of doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
She's right on target here. The dems are trying to have it both ways. Ted Kennedy wants a new vote on military action in Iraq. I say let them do it. Let the dems vote against it. Fine. Then, at least their true colors will show through.

At this point, they are all equivacating like mad (except for Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and perhaps some others) and look ridiculous. They didn't know what they voted for? Sheesh...who elected these morons? If they have to vote, up or down, then it will be on the record. They only voted for it last fall because of the elections. Daschle keeps raising the bar because he really is just plain against it but doesn't have the cajones to come out and say it.

I swear the democrats are such a bunch of panty-assed wimps.

18 posted on 01/29/2003 4:19:10 PM PST by Wphile (The dems make me SICK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jammer
However, my view is rapidly changing. Why? Not due to the efforts/words of the Administration, but due to the lack of any coherence by the opposition.

My sentiments exactly. The "arguments" of the opposition are that they hate Bush, America, and/or capitalism.

19 posted on 01/29/2003 4:19:41 PM PST by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: exit82
Kerry looked terrible last night. Even more Lurch-like than usual. I can't believe he will last long in the presidential primaries. God forbid he ever makes it to the presidency. Can you imagine having to look at the sour long face every night on the news!
20 posted on 01/29/2003 4:19:51 PM PST by Martin Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson