The Middle East is on fire again and crazy Muslims with funny names arent helping things -- Mahmoud ElBaradei al-Banna Barack ...
The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?
Remember? The one who had gassed his own people invaded his neighbors and was desperately seeking weapons of mass destruction? The guy who emerged from a spider hole looking like Charlie Sheen after a three-day bender?
Liberals couldnt have been less interested in removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq. So its really adorable seeing them get all choked up about democracy now. Say as long as liberals are all gung-ho about getting rid of out-of-touch overbearing dictators how about we start with Janet Napolitano?
Why did they want to keep Saddam Hussein in power again? Yes thats right -- because he didnt have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Their big argument was that Saddam was five long years away from developing them.
By my calculations that means as of March 2008 Israel would have been gone and Saddam would have been in total control of the Middle East.
Thanks liberals!
But they were shocked by Mubarak. Liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as a proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down. Did they by any chance see the January employment numbers for the United States? The only employment sectors showing any growth at all are medical marijuana cashiers Hollywood sober-living coaches and Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark understudies filling in for maimed cast members.
Are we one jobs report away from liberals rioting in the street?
Mubarak supported U.S. policy used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israels right to exist. Or as the left calls it three strikes and youre out.
Obama was so rough on the Egyptian leader the Saudis reportedly had to ask him not to humiliate Mubarak. (You know like Chinese President Hu did to Obama.) In fact Mubarak may be the only despot Obama didnt bow to.
Youd think Mubarak and Obama would be natural allies. Mubarak lives in Egypt; Obama created a pyramid scheme known as ObamaCare. To win Obamas support maybe Mubarak should have dropped the whole president thing and called himself czar. Obama seems to like czars.
Or he should have announced that Egypt was going to blow $500 billion on a high-speed bullet train nobody wanted.
You know another country where Obama wasnt interested in democracy? (I mean besides the U.S. when it comes to health care reform?) Thats right -- Iran.
Iran is ideal for democracy: It has a young highly educated pro-Western population and happens to be led by a messianic Holocaust-denying lunatic.
Liberals say: Why upset that apple cart? Much better to support tumult and riots against our allies than our sworn enemies.
When peaceful Iranian students were protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejads stolen election in 2009 we didnt hear a peep out of Obama. The students had good reason to believe the election had been rigged. In some pro-Ahmadinejad districts turnout was more than 100 percent.
Wait no Im sorry -- that was Al Frankens election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But there was also plenty of vote-stealing in Ahmadinejads election.
When it came to Iran however the flame of democracy didnt burn so brightly in liberal hearts. Even when the Iranian protester Neda was shot dead while standing peacefully on a street in Tehran Obama responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone.
But a mob of Egyptians start decapitating mummies and Obama was on the horn telling Mubarak he had to leave. Obama didnt acknowledge Nedas existence but the moment Egyptians started rioting Obama said We hear your voices.
He can hear their voices? He couldnt hear the voices of the tea partiers and they were protesting on the streets of Washington D.C.
But as long as Obama can hear the voices of protesters in Cairo why doesnt he ask them what they think about ObamaCare? Maybe the Egyptians can change his mind.
The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt but not in Iraq or Iran can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as were on the subject liberals also opposed democracy in Russia East Germany Czechoslovakia Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states China Vietnam North Korea Cuba Grenada Nicaragua and Minnesota.)
Democrats are all for meddling in other countries - but only provided a change of regime will harm U.S. national security interests.
Time and again Democrats fecklessness has emboldened Americas enemies and terrified its allies which I believe was the actual slogan of the State Department under Jimmy Carter: Emboldening Americas enemies and terrifying her allies since 1976.
For 50 years Democrats have harbored traitors lost wars lost continents to communism hobnobbed with the nations enemies attacked Americas allies and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it foreign policy.
As Joe McCarthy once said if liberals were merely stupid the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve Americas interests.
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
The Middle East is on fire again and crazy Muslims with funny names arent helping things -- Mahmoud ElBaradei al-Banna Barack ...
The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?
Remember? The one who had gassed his own people invaded his neighbors and was desperately seeking weapons of mass destruction? The guy who emerged from a spider hole looking like Charlie Sheen after a three-day bender?
Liberals couldnt have been less interested in removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq. So its really adorable seeing them get all choked up about democracy now. Say as long as liberals are all gung-ho about getting rid of out-of-touch overbearing dictators how about we start with Janet Napolitano?
Why did they want to keep Saddam Hussein in power again? Yes thats right -- because he didnt have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Their big argument was that Saddam was five long years away from developing them.
By my calculations that means as of March 2008 Israel would have been gone and Saddam would have been in total control of the Middle East.
Thanks liberals!
But they were shocked by Mubarak. Liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as a proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down. Did they by any chance see the January employment numbers for the United States? The only employment sectors showing any growth at all are medical marijuana cashiers Hollywood sober-living coaches and Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark understudies filling in for maimed cast members.
Are we one jobs report away from liberals rioting in the street?
Mubarak supported U.S. policy used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israels right to exist. Or as the left calls it three strikes and youre out.
Obama was so rough on the Egyptian leader the Saudis reportedly had to ask him not to humiliate Mubarak. (You know like Chinese President Hu did to Obama.) In fact Mubarak may be the only despot Obama didnt bow to.
Youd think Mubarak and Obama would be natural allies. Mubarak lives in Egypt; Obama created a pyramid scheme known as ObamaCare. To win Obamas support maybe Mubarak should have dropped the whole president thing and called himself czar. Obama seems to like czars.
Or he should have announced that Egypt was going to blow $500 billion on a high-speed bullet train nobody wanted.
You know another country where Obama wasnt interested in democracy? (I mean besides the U.S. when it comes to health care reform?) Thats right -- Iran.
Iran is ideal for democracy: It has a young highly educated pro-Western population and happens to be led by a messianic Holocaust-denying lunatic.
Liberals say: Why upset that apple cart? Much better to support tumult and riots against our allies than our sworn enemies.
When peaceful Iranian students were protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejads stolen election in 2009 we didnt hear a peep out of Obama. The students had good reason to believe the election had been rigged. In some pro-Ahmadinejad districts turnout was more than 100 percent.
Wait no Im sorry -- that was Al Frankens election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But there was also plenty of vote-stealing in Ahmadinejads election.
When it came to Iran however the flame of democracy didnt burn so brightly in liberal hearts. Even when the Iranian protester Neda was shot dead while standing peacefully on a street in Tehran Obama responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone.
But a mob of Egyptians start decapitating mummies and Obama was on the horn telling Mubarak he had to leave. Obama didnt acknowledge Nedas existence but the moment Egyptians started rioting Obama said We hear your voices.
He can hear their voices? He couldnt hear the voices of the tea partiers and they were protesting on the streets of Washington D.C.
But as long as Obama can hear the voices of protesters in Cairo why doesnt he ask them what they think about ObamaCare? Maybe the Egyptians can change his mind.
The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt but not in Iraq or Iran can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as were on the subject liberals also opposed democracy in Russia East Germany Czechoslovakia Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states China Vietnam North Korea Cuba Grenada Nicaragua and Minnesota.)
Democrats are all for meddling in other countries - but only provided a change of regime will harm U.S. national security interests.
Time and again Democrats fecklessness has emboldened Americas enemies and terrified its allies which I believe was the actual slogan of the State Department under Jimmy Carter: Emboldening Americas enemies and terrifying her allies since 1976.
For 50 years Democrats have harbored traitors lost wars lost continents to communism hobnobbed with the nations enemies attacked Americas allies and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it foreign policy.
As Joe McCarthy once said if liberals were merely stupid the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve Americas interests.
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
