SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Clappy who wrote (18606)5/1/2003 5:28:13 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 89467
 
Liberals Meet Unexpected Resistance

By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 1, 2003

Though many had anticipated a cakewalk for the media in undermining the war on terrorism, instead liberals are caught in a quagmire of good news about the war. Predictions that liberals would have an easy time embarrassing President Bush have met unexpected resistance. They're still looking for the bad news they said was there. Experts believe the media's quagmire results from severely reduced troops. The left's current force is less than half the size of the coalition media that undermined the Vietnam War.

It's been a tough few weeks all around for the anti-war crowd. On Sunday, the London Telegraph reported that documents had been discovered in Baghdad linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship as far back as 1998, based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. As we go to print, it's Day Four of the New York Times' refusal to mention these documents.

Government documents have also been found in Iraq showing that a leading anti-war spokesman in Britain, Member of Parliament George Galloway, was in Saddam Hussein's pay. Scott Ritter, former U.N. arms inspector turned peacenik turned suspected pederast, immediately defended Galloway in a column in the London Guardian. With any luck, Tariq Aziz will now step in to defend Ritter.

At least Tariq Aziz knows he lost the war. American liberals are still hoping for a comeback. But the war was so successful, they don't have any arguments left. They can't even sound busy. In their usual parody of patriotism, liberals are masters of the long-winded statement that amounts to nothing. They can't go on TV and say nothing. But all they have are some broken figurines to complain about.

They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen. They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen. They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen. They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen. Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen.

Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken – a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery. We're not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable.

At least we finally got liberals on the record against looting. It seems the looting in Iraq compared unfavorably with the "rebellion" in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. When "rebels" in Los Angeles began looting, liberals said it was a sign of frustration – they were poor and hungry. As someone noted at the time, apparently they were thirsty as well, since they hit a lot of liquor stores. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were pretty careful about targeting the precise source of their oppression. Their looting concentrated on Saddam's palace, official government buildings – and the French cultural center.

However many precious pots were stolen, it has to be said: The Iraqi people behaved considerably better than the French did after Americans liberated Paris. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed by other Frenchmen on allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. Subsequent scholarship has shown that charges of "collaboration" were often nothing more than a settling of personal grudges and family feuds. This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn't seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.

Despondent over the success of the war in Iraq, liberals tried to cheer themselves up with the politics of personal destruction – their second favorite hobby after defending Saddam Hussein. Responding to the question of whether the Supreme Court should hold sodomy to be a fundamental constitutional right, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum made the blindingly obvious point that a general right to engage in consensual sex would logically include adultery, polygamy and any number of sex acts prohibited by the states.

For the limited purpose of attacking Santorum, liberals agreed to stipulate that adultery is bad. After spending all of 1998 ferociously defending adultery as something "everyone" does and "everyone" lies about, liberals claimed to be shocked to the core that anyone would compare homosexuality to such a morally black sin as adultery. (While we're in a sensitive mood, how about the name "the DIXIE Chicks"? Isn't that name provocative to African-Americans?)

When you get liberals to come out against both looting and adultery in the same week, you know the left is in a state of total disarray. They shouldn't feel so bad. Their boys put up a good fight in Iraq for 17 days.



To: Clappy who wrote (18606)5/1/2003 5:33:10 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 89467
 
A few of my favorite things

newsandopinion.com | Some of my favorite things these days are the clips I've saved of various politicians and pundits predicting that the war in Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster for America, the world, the universe.
Just to open the folder and watch the black prophecies spill out is a comfort. The Italians say there is nothing sadder in misery than recalling happy times. Just so, there's nothing cheerier than recalling dire forebodings when they have proven unfounded.

I would especially recommend Al Gore's last pre-war speech, the one in which he predicted the war would have "disastrous consequences for the United States and the world," to quote the Associated Press' summary.

Remember all the things that were going to go wrong?

We were going to get bogged down in an endless, yes, Quagmire. (How long did this late unpleasantness last -- 26 days?)

Terrorist attacks would mount, undermining Americans' security at home. (Instead, the outcome has demoralized terrorists everywhere.)

The home front would come apart as massive protests divided the American people a la the 1960s.

Iraq's oilfields would go up in flames -- just as Kuwait's did during the first Gulf War.

Baghdad was going to be another Stalingrad. Tikrit was going to be Saddam's last and greatest stand. The Kurds and Turks would go to war against each other.

All of Iraq's cities would have to be conquered street by street, house by house.

Israel would be inundated with Scuds, and war would engulf the Middle East.

The fabled Arab Street would revolt, overthrowing regimes left and right and setting the entire region ablaze. (Which proved another fable.)

North Korea's always dangerous dictatorship would take advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq to proceed with its nuclear armament, maybe even start a war. (Instead, Pyongyang began making conciliatory sounds as soon as the Allied victory in Iraq became unmistakable.)

By now a succession of wars in the Middle East should have taught readers interested in maintaining some psychic balance this much:

Put aside your daily copies of The New York Times at the beginning of any conflict. Let 'em stack up unopened, like Pandora's Box, lest all the Furies inside be unleashed.

Then, once it's safe to read again, go through America's paper of dubious record, savoring each and every gloomy prediction that never materialized, lingering over every sad assessment that was never borne out. It's immensely cheering. From first to last:

"Hussein Rallies Iraqi Defenders To Hold Baghdad/Leader Says Allies Will Be Dragged Into a 'Quagmire' by Guerrilla Warfare" -- Page 1, March 25, 2003.

"Bush Peril: Shifting Sand and Fickle Opinion" -- Page 1, March 30, 2003. This headline is over a story by The Times' redoubtable R.W. (Johnny) Apple. There hasn't been a cheerier prophet since Cassandra. Here's a sample of his applesauce: "Street-by-street fighting in the rubble of Baghdad and other cities -- an eventuality that American strategists have long sought to avoid -- now looks more likely. Mr. Hussein's aides have promised savage resistance."

"Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield" -- Page 1, April 1, 2003. "The skeptics, who include some of the leading former Army commanders from the last war with Iraq, say the force the United States has deployed is not large enough to begin a decisive battle in Baghdad while simultaneously guarding ever-lengthening supply lines." -- Page 1, April 1, 2003.

"Iraq Is Planning Protracted War/Threat of Guerrilla Fighting in Cities and in Summer Heat" -- Page 1, April 2, 2003.

"Defiant Iraqis Say U.S. Advance Has Been Broken" -- Page 1, April 6, 2003.

The Times' coverage didn't quite measure up to the ceaseless flow of victory proclamations from the Iraqi information minister, but there were days when it came close.

Reviewing these old clips sheds light on the current stream of warnings that the American occupation, like the war, will prove disastrous: "True Cost of Hegemony: Huge Debt" -- cover story, the Times' Week in Review April 20. "All in all, Mr. Bush faces a daunting task." -- R.W. Apple in the same edition.

But here and there, even at The Times, the light is breaking through: "Yet in the 26 days of American warfare it took to bring (Saddam Hussein's) era down, the hallmark of Mr. Hussein's rule was revealed not as one of grandeur, but of gangsterism and thuggery." -- John F. Burns, Page 1, April 20, 2003.

URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg.html

There's hope for the Times. As for CNN, I have my doubts.