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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neeka who wrote (267623)9/10/2008 8:34:02 PM
From: Neeka2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794001
 
BUSH 7, TERRORISTS 0
by Ann Coulter
September 10, 2008

Morose that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil for seven long years, liberals were ecstatic when Hurricane Gustav was headed toward New Orleans during the Republican National Convention last week. The networks gave the hurricane plenty of breaking-news coverage -- but unfortunately it was Hurricane Katrina from 2005 they were covering.

On Keith Olbermann's Aug. 29 show on MSNBC, Michael Moore said the possibility of a Category 3 hurricane hitting the United States "is proof that there is a God in heaven." Olbermann responded: "A supremely good point."

Actually, Olbermann said that a few minutes later to some other idiotic point Moore had made, but that's how Moore would have edited the interview for one of his "documentaries," so I will, too. I would only add that Michael Moore's morbid obesity is proof that there is a Buddha.

Hurricane Gustav came and went without a hitch. What a difference a Republican governor makes!

As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure projects, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there's no glory when a bridge doesn't collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold. You can't even name an overpass retrofitting project after yourself -- it just looks too silly. But everyone's taxes go up to pay for the reinforcements.

Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years.

If Bush's only concern were about his approval ratings, like a certain impeached president I could name, he would not have fought for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He would not have resisted the howling ninnies demanding that we withdraw from Iraq, year after year. By liberals' own standard, Bush's war on terrorism has been a smashing, unimaginable success.

A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003, which -- according to Rich -- would have been on al-Qaida's normal schedule.

Rich wrote: "Since major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough." ("Never Forget What?" New York Times, Sept. 14, 2002.)

There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.

As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism.

For his thanks, President Bush has been the target of almost unimaginable calumnies -- the sort of invective liberals usually reserve for seniors who don't separate their recyclables properly. Compared to liberals' anger at Bush, there has always been something vaguely impersonal about their "anger" toward the terrorists.

By my count, roughly one in four books in print in the world at this very moment have the words "Bush" and "Lie" in their title. Barnes & Noble has been forced to add an "I Hate Bush" section. I don't believe there are as many anti-Hitler books.

Despite the fact that Hitler brought "change," promoted clean, energy-efficient mass transit by making the trains run on time, supported abortion for the non-master races, vastly expanded the power of the national government and was uniformly adored by college students and their professors, I gather that liberals don't like Hitler because they're constantly comparing him to Bush.

The ferocity of the left's attacks on Bush even scared many of his conservative allies into turning on him over the war in Iraq.

George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.

That's Bush. Name one other person in Washington who would be willing to stand alone if he had to, because someone had to.

OK, there is one, but she's not in Washington yet. Appropriately, at the end of "High Noon," Cooper is surrounded by the last two highwaymen when, suddenly, his wife (Grace Kelly) appears out of nowhere and blows away one of the killers! The aging sheriff is saved by a beautiful, gun-toting woman.

anncoulter.com



To: Neeka who wrote (267623)9/10/2008 8:41:57 PM
From: goldworldnet1 Recommendation  Respond to of 794001
 
Foreign Columnist Bemoans Imminent Obama Demise
Rick Moran - September 10, 2008

americanthinker.com

If one needed any more convincing that Barack Obama is not the man to lead America, this Jonathan Freedman article in the left wing Guardian will do the trick.

It seems that Mr. Freedman is depressed because the rest of the world is about to be denied their champion: Barack Obama:

But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.


Make no mistake. Freedland is saying that the reason the rest of the world wants Obama is because he will defer American interests in favor of bowing to the wisdom of "international institutions" (why liberals always use the plural when they mean one institution - the UN - is a mystery). Freedland - and the rest of the world - sense correctly that Obama would subsume American interests and allow the demonstrably anti-Americans at the UN to determine when it is alright for America to act in its own interests.

What Freedland and the rest of the world is tired of is America standing up for itself. Certainly international cooperation is important and McCain has made it more than clear that he wants to work with NATO and other organizations to advance the cause of freedom and support and defend America with the help of our friends.

And McCain is no dummy. He recognizes the importance of our relationship with China and Russia - two nations who we will be at odds with in some international arenas and cooperate in others.

But what McCain evidently won't do and what Obama promises is that the rest of the world gets a say in what is in America's vital interest. I have news for Freedland and the rest of you who might agree that this is a good thing; Americans don't elect presidents to look out for other nation's vital interests. They elect a president to defend our own. And if you don't like it, I suggest you come over here, become a citizen, and vote for someone who reflects your views. Do not sit in your comfy chair - a place made comfy by American power and benificience - and try and lecture us about what "the world" needs.

Finally, Freedland warns America that if we don't elect Obama, the rest of the world will throw a tantrum:

For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.


Ignorance of American politics is no excuse for this liberal. Presidential elections are never about issues. The reason Democrats lose consistently is that they are stupid enough to think so. The vote for president is the most personal civic decision any citizen makes. It is based much more on shared values and the ineffable quality of "comfort" that no one can define but nevertheless plays a big role in how people vote. People see a candidate's positions on the issues through this prism and make a determination of where they stand accordingly.

It is Obama's own fault that he is aloof and not as likable as McCain or Palin. It is his own fault that he has flip flopped so much on so many issues that no one trusts him. I suppose Obama can't help his own far left liberalism but to think that the American people don't take that into account is absurd. Obama has proven himself his own worst enemy in this campaign and for Freedland and other foreigners to imbue him with some kind of superhuman or out of the ordinary abilities only shows their towering ignorance of who Obama truly is and what he represents.

It is distressing that the world will be disappointed if we elect McCain as president. But it is the rest of the planet that must adapt to the situation and not the other way around. We should not and will not abandon our soveriegnty to please a bunch of elitist lefty twits with no more understanding of America and her politics than a three toed sloth.

And at least the sloth knows when to keep its mouth shut.

* * *



To: Neeka who wrote (267623)9/10/2008 8:45:50 PM
From: LindyBill3 Recommendations  Respond to of 794001
 
"CBS News does not endorse any candidate in the Presidential race.

I agree with CBS on this one. The McCain crew was out of line to use Couric without her permission. That occurred to me when I first saw the ad.

But they got away with it for 24 hours and the Cable shows ran it. That's all they care about. So it worked for them.