DEMOCRATS: EMBOLDENING AMERICA'S ENEMIES AND TERRIFYING HER ALLIES SINCE 1976
By Ann Coulter
AnnCoulter.com
The Middle East is on fire again, and crazy Muslims
with funny names aren't 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 couldn't have been less interested in
removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in
Iraq. So it's 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, that's right -- because he didn't 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 Israel's
right to exist. Or as the left calls it, three
strikes and you're 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 didn't bow to.
You'd think Mubarak and Obama would be natural
allies. Mubarak lives in Egypt; Obama created a
pyramid scheme known as ObamaCare. To win Obama's
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 wasn't
interested in democracy? (I mean, besides the U.S.
when it comes to health care reform?) That's 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 Ahmadinejad's stolen election in 2009, we
didn't 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, I'm sorry -- that was Al Franken's
election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But
there was also plenty of vote-stealing in
Ahmadinejad's election.
When it came to Iran, however, the flame of
democracy didn't 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 didn't acknowledge Neda's existence,
but the moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama
said, "We hear your voices."
He can hear their voices? He couldn't 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 doesn't 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 we're 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 America's enemies and terrified its
allies, which I believe was the actual slogan of the
State Department under Jimmy Carter: "Emboldening
America's enemies, and terrifying her allies, since
1976."
For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost
wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with
the nation's enemies, attacked America's 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
America's interests.
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106