Ann Coulter thinks Bill Kristol should quithis job as head neocon and defender of endless war.
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama’s war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn’t likely to turn out well.
It has been idiotically claimed that Steele’s statement about Afghanistan being Obama’s war is “inaccurate” — as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that — even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.)
Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.
Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.
I love the revisionist history. I recall no such declaration from Bush, the Taliban regrouped and took over huge areas of the country after Bush downsized our presence so he could finish that job his Daddy didn’t get done. (THAT would show him, but GOOD!)
Still, Ann Coulter didn’t always feel the way she feels now about the war in Afghanistan. She claims liberals supported the war for three weeks. From all appearances, that’s about as long as SHE supported it before she developed this insatiable lust for Muslim blood in Iraq.
It was a brief love affair, but she loved the Afghan war with all her tiny little heart!
From her column, “The Eunuchs are Whining” — 11/01/2001
WE’VE finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don’t want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.From her column, “Affirmative Action for Osama” — 10/11/2001
One of the patriotic Americans who flew a bombing raid over Afghanistan last Sunday was a guy named Vinnie. A few more bombing raids and President Bush will be able to cruise over Afghanistan in a Piper Cub puddle-jumper without risk.From her column, “The Hun is At the Gate” – 11/29/2001
Democrats are channeling their frustration with America’s imminent military victory in Afghanistan into hysterical opposition to reasonable national security measures at home. (Incidentally, this ought to prove once and for all what a bunch of paper tigers the Russians are. What were they doing over there for 10 years? It hasn’t taken us 10 weeks.)
(Note from the Diarist: Don’t you LOVE the hubris?)
—From her column, “We’ll Pay Them Reparations Later” — 12/27/01
Because we are at war, and moreover, because the president is the commander in chief, Bush had authority on Sept. 11 to give orders to shoot down the fourth plane if it had circled back toward Washington. Because we are at war, Bush had authority to bomb Afghanistan. He didn’t need congressional approval for those actions any more than he needs congressional approval right now to try any suspected belligerents on U.S. soil in military tribunals.
Our “youths” have taken Kabul, dropped daisy-cutters on Osama’s cave, and are now sleeping in their boots in the middle of an Afghan winter while dreaming of Iraq.From her column, “I’m Calling the Pentagon” — 1/3/02
A few weeks ago, The New York Times printed one of its nauseating prose poems to the peace-loving Afghans. Without shame, without irony, the Times reported that the Afghan people were patiently waiting for warring Westerners to leave, so they can return to their serene lives beneath the orange trees.From her column, “Lookin’ for Love in All the Wrong Places” — 1/31/2002
As one Afghan explained: “Not only the Russians but now the Americans have been involved in our poverty and destruction. ... My demand is that both countries give us assistance — not just this village, but all the Afghan nation, because our country is destroyed.”
Lamenting the rapacious brutality Westerners had foisted upon them, the prose poem also quoted indigenous people on the calm and harmony that reigned in Afghanistan before the Westerners arrived: “They were peaceful. They were very beautiful. There was no crying, there was no blood, there was no death.”
But now Afghanistan had once again been set upon by “invading foreign forces.”
As impish fate would have it, right below this ode to the gentle Afghans was a photo of a half-dozen ghoulish, grizzled old men trying to force two little birds to fight. The caption read: “Men gather at a Kabul market to watch a quail fight, which along with other more intense blood sports had long been banned by the Taliban. Betting on quail or gamecocks is again the rage in the capital and organized dogfights are planned by spring.”
But we are not at war with Afghanistan. To the contrary! We are the current Afghanistan government’s biggest best buddy in the whole world, though they seem to think the name of our country is “the Pentagon.”From her column, “Being Liberal Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry” — 2/7/2002
We are at war with al-Qaida. The 158 Guantanamo detainees come from at least 25 different countries. To pretend that the Taliban is bound by a convention signed by an earlier Afghan government because the al-Qaida fighters happened to be captured in Afghanistan would be like trying to collect a bill from a corporation that bought your debtor’s house, razed it, and happened to occupy the same property 20 years later.
Dear President Bush:Simply put, Ann Coulter liked the Afghan War JUST FINE — until Bush pulled out troops for the misadventure in Iraq, which she also roundly applauded. So, Ann likes the fact that Bush STARTED a war he refused to finish. She DISLIKES the fact that the NEW president will try to clean up the mess the OLD president created.
“(O)ur international problems are utterly intractable, and the sooner we recognize this, the better. ... We should figure out clever ways to declare victory at the first decent opportunity and remove our troops (from Afghanistan).”
Yale law professor
(from New York Times column dated Nov. 6, 2001)
Insistent that victory abroad was impossible — one week before Kabul fell — Professor Ackerman breezily invited Bush to engage in a hapless caper of putting Osama bin Laden on trial: “By all means, bring Osama bin Laden to justice and weaken or destroy the Taliban.”
Not surprisingly, many Times columnists subscribed to Ackerman’s two-part war strategy for America: 1) SURRENDER NOW! and 2) focus on anti-choice extremists at home.
After ceaseless warnings of a “quagmire,” the cover story on the Times’ Week in Review section the week after Kabul fell was titled: “Surprise: War Works After All.”
See, here’s the logic. Bush rolled in and cleaned up the Taliban the way a bad exterminator kills cockroaches. He gave the exposed areas of the kitchen a quick spray, then went after the big rat in Iraq — blissfully unaware (or criminally ignoring) the fact that, like roaches, if you don’t get ALL the Taliban, 60 will appear to replace each one you eliminated. Ann applauds the quick spraying of Raid in the kitchen, the use of a cannon to kill the rat in Iraq (who was actually a gerbil, as it turned out), and now scolds Obama for wasting resources to kill the millions of roaches that Bush left in the infested kitchen.
What to do?
Vote in the poll.