Kurt Nicklas
2013-09-05 01:05:26 UTC
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-04.html
Ann Coulter
Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the
world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs
at us.
With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria,
President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as
commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need
congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor --
amazingly -- has he said he'll abide by such a vote, anyway.
Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to
cover Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-
Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs
to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can
blame Republicans.
No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security
interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham
-- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.
It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that
Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still
waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)
It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians,
Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as
well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few
decades.
It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people,
administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks,
often in front of the victim's wife or children.
It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United
States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president
or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. --
someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.
It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire
Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide
bombers in other countries.
It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in
Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.
It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not
put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result
in a functioning, peaceful democracy.
And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other
dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs --
say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.
If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth
supporting!
All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed
that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true --
indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent
was Barack Obama.
President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former
president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a
conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to
the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so
terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished
his WMDs -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously
imagined.
Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it
in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida
fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-
Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several
elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.
Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led
operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and
Libya?
As for chemical weapons -- the casus belli for the current drums of war
-- in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered
roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX
gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before
dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of
these poisons.
Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds,
resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many.
That's to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed
with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently,
Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him
in the same league as "Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein."
Not even close -- but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that
removed such a monster as Hussein?
There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both
establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to
give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical
weapons in Iraq, just no "stockpiles." Those had been moved before the
war, according to Saddam's own general, Georges Sada -- to Syria.)
On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using
chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered
with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the
military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a "war of
choice"?
Obama says Assad -- unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein -- has
posed "a challenge to the world." But the world disagrees. Even our
usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act
alone to stop a dictator, who -- compared to Saddam -- is a piker.
At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good
cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only
reason to take out Saddam Hussein.
Ann Coulter
Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the
world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs
at us.
With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria,
President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as
commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need
congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor --
amazingly -- has he said he'll abide by such a vote, anyway.
Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to
cover Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-
Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs
to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can
blame Republicans.
No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security
interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham
-- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.
It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that
Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still
waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)
It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians,
Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as
well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few
decades.
It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people,
administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks,
often in front of the victim's wife or children.
It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United
States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president
or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. --
someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.
It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire
Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide
bombers in other countries.
It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in
Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.
It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not
put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result
in a functioning, peaceful democracy.
And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other
dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs --
say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.
If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth
supporting!
All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed
that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true --
indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent
was Barack Obama.
President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former
president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a
conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to
the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so
terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished
his WMDs -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously
imagined.
Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it
in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida
fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-
Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several
elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.
Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led
operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and
Libya?
As for chemical weapons -- the casus belli for the current drums of war
-- in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered
roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX
gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before
dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of
these poisons.
Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds,
resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many.
That's to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed
with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently,
Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him
in the same league as "Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein."
Not even close -- but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that
removed such a monster as Hussein?
There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both
establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to
give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical
weapons in Iraq, just no "stockpiles." Those had been moved before the
war, according to Saddam's own general, Georges Sada -- to Syria.)
On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using
chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered
with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the
military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a "war of
choice"?
Obama says Assad -- unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein -- has
posed "a challenge to the world." But the world disagrees. Even our
usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act
alone to stop a dictator, who -- compared to Saddam -- is a piker.
At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good
cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only
reason to take out Saddam Hussein.