Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Ann Coulter is a traitor to America: Laws schmaws

I was reading Ann Coulter’s column this morning, because I have a chronic aversion to low blood-pressure (an aversion this piece of shit laptop thankfully helps me maintain). I swear, she must be on the GOP payroll, because when in doubt on national security she always pivots to the same strategy: blame Bill Clinton.

“The first month Clinton was in office,” Ann laments, “Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center. For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court.” Of course, she’s not really concerned that “terrorist acts against America” are treated as “simple criminal offenses.” She never, for example, rallies against the Clintonian response to the Unabomber or Oklahoma City. The terrorists in those attacks, after all, didn’t have brown skin or say the word “jihad.” No, her real concern is that “ISLAMIC terrorist acts against America” not be treated as “simple criminal offenses.” Good white Christian folk don’t commit crimes.

Clinton couldn’t do anything right at the tail-end of his term, either. “In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship. Clinton did nothing,” resorting to what Ann denounces as “classic Democrat excuses.” Janet Reno, for example, “thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.” I ask you, what kind of a sissy is against something they think might violate international law? The Geneva what? Or how about that wuss George Tenet, who “wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack”? George Tenet and his stupid “proof.” We all saw what happened the LAST time George wanted definitive proof before responding to a terrorist regime. Honestly, I don’t mind so much that Republicans have made some blunders on the national security issue; what I mind is their complete refusal to admit that such concerns as “international law” and “proof” might be valid reasons to reconsider a counter-response.

The only way Bill Clinton’s national security policy could have satisfied Ann, it seems, would have been complete omniscience on his part. “Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996….Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — ‘(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.’ Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.” In Ann Coulter’s mind, Bill was somehow supposed to prosecute bin Laden on the foreknowledge that he would eventually commit a terrorist attack against the U.S.—the American legal system of course being built around the philosophy of prosecuting people for acts they might commit at some future date. George Bush gets a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S.” and goes guilt-free when aforementioned attack occurs a month later; but Clinton is culpable for not prosecuting someone who wouldn’t attack our country for another two years? How about the fact that under Reagan the CIA supplied big bad Saddam Hussein with intelligence, economic aid, and, oh yeah, ANTHRAX? Any culpability for lack of foreknowledge there?


Post a Comment

<< Home