Another column from Ann Coulter to annoy the libs:


"Even With Hindsight Liberals Can't See Straight
May 5, 2004


Over in the alternative universe of the 9/11 commission hearings watched only by me, Richard Ben-Veniste recently proposed an amazing new standard for investigating Arabs in this country. In the middle of haranguing Condoleezza Rice, Ben-Veniste demanded to know why the suspected 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, had not been more aggressively investigated, despite the fact that -- I quote -- he had "no explanation for the funds in his bank account, and no explanation for why he was in the United States."

So let me get this straight: Airport security can't acknowledge that a person is an Arab, but they should be allowed to audit his bank records? (Come to think of it, "Can't Explain His Bank Account or Why He's Here" is also a pretty good description of John Kerry.)

Can we use that as a standard going forward? The government prohibits airlines from searching more than two Arabs per flight, so it would be terrific if liberals would let us examine their bank accounts. If Democratic Party shills like Ben-Veniste -- who himself looks like someone who ought to be searched at airports -- are going to make ludicrous, macho statements like that in order to win applause from weeping widows in the peanut gallery, can't we hold them to that policy when it matters?

Ben-Veniste thinks the key to stopping the 9/11 attack was for the FBI to have drawn the obvious conclusions from an Arab in flight school. If only the FBI had searched Moussaoui's computer, they would have found a flight-simulator computer program, information about the Boeing 747, and extensive files on crop dusters. From this, apparently, Ben-Veniste imagines the FBI would have drawn the obvious conclusion that on Sept. 11, 19 Muslims were going to hijack airplanes out of Logan, Newark and Dulles airports and fly them into buildings.

A somewhat more direct chain of causation traces its way back to the aviation-security commission chaired by Vice President Al Gore in 1997. If that commission had done its job, you wouldn't have to wait for one of my columns to find out that there was a commission on airline safety years before the 9/11 attacks. Isn't it curious that Democrats aren't bragging about Gore inventing air safety? The reason Al Gore hasn't added "anti-terrorism" to the list of things he invented is that Gore's commission concluded that passenger profiling must ignore ethnicity and nationality. Or as Gore himself might have put it, "I took the initiative in making it easier for Muslims to use airplanes to slaughter innocent American citizens."

The Gore commission on air safety decided that profiling should be based on "reasonable predictors of risk, not stereotypes or generalizations." Amazingly, all those "reasonable predictors of risk" failed to stop a single Muslim terrorist on 9/11. One wonders whether a profiling system that included ethnicity and nationality would have been more helpful in stopping 19 Muslim men, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, all speaking Arabic to one another, from boarding planes on Sept. 11.

Recently -- i.e., about the time Ben-Veniste was shocked that the FBI hadn't uncovered the 9/11 plot based on the fact that Moussaoui had overstayed his visa -- Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer were clamoring for the release of Ansar Mahmood, a 26-year-old Pakistani immigrant detained in October 2001 after he was observed taking photographs at a water treatment plant in upstate New York. Mahmood later pleaded guilty to committing a felony by giving financial aid to illegal immigrants from Pakistan. Schumer says Mahmood should be permitted to stay in the U.S. because he "was cleared of terrorist links," and he has already served his time for "a non-violent felony." Hillary simply calls Mahmood's detention "disturbing."

Where is Ben-Veniste when we need him? What happened to the "We Don't Know Why He's Here or His Sources of Money" standard for harassing Muslim immigrants? In contrast to Mahmood, Zacarias Moussaoui had committed no felonies; his only apparent offense was to have overstayed his visa. But Ben-Veniste is appalled that the FBI didn't beat Moussaoui for information. The French had linked Moussaoui to al-Qaida -- based largely on the information that he took frequent trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mahmood's home country. When FBI agents in Minneapolis requested a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer, FBI headquarters wrote back, "We don't know he's a terrorist" -- i.e., the argument Schumer is making for Mahmood's release right now.

Liberals always claim to know exactly what to do as soon as it's too late. After Muslims attack with airplanes, they want to investigate flight schools. After Muslims attack with shoe-bombs, they want to investigate shoes. After a Muslim introduces E. coli into New York's water supply, liberals will be enraged that Muslim immigrants taking pictures of New York water treatment plants weren't investigated more aggressively -- as soon as they are done blaming Bush for not stopping the attack amid their caterwauling about the detention of Muslim immigrants. Liberals are the only known species whose powers of reasoning are not improved by the benefit of hindsight. Not only are they always fighting the last war, in most cases they're surrendering."

Sorry. Not enough time to read that looong an attack. Please refrence your post on liberal hate radio. See any similarties?

Want a Liberal View?


Arianna Huffington
Arianna Online
05.06.04
Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend
Most e-mailed stories

Bush democracy
Do you recognize his America?

Welcome to George W. Bush's version of America -- Bush Democracy. Apparently, he's had his fanatical neo-con programmers working overtime to iron out all those bothersome bugs and kinks that have been holding the United States back for the last 228 years -- exasperating glitches like openness, integrity, accountability, responsibility and the value of an informed public.

I have to admit, this new edition has been a little hard for me to get used to; it's a lot different than the America that I grew up studying -- and revering.

You might be having a similar problem, so, as a public service, I've decided to provide this helpful primer. Think of it as Bush Democracy for Dummies.

In Bush Democracy, the messy concept of the public's right to know has been replaced by the far more user-friendly "don't worry, we know what's right for you." Why clutter up the citizenry's hard-drive with all sorts of unimportant facts and information?

Which is why, just to be on the safe side, Bush Democracy comes with a helpful, one-step fact-check-and-delete program. No need to bother with taping or even transcribing important meetings like the president's three-hour appearance in front of the 9/11 Commission last week -- Bush Democracy decides what's pertinent and discards the rest into the unrecoverable recycle bin of history.

That's why the White House helpfully confiscated the notebooks of the 9/11 Commissioners as they were leaving the Oval Office. Hard copies are so 20th century.

To see how liberating this kind of updated Democracy can be, look no further than the reports of the frequent laughter that occurred during the Commission's two-birds-with-one-stone questioning of Bush and Cheney. No longer burdened with having to fill the public in on whether our leaders did all they could to prevent 9/11 -- and have done all they can to make sure something like it never happens again -- the president and his inquisitors were free to trade quips and zingers like a gang of Borsht Belt second bananas at a Friars Roast.

"The president got off a couple of good shots," said Commission member John "Shecky" Lehman, while Commissioner Jim "Soupy" Thompson labeled the president a "bit of a tease." We don't know the specifics of anything important that was said, or if anything important was said at all, but, hey, at least they had some fun.

For his part, the president stressed the importance of his and Cheney's tandem testimony: "I think it was important for them to see our body language... how we work together." Body language experts agree that subtle shifts in physical positioning -- such as Cheney sticking his hand up the president's back and making his mouth move -- can often provide significant behavioral clues.

Bush Democracy also automatically eliminates a number of pesky problems historically associated with that overrated First Amendment. For example, this convenient feature allows President Bush and his Man in Mesopotamia, Paul Bremer, to tout the freedom of speech now permitted in post-Saddam Iraq while simultaneously shutting down Iraqi-run newspapers and radio and television stations. And whereas previous versions of Democracy were systemically incompatible with the quashing of dissent, Bush Democracy makes clamping down on the free flow of information as easy as hitting a hot key and issuing a Pentagon ban on media coverage of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base.

What's more, Bush Democracy's state-of-the-art media manipulation software makes it incredibly easy to get away with misstatements, half-truths and out-and-out lies.

Witness the lack of outraged coverage of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's astounding assertion in front of Congress last week that the U.S. death toll in Iraq was "approximately 500" -- when, in fact, at the time of his testimony, the correct number was 722. But what are a couple hundred dead Americans among friends? Especially when they're other people's children?

Or observe the scarcity of critical voices when, on the anniversary of Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo op, the president boldly declared that, as a result of the removal of Saddam, "there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq" -- a statement directly contradicted by a top-secret Army report completed two months before the president indulged in his soaring rhetoric. And last week we had the ultimate contradiction: the release of enough vile, barbaric and disturbing photographs to stock a triple-X S&M Web site.

But Bush Democracy's killer app has got to be its ability to retain the outward appearance of unabashed patriotism while sacrificing the lives of American soldiers on the altar of its tax-cutting fanaticism. Thus, candidate Bush is able to cloak his campaign in red, white and blue at the same time a defense industry study concludes that major budgetary shortfalls have left U.S. soldiers seriously under-equipped -- leading to the preventable deaths of close to 200 brave Americans, and the maiming of thousands more. Shortfalls caused, in large measure, by the president's tax cuts. So while many of our soldiers have to make due without body armor, combat helmets and properly protected vehicles, America's millionaires are receiving an average tax cut of $130,783. And yet Bush is still able to continue painting himself as the war president. How's that for performance?

The guiding principle behind George Bush's rebooted Democracy is a deep mistrust of the American people and an undying faith in the ability of "the elites" to decide what is best for America -- and the world. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the old 1776 version, where We the People get to make up our own minds.

Bush Democracy has crashed in Iraq and crashed here at home. I personally can't wait for November to press the Escape Key and shut it down for good.

Arianna Huffington ha ha hahhhaa!

Dave you got any quotes from Oprah or Rosie O?

Ann Coulter..... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Hey King - How's about a little Rush Limbaugh...

4salt,

Cannot stand Rush or any other toe the party line talker. I like to hear someone that looks at the issue objectively and makes the right decision based on the facts. Locally I like Dave Ross for the most part,Dori Monson is very fair and nationally I like Michael Medved.

Ann Coulters wanna be a man sawgger with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth turns me off. However she is a good read at times.

Ann Coulter is one of the most hated of the conservative writers...so I guess I stirred the beehive again...ooops!

Nahhh,

It's that whole "entertainment" thing Gramps! Plus, I figured a counterpoint to King's response would keep things "Fair and Balanced".

I might be transitioning to fishing related topics real soon but I think I'll look for one more tidbit

What I would really like to see is the Muslim community promoting some positive images of Muslims working to bring people of all faiths together. Where are they? Why aren't they taking steps to improve their image? Many of the supposed Muslim charities have been accused of funneling funds to terrorist organizations.

I know that the most extreme of any group, be it liberal, conservative, Christian, African-American, or any other group of like minded people, seem to get the attention of the media. Unfortunately, this is happening for the Muslim community.

Why is it that converts to the Muslim religion tend to gravitate towards the extreme fringes? Think of the Oregon lawyer, or that young kid captured in in Afghanistan.

These are questions that I would like to have answered so that maybe we could figure out ways to end this scourge.

Then again, I find all religion distasteful, because there are representatives in almost every version who have misused its teachings for their own gain or plunder. Examples are easily found, at all levels, both historically and currently. Look at the Catholic Church, systematically hiding child molester's activities from the public. This is as bad or worse than Muslim clerics calling for the deaths of those who think differently.

Politics is one thing, but religion is the root of this evil. The Muslims are just as bad as the Christians, with one sect saying that their form is the one true form and that all non-believers are doomed. How utterly ridiculous. Their love of their beliefs are bass-tardized as a way to justify the killing another person. Until people realize this, we are doomed to repeat the past.

Maybe religion needs to be abolished. Then we could all concentrate on just trying to be good humans. Isn't that the true goal of religion?

“Why is it that converts to the Muslim religion tend to gravitate towards the extreme fringes? Think of the Oregon lawyer, or that young kid captured in in Afghanistan.”

The biggest difference is that the Islam we see in the US is a very diluted version of what most of the Arab world actually practices.

"Then again, I find all religion distasteful, because there are representatives in almost every version who have misused its teachings for their own gain or plunder. "

Keep in mind that the term “misused” is relative. If some feel that they are actually following through with what their religion teaches, then it is not actually a ‘misuse’. For example, the suicide bombers – some would say they are mis-using their religion, others would say they are actually following it as required.

Also keep in mind that power abuse, atrocities, genocide, scandals, etc are not a monopoly among religious institutions and fanatics. They are just a part of the world and being human. Those who wish to gain power, money, or other selfish gain will find a way to make it happen. Taking advantage of people via religion is just one way it happens.

“Examples are easily found, at all levels, both historically and currently. Look at the Catholic Church, systematically hiding child molester's activities from the public. This is as bad or worse than Muslim clerics calling for the deaths of those who think differently.”

The cover-ups in the Catholic Church are horrible and intolerable. But one big difference here is that the church and the religion\teachings do not promote\encourage those abuses. They should have dealt with them more directly, quickly, and severely, but to suggest that the recent actions\in-action of the Catholic Church is worse than the Muslim directed\encouraged\required murders of thousands of ‘infidels’ in the name of ‘Allah’ seems pretty irresponsible to me.

”Politics is one thing, but religion is the root of this evil. The Muslims are just as bad as the Christians, with one sect saying that their form is the one true form and that all non-believers are doomed. How utterly ridiculous. “

Hmmm. I see a slight double standard here. What do you believe? That we all face the same death\doom since there is not God or Heaven? The lack of a religious affiliation or belief system does not mean one has a lack of belief of what happens to people after they die. So some religions believe that there is something beyond ‘death’ and other religions\non-religions don’t. I don’t see this as relevant to this discussion really. And just so we are clear, most Christian churches\denominations agree on the core ‘requirements’ of being ‘saved’. Most of the major differences are related to music\worship style, church government structure, etc. The only ‘doom’ in Christian teaching relates to the judgment passed down from God – and for most is an event that happens post-death. The Christian believer is taught peace and love – leaving the act of judgment to be between God and the individual person. The ‘doom’ of the practicing Muslim groups is a real act of aggression here on earth against ‘infidels’. Very big difference. As you can see by looking around the world – Muslims have a hard time living peacefully among their non-Muslim neighbors (and among themselves).

“Their love of their beliefs are bass-tardized as a way to justify the killing another person. “

Again, unless you are an expert teacher of their religion, how would you know the difference between the ba$tardized version and the pure teachings\practices? Some religions in their purest form are violent and in some views ‘evil’. Others are peaceful and in most views “good”. But it does not good to try to change someone’s religious beliefs – unless you are some kind of ‘profit’ and can do so from the ‘inside’…

“Until people realize this, we are doomed to repeat the past.”

History repeats itself. We can’t stop that. We may change certain things, but corruption, selfishness, abuse, and other forms of ‘evil’ will continue. Their never has been ‘world peace’ and it’s clear that without some kind of divine intervention – there never will be.

”Maybe religion needs to be abolished. “

That worked great for Communist China and the USSR didn’t it? LOL. The lack of religion clearly doesn’t abolish ‘evil’ in any way.

“Then we could all concentrate on just trying to be good humans.”

You and I may try, but who defines what is ‘good’? Is it arbitrary? Should we try to establish a level of World Government that defines a set of moral\ethical principles for the global citizens? What happens when the governing group establishes some of those principles that you don’t agree with? What if they go beyond principles and become law? Will you trust those in power to do what is ‘right’? Again, I think that is a nice thought you have, but I just don’t see a way for it to happen given human nature and our history.

“Isn't that the true goal of religion?”

I wasn’t aware that there was a global religion (yet…). Each major religion has it’s own ‘true goals’. To try and make a world\society where that is not true would be in violation of certain rights that most in America agree are basic ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ – freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

"Politics is one thing, but religion is the root of this evil. The Muslims are just as bad as the Christians"


Well if you belive that then try this.

Go to a muslim country and try to establish a Christian or Jewish church. Or stand in the town square and tell them you are agnostic and Allah is a fairy tale.

Then try the same thing but in reverse in a Christian country. Tell them Allah is the way and open up a Mosque.

Have your widow send me the reults of your expeirment.


Or you can continue to smoke the home grown and belive whatever comes into your mind.

:D

BTW the disagreement between Jew,Christians and Islam is a family fight that goes back to the beginning. I doubt it will be resolved at a negotiation table by politicians.

I can wish, can't I?

I just get tired of all of these folks who believe in the same God saying that they have the one true God. If there is only one God, whose side would he take?

The leaders of the different churches represent the current day interpretation of their separate religions, so yes, I can hold them accountable for their mis-use of religion. Of course, I'm a nobody to them, so they'll probaby just tell me I am doomed to go to hell.

I am by no means a religious scholar, but I have a basic understanding of how each religions framework is set up. The Muslim faith does not agree with the targeting of innocents, yet these extremists do so. There are some scholars who speak out against the attrocities, but there are not enough Muslims being heard, denouncing these horrible acts.

Religion has run its course.

Be good humans.

To quote my personal life coach, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along???"

Dogfish, I may disagree with you on your definition of a healthy forest, but the post above is full of one truth after another. Good job.

am by no means a religious scholar, but I have a basic understanding of how each religions framework is set up. The Muslim faith does not agree with the targeting of innocents, yet these extremists do so. There are some scholars who speak out against the attrocities, but there are not enough Muslims being heard, denouncing these horrible acts...................................

DUH!!! They aren't speaking out because they applaud the terrorism....HELLLLOOOOO

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And all the Christians who don't take over the airwaves protesting the shooting of abortion doctors approve of that, too, huh?


Pure hogwash. 100% pure, no additives or preservatives.

Dogfish,

I understand how you see things and do not blame you at all.
Here is my view on it from both sides of the table. I used to think like you and still do to some extent. Religous people bug me in and out of the Church. Specifically people that try to ram it down your throat and the holier thans. I look at the bible as a whole and it paints a picture of someone that would not turn his back on anyone for any reason and would show his message through his actions not his mouth. Some organized religons do show less of this and some show more. I think it all has a purpose that centers around free will.