Text 6782, 245 rader
Skriven 2008-05-30 20:53:40 av JOHNJWILSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av TIM RICHARDSON
Ärende: Ann Coulter's Weekly Colu
=================================
Ahhh...a FIDO highlight (For me anyway)

-> YOU CAN'T APPEASE EVERYBODY
-> May 28, 2008
-> 
-> 
-> After decades of comparing Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to
-> Hitler,
-> liberals have finally decided it is wrong to make comparisons to Hitler.

So Bush picks up that hoary cudgel :-)
 


 But
-> the
-> only leader to whom they have applied their newfound rule of thumb is:
-> Iranian
-> President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"They"? 
-> 
-> While Ahmadinejad has not done anything as starkly evil as cut the
capital
-> gains
-> tax, he does deny the Holocaust, call for the destruction of Israel,
deny the
-> existence of gays in Iran and refuses to abandon his nuclear program
despite
-> protests from the United Nations. That's the only world leader we're not
-> allowed
-> to compare to Hitler.

"Allowed"?

-> 
-> President Bush's speech at the Knesset two weeks ago was somewhat more
-> nuanced
-> than liberals' Hitler arguments. He did not simply jump up and down
chanting:
-> "Ahmadinejad is Hitler!" Instead, Bush condemned a policy of appeasement
-> toward
-> madmen, citing Neville Chamberlain's ill-fated talks with Adolf Hitler.
-> 
-> Suspiciously, Bush's speech was interpreted as a direct hit on B.
Hussein
-> Obama's foreign policy -- and that's according to Obama's supporters.
-> 
-> So to defend Obama, who -- according to his supporters -- favors
appeasing
-> madmen...

Now now, Ann...Talking to Kim Yung Il, Saddam Husein, Gorbachev, et all, is
and has always gone on...Appeasement?


, liberals expanded the rule against ad Hitlerum arguments to cover any
-> mention of the events leading to World War II. A ban on "You're like
Hitler"
-> arguments has become liberals' latest excuse to ignore history.

Not THERE's a head's up! I didn't know that.
-> 
-> Unless, of course, it is liberals using historical examples to support
-> Obama's
-> admitted policy of appeasing dangerous lunatics...

Dang! I missed the admission.:-)

 It's a strange one-sided
-> argument when they can cite Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting with
-> Gorbachev, but we can't cite Chamberlain meeting with Hitler.

The assumption was 'appeasement, remember?
-> 
-> There are reasons to meet with a tyrant, but none apply to Ahmadinejad.

Ann, I hope will outline those reasons...

We're
-> not looking for an imperfect ally against some other dictatorship, as
Nixon
-> was
-> with China. And we aren't in a Mexican stand-off with a nuclear power,
as
-> Reagan
-> was with the USSR. At least not yet.
-> 
-> Mutually Assured Destruction was bad enough with the Evil Empire, but
-> something
-> you definitely want to avoid with lunatics who are willing to commit
suicide
-> in
-> order to destroy the enemies of Islam. As with the H-word, our sole
objective
-> with Ahmadinejad is to prevent him from becoming a military power.

Uh...Israel is said to have 150 nukes. 
-> 
-> What possible reason is there to meet with Ahmadinejad? To win a $20 bar
bet
-> as
-> to whether or not the man actually owns a necktie?
-> 
-> We know his position and he knows ours.

THAT's an assumption that IMHO is a dangerous one. We do NOT.

Iranian language, tradition, religion, desire and ambition, even the powers
held in their government there is little evidence that these are adequately
known. And liberals are forgetting history? Savak? The Shaw?  


 He wants nuclear arms, American
-> troops
-> out of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. We don't want
that.

He will get the first, we are forcing him to as a matter of national pride.
As to the destruction of Israel, a suicide attempt? Perhaps.

 
-> Does Obama imagine he will make demands of Ahmadinejad?
We should ask him.
But lets not slow down with the assumptions:

 Using what stick as
-> leverage, pray tell? A U.S. boycott of the next Holocaust-denial
conference
-> in
-> Tehran? The U.N. has already demanded that Iran give up its nuclear
program.
-> Ahmadinejad has ignored the U.N. and that's the end of it.

Unless we get the war machine fired up...more...again...


-> 
-> We always have the ability to "talk" to Ahmadinejad if we have something
to
-> say.
-> Bush has a telephone. If Iranian crop dusters were headed toward one of
our
-> nuclear power plants, I am quite certain that Bush would be able to
reach
-> Ahmadinejad to tell him that Iran will be flattened unless the planes
-> retreat.
-> If his cell phone died, Bush could just post a quick warning on the
-> Huffington
-> Post.
-> 
! :-) ...A great blog, that. Recognizable people post threre from all over
the world...

-> Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these
-> talks
-> will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away
Czechoslovakia.
-> He
-> didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply the inevitable
-> result
-> of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable goal. Without a
stick,
-> there's only a carrot.
-> 
-> The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of
Obama's
-> proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously
imagine
-> crazy
-> foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose
legs
-> tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as
-> "sciatica").

:-) !

-> 
-> Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a
messianic
-> complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?
-> 
-> There is no possible result of such a meeting apart from appeasement and
-> humiliation of the U.S. If we are prepared to talk, then we're looking
for a
-> deal. What kind of deal do you make with a madman until he is ready to
-> surrender?
-> 
-> Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to
-> build
-> nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing
all
-> U.S.
-> troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands the
-> removal
-> of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's prepared
to
-> have
-> an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is on the
table.
-> 
-> Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push
only
-> half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"!
Obama
-> could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: As a result of
my
-> recent
-> talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being
half
-> empty. I prefer to see it as half full. And then Obama can return and
tell
-> Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could repudiate
his
-> own
-> white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg tingle.
-> 
-> There is a third reason to talk to dictators, in addition to seeking an
ally
-> or
-> as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.
-> 
-> Gen. Douglas C. MacArthur talked with Japanese imperial forces on Sept.
2,
-> 1945.
-> There was a long ceremony aboard the USS Missouri with full press
coverage
-> and a
-> lot of talk. It was a regular international confab!
-> 
-> It also took place after we had dropped two nukes on Japan and MacArthur
was
-> officially accepting Japan's surrender. If Obama plans to drop nukes on
-> Ahmadinejad prior to their little chat-fest, I'm all for it. But I don't
-> think
-> that's what liberals have in mind.

:-)Always entertaining...

-> 
-> COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
-> DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
-> 4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)