If you're wrong, change the subject. That's the system the Democrats (liberals) use. First they told us we couldn't win in Iraq and if we did, there'd be attacks in America and Israel and Turkey would invade. Also that Saddam would use WMDs on our troops. "We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops. But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that 'the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.' [Yeah, but we won the war! -RT] (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.) Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture." It doesn't matter what we accomplish, it's not good enough for the liberal Democrats -- unless they win the presidency in 2008. Then they'll start saying every terrorist captured is a "victory for our side." Sheesh! Whatta buncha joiks! (Ann Coulter 9/12/07)
No comments:
Post a Comment