Wednesday, July 18, 2007
I tend to ignore Ann Coulter given every opportunity. Her shtick is to ramp up the insults into the stratospherically offensive range in order to get attention. Hercolumn this week does that for sure, calling democrats "The Treason Lobby" amongst other "witty" sobriquets. It's her twists in logic this time that leaves me scratching my head and wondering what Coulter is smoking.
CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week: "President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago,al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil."
Say, wasn't the attack of 9/11 an "attack on U.S. soil"? How could that have happened since we hadn't invaded Iraq yet? What a weird aberration. How about the attacks
on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?
Ummm, Succubus, if I may call you that, let's follow logic a bit shall we? Terrorists have attacked people before we turned Iraq into Ranger School for radical Islam. Therefore what?
By this logic, we should build cars that get three miles to the gallon since there was pollution before then anyways?