It is pretty clear that readers of this blog have no stomach for the fact that some church members are likely not really Christians. I know the hot button topics that garner lots of comments, like for instance weighty subjects like music in church. So I have decided to alienate the other two readers of Grace Digest by publishing a column by Ann Coulter. I am aware that it is not chic to be a conservative but then whose keeping score?
BUSH’S AMERICA: 100% AL-QAIDA FREE SINCE 2001
In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.
I generally don’t write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents.
Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I’ll consider downgrading Bush from “Great” to “Really Good.”
Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: “We’re the Rape Room People!”) constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did — and I’m including remembering Monica’s name on the sixth sexual encounter.
But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.
It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That’s 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK — or a landmark building, for that matter.
We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan — the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.
The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is “standing up” (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr –the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism — has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.
The Iraqis have a democracy — a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq’s democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about “change.”
(Guess what Bill Clinton’s campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: “bringing dignity back to the White House.” It was “change.” In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton’s “constant talk of change.”)
Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit — although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.
Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: “Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.”
It’s almost as if there’s been some sort of “surge” going on, as strange as that sounds.
Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.
But no one notices when 9/11 doesn’t happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we’d all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a “wannabe” terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.
We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good — another day without a terrorist attack.
But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush — and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.
The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush’s rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant — if that’s not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush’s third term. Then he might have a chance.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
Grace Digest 
I think she makes some good points. Obviously many U.S. presidents could make the same claim.
Darin,
No President has had the same level of the threat of a terriorist attack, you must agree.
Royce
The one good thing about the Bush term, is it is about over, thank goodness.
Even if I could somehow agree that Ann Coulter was right on every point – or even most – I could not feel cleansed after reading that.
She’s made an art form of insulting, condescending, generalizing, labeling and generally dividing Americans even further. She’s grossly good at it. She makes obscene amounts of money doing it.
Sorry, Royce; this isn’t purely political. The same could be said of Al Franken or James Carville on the opposite side of the fence.
All of which has to make one wonder why there has to be such a fence in America, or why it has to be made of concrete fifty feet high and laced with razor barbs like Coulter’s or Franken’s.
Franken’s not as caustic nor as base, and he also benefits from frequently being right.
“We invaded Iraq to protect America.”
No. 😥
Royce,
Thanks for sharing this with us.
I enjoyed the good read.
Have a great week.
Yep, Franken is right if truth is relative. It isn’t.
And yes, Coulter is over the top, often. But when you get past the brash satire she is shockingly correct about what she says.
I prefer someone who is straight forward, who says what he (or she) means clearly rather than someone who spouts gobbilty gook and when they are finished some dopy panel spends 30 minutes trying to acertain what they just said.
Royce
Thanks for posting this article. It is certainly an interesting read.
If Ann Coulter has the right to purport that the President is singularly responsible for keeping us safe, do I have the right to maintain that he is singularly responsible for not bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice? Or to write a syndicated article saying that our safety is not the only criterion to pronounce a President successful? Or to say that, in order to be a good President, Bill Clinton was responsible only for keeping his zipper zipped?
I just don’t think she was right enough to be shockingly correct – or that over-the-top.
Thankfully, in identifying myself as “Christian” I feel no impending need to worry myself with the political powers of this world. God is above them and will work through them . . . liberals, conservatives, even terrorists . . . isn’t that what happened in the Bible. We continue to be too enamored with working through empire instead of identifying with the slaughtered lamb.
Adam,
If every believer/Christian followed your advice to be apathetic to politics I wonder how many years ago our republic would have fallen?
It is not antiChrist or unspiritual for a follower of Christ to be active in politics any more than it is to be involved in your childs sports activities or scores of other worth while things.
Perhaps the saying is true that sometimes “We are to heavenly minded to be any earthly good”.
Thanks for stopping by and for your comment.
His Peace,
Royce
“If every person . . .” is a typical argument against pacifism and it is flawed in that it relies on pragmatism . . . as if we are in control and if we do not assume that control everything will go straight down the drain. The Bible speaks to the alternative, God is in control, the end is decided – we are citizens of another world. There is a sharp distinction between sports and recreation and the powers (although some things, like sports have morphed into powers).
I know it is significantly different than traditional thinking on politics (at least since WWII) it’s interesting if you look at the church’s stance before WWII it was much more often pacifist, especially in regards to the Restoration History). I would suggest reading David Lipscomb’s treatise entitled Civil Government (found at: https://gracedigest.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/lost-church-members-president-bush-evil-ann-coulter-said/#comments
as well as, more contemporary thinking on the subject, Lee Camp’s Mere Discipleship.
Adam,
I don’t decide what to believe based on what Lipscomb said. He taught that it was wrong for Christians to vote. He was wrong.
You correctly point out that pacifism was more popular before WWII. Sure, it is easy to be a pacifist when the war is thousands of miles away. When the battle is in your back yard the story is different. Pearl Harbor changed the tune of many who were against war.
I wonder at so many folks who cite Restoration Movement personalities to support what they believe. They, like you and I, were flawed men who were wrong much of the time.
Finally, you speak of pragmitism as something to be avoided, a strange position indeed. Pacificism followed to its logical end makes one look foolish. Perhaps that is why you do not embrace pragmitism. If it is morally wrong to be engaged in war as an individual then it would also be wrong to be a law officer as well. And, it would be inconsistent for you to defend your own home against intruders using deadly force.
Logic is an irritation isn’t it?
Royce
Royce
Wow, I haven’t read in a while and I’m missing out. I love Ann. Yet history proves that the Body of Christ thrives under persecution, which I’m Thankful for considering the state of the union as I see it.