The Right Opinion

Next Time, Use FedEx

By Ann Coulter · May 5, 2011

The CIA stepped up the search for Osama bin Laden last week after becoming as sick of royal wedding coverage as the rest of us.

American intelligence operations located Osama by following his trusted couriers, whose names were given up by al-Qaida members during harsh interrogations at CIA black sites under President Bush.

Yes, the same interrogations endlessly denounced by the entire Democratic Party (save Joe Lieberman), the mainstream media, and an especially indignant Jane Mayer in The New Yorker.

The most-wanted terrorist in the world was living in a moldy, million-dollar mansion in a gated community just outside of Islamabad. It took the CIA five years to figure out the four-digit code to get in.

One important missed clue was that Osama was living at 72 Virgins Way. He might still be alive today if only he hadn’t borrowed his neighbor’s shoulder-mounted rocket launcher and never returned it.

Our mighty Navy SEALs not only put a bullet through Osama’s head, but carried off his computers, disks and hard drives. So far, all they’ve revealed is that Osama had multiple Netflix rentals of “Rendition,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Love Actually.”

Can you imagine what’s on Osama’s hard drives? I mean besides the goat pornography. Pants are wetting throughout Pakistan’s military establishment.

The New York Times reports that the raid that killed Osama is being bitterly denounced on Pakistani TV as a breach of that country’s sovereignty. Osama, our dear allies say, was not a terrorist, nor has al-Qaida ever been unfriendly to Pakistan – unlike the United States, which they call “an enemy of Pakistan and Muslims.”

(Also, bin Laden’s entire video crew is in line at the Islamabad unemployment office today. Thanks, Barack.)

The one Islamic country that openly cheered our taking out bin Laden is Iraq. According to reports from inside the country, TV stations are treating the raid as a great victory for Iraq – the final battle in a war that was mostly fought by Iraqis on Iraqi soil. They view bin Laden’s killing as their own personal triumph in the war against Islamic terrorism.

Similarly, when there was an explosion of violence throughout the Muslim world in response to some Danish cartoons in 2006, guess which Islamic nation was nothing but placid contentment? Again: our plucky Iraq. (Having U.S. Marines in your midst apparently has some sort of calming influence.)

It’s great that we got bin Laden, but if the last Democratic administration had been doing its job, there would have been no Osama bin Laden and no 9/11 attack to begin with.

Democratic presidents are always too busy feverishly redistributing wealth at home to devote serious attention to our national interests abroad.

Obama gets to reap the rewards of Bush-era terrorism policies – policies that he, his fellow Democrats and Jane Mayer hysterically denounced at the time – while Reagan and Bush had to deal with the consequences of Carter’s Iranian policy and Clinton’s bin Laden policy.

According to Michael Scheuer, who ran the bin Laden unit at the CIA for many years, President Clinton was given eight to 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden but refused to act, despite bin Laden’s having publicly declared war on the United States and launched various terrorist attacks against us, murdering hundreds of Americans.

(If only one of those opportunities had presented itself on the day of Clinton’s scheduled impeachment, instead of Clinton’s bombing Iraq, he might have postponed his problems at home by finally taking out bin Laden.)

Clinton’s CIA director, James Woolsey, never once met with Clinton in a one-on-one meeting. This is in contrast to Monica Lewinsky, who got about a dozen face-to-face – or face-to-something – meetings with the president.

That’s why Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, was caught stealing documents from the National Archives during the 9/11 commission hearings. That’s also why Clinton blew a gasket and forced ABC to cancel the DVD release of the docudrama “The Path to 9/11” – based on the commission’s report.

Bush had to deal with the ticking time bomb of Osama bin Laden left by Bill Clinton.

All presidents have had to deal with the ticking time bomb set by Carter’s passive acceptance of the Iranian revolution in 1979, giving Islamic lunacy its first nation-sponsor.

What ticking time bombs are being set around the globe by our current Democratic president?

Following the Democratic playbook, Obama’s overall approach to national security is to pointlessly fling our influence and military around the globe – in Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan – with no evident national security purpose.

Thanks to our feckless president, most of the Middle East is rapidly degenerating into a terrorist fever-swamp.

The Muslim Brotherhood is emerging as a power broker in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. Meanwhile, the “democracy” movement in Syria seems likely to end with President Bashar al-Assad gaining a tighter grip on power, after he’s killed enough of his own people to remind them why he’s their president.

All of these countries are becoming worse than they were before. (On the plus side, Obama is set to announce the SEALs have just found Joe Biden.)

But George Bush’s legacy – Iraq – will be standing there, all on its own, the one point of light in a sea of Islamic darkness. And the media will coo about how reassuring it is that we now have a “thoughtful” president in the White House, instead of a cowboy.



View all comments


Hard Thought said:

Iraq is the country built by a coalition of the willing and Bush. It was the first step in reversing the Carter catastrophe.Obama is now busily losing the rest of the Middle East and will set back progress for hundreds of years, but he is thoughtful and not a cowboy.Obama leads from behind, dithers for 16 hours over whether or not to get bin Laden after we knew where he was and receives accolades from prissy Chrissy Matthews. Talk about kool aid consumption.....

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Robert Risko said:

Although NOT a strict isolationist, I think our foreign policy posture could afford to be more "isolationist" or, if you prefer, “defensive”.Foreign engagement might be a requirement in the sense that an enemy can travel around the world in less than a day. But what great strides could be taken if we leveraged our "defensive" war department toward homeland security? What enemies might be dispelled were we to profile those that pose an actual threat who advocate beliefs that militate against the Foundation of this nation? What advantages might be achieved and sustained were a “McCarthy-like” attitude taken against those ideals (collectivism, socialism, communism) that the “Founders” warned of? What dignity and respect might be regained were we to reclaim the fundamentals of “A shining city on a hill?” What international goodwill might be achieved by engaging where asked and welcomed with clear objectives that advocate our *fundamental* national interest?Perhaps the final strategy would be more complex than simple "isolationism", but the current overextension without objectives is unacceptable.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 8:52 AM

MichaelSSEC said:

We can always count on Liberal Democrats to boldly stand up and take credit for the successes of policies they bitterly opposed. They do this because they have nothing but contempt for the intelligence of Americans. Why shouldn't they? After all, Liberal supporters (not to be confused with athletic supporters) are contemptible in every way -- intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt, feckless and dishonorable. When those are your friends, the people you work with every day, you tend to look at your enemies with a jaundiced eye.And while they're rushing to defend terrorists and give them more civil rights than Americans enjoy, the same Liberals are making it plainer every day that they consider ordinary Americans their enemies. How else could they lie during every news cycle, and claim that massive protests all over the country were filled with Nazis and racists? Liberals never did realize that the people they were lying ABOUT were the same people they were lying TO.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Aunt Bee said:

I thought David Barton was good at twisting history, but he's a rank amateur compared to Ann Coulter.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Gardner Behrends said:

Ann is just too funny for some to appreciate. History? What actually went on yesterday or in the past won't really be totally untwisted until the Michael Moore documentary airs on PBS. Meanwhile, liberals will keep wiping away the tears without looking in the mirror, and the rest of us will enjoy a good laugh thanks to Ms Coulter.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM

C. Wyatt Hertz said:

Tho Hard Thought; Reversing Carter's cayastrophe isn't going to happen as long as the sheep (and kool aid drinkers) in this nation keep voting liberal. The rest of your comment is spot-on.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Capt. Call in New Mexico said:

Aunt Bee, twisting history? What a joke! Absolutely no one, no not anyone, can twist history better than a liberal democrat. I hope you get stung! Gardner Behrends, okay, you liberals want to laugh at Ann Coulter. Fine. Just remember that the rest of us will be laughing at you at the same time for being so foolish!

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Looking 4 Liberty said:

There is no need to respond to Leftist baiting. The loony Leftists have ignored truth for at least 100 years, so no matter what is said to them, it only feeds their sense of self-importance. It is time for all good Americans to deny them a place in our discussions.Don't listen to them.Don't respond to them.And for Pete's sake, don't vote for them.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 2:58 PM

karl anglin said:

For about six years Pakistanknew bin Laden was hiding intheir country and did informthe US. Pakistan is as much anenemy as al-Qaida.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 3:49 PM

MichaelSSEC said:

What we need to remember is that radical Leftist websites like Think-Progress and pay people cash money to surf the web and post Left-wing comments to Conservative columns and blogs. It doesn't even matter whether the comments are factual or inane. Quantity is all they care about because their goal is to make it appear as though most people agree with the radical Leftist worldview.We had a troll frequenting this site for several weeks who called himself Odin, who was almost certainly one of those paid Leftist commenters. Seems logical there would be others.What's interesting is that people always slam Ann Coulter wish personal insults, but almost never on the facts. Look at Aunt Bee's post. Accuses Ms. Coulter of "twisting history." But where are the facts? Did Aunt Bee post proof that some of Ms. Coulter's facts were wrong? Did she post counter-examples refuting claims made in Ms. Coulter's column? Did she at least state her opinion in a reasoned, logical fashion? Contrast that to the comment by Robert Risko. I disagree rather strongly with his comment, but he laid out his reasoning, cited evidence to support his view, and stuck to the issues. That's a legitimate, sincere contribution, unlike the comment that basically offers, "you twist history and you suck." What a waste of time and space that was.

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Jon Wardlow said:

Ever notice that all those Left Wing bloggers tend to use Aunt Bee or Tr(oll) Patriot or some such as their screen names? As if they desperately need anonimity. If you're so proud of your thoughts, man up and put your name to them! It isn't like I'm going to pick you out at my local shop or business and call you out "Hey, you're the Jim Harris that posts on Patriot Post, you tool!"It could be that name rotation is another way to troll as well. Like one poster has three or four different pseudonyms... I'd be interested in the psychological reason for disassociating name and posts among (any such) group.Jon

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Mikey D said:

Don't just ignore the libs and their brain dead blather and lack of truth. Note the people they put down, check out any DVDs or books by David Barton, Ann Coulter, etc., buy the DVD/book etc. and make it required watching or reading by any teenager you know. They need a real Education - not just what they get in the public schools. Aunt Bee is probably a school "teacher" or moron, but I repeat myself! Pity the students if that is the case!

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Howard Reed said:

Hello America,Don't you just love the truth . . . Coulter style. Unlike the average liberal columnist, blogger, talking head, etc., Ms. Coulter has a mind, knows how to use it and is not ashamed of her love of country.On the other side is the Bama and his national Obamaniacs that take great pride in being what King Solomon called fools, foolish also known as unwise in the Book of Proverbs. Even that old Russian Bolshevik thug Vladmire Lenin got into the picture by calling these light in the loafer types 'useful idiots' due to their empty heads given over to frazzled emotional sound and fury saying not much about nothing.Being the quintessential ME kind of guy that never misses an opportunity, the Bama swallowed his narcisstic pride to use Bush era waterboarding information to do what he does best . . . grab the limelight in his ME kind of way from the safety of the White House situation room while the bona fide heroes got dirty doing the legendary stuff of America's real heroes.Aunt Bee . . . puhleese. Get out of your parents basement, put some pants on and go out and get a real life. The more I read leftist blogs the more I see the Glenn Beck lib blogger stereotype . . . shiftless lad, adult of course, that sits in front of his computer in his underwear in his parents basement waxing witlessly about much ado about nothing. Aren't you glad you aren't an Obama supporter.The Turban Torpedo

Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 9:39 PM

derwd said:

Ann Coulter, the yapping chihuahua of the far right, barks hoarsely about nothing.

Friday, May 6, 2011 at 7:49 AM

Reese said:

It must really be awful for Anne to see that all the people she opposes, and their policies and performance, seem to get much better results than those she supports. Hence this article and her willingness to manifest her detachment from reality. Pathetic, and not very funny, either.

Friday, May 6, 2011 at 7:50 AM