BY ANN COULTER
Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has
gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again!
Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack
Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.
Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is
weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions
to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient
Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese
again) and medical discoveries (huh?).
But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!
Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty
thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims
of colonization.
Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So
why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de
Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East
since the French and the British left!)
In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me
be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue
for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues
in many aspects of American life."
So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the
crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we
still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.
Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview,
saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses
to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their
heads on pain of losing them.
Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against
America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience,"
while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this
nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either
both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on
9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim
countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did
attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.
The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and
Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK,
maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the
only one I can think of.
The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like
Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the
Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended
to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2
years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never
invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a
way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology
sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder
on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the
Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)
Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for
their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can
be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an
American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The
war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim
audience as a discussion of gay marriage.
Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our
aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in
Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking
-- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.
The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing
that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a
collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.
Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying
something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink
pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of
permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they
sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them
pulled out.
But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh
. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.
True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament --
but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime
minister.
In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh
refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the
shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics
term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president,
Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as
John Foster Dulles.
For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.
Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have
weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation --
including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear
power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with
messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least
build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?
I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North
Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North
Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities
and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't
build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans
began feverishly building nukes.
But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power
for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a
primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top
of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not
enough oil and gas to run household fans?
Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.
