Why do I keep falling for strong, powerful women? Is it, as disciples of Dr. Freud and his phantasy religion would have it, due to my potty training? Or is it, in the case of Ms. Coulter, that her writing hits the ace of spades right in the middle at a hundred paces? For example, her column on 17th February:
The Middle East is on fire again, and crazy Muslims with funny names aren't helping things -- Mahmoud, ElBaradei, al-Banna, Barack ...
The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?
Remember? The one who had gassed his own people, invaded his neighbors and was desperately seeking weapons of mass destruction? The guy who emerged from a spider hole looking like Charlie Sheen after a three-day bender?
Liberals couldn't have been less interested in removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq. So it's really adorable seeing them get all choked up about democracy now. Say, as long as liberals are all gung-ho about getting rid of out-of-touch, overbearing dictators, how about we start with Janet Napolitano?
Ouch! But she's not finished:
You know another country where Obama wasn't interested in democracy? (I mean, besides the U.S. when it comes to health care reform?) That's right -- Iran.
Iran is ideal for democracy: It has a young, highly educated, pro-Western population, and happens to be led by a messianic, Holocaust-denying lunatic.
Liberals say: Why upset that apple cart? Much better to support tumult and riots against our allies than our sworn enemies.
When peaceful Iranian students were protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stolen election in 2009, we didn't hear a peep out of Obama. The students had good reason to believe the election had been rigged. In some pro-Ahmadinejad districts, turnout was more than 100 percent.
Wait, no, I'm sorry -- that was Al Franken's election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But there was also plenty of vote-stealing in Ahmadinejad's election.
Ooof! That was below the belt. But look out, here comes another:
The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt, but not in Iraq or Iran, can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as we're on the subject, liberals also opposed democracy in Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua and Minnesota.)
Democrats are all for meddling in other countries –- but only provided a change of regime will harm U.S. national security interests.
And then comes the haymaker:
For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation's enemies, attacked America's allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, "foreign policy."
As Joe McCarthy once said, if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America's interests.
Dogmatic? Yes, yes, yes - and I love it - and her!
(Sorry, this is a lazy Sunday post using long quotations but I did an extra half hour in the pool this morning and I'm a bit knacked - er, have I told you I go swimming every morning? . . . oh, take that as a 'yes', shall I?)