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?
Why did they want to keep Saddam Hussein in power again? Yes, that's right - because he didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Their big argument was that Saddam was five long years away from developing them.
By my calculations, that means as of March 2008, Israel would have been gone and Saddam would have been in total control of the Middle East.
But they were shocked by Mubarak. Liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as a proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down. Did they, by any chance, see the January employment numbers for the United States? The only employment sectors showing any growth at all are medical marijuana cashiers, Hollywood sober-living coaches and "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" understudies filling in for maimed cast members.
Are we one jobs report away from liberals rioting in the street?
Mubarak supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel's right to exist. Or as the left calls it, three strikes and you're out.
Obama was so rough on the Egyptian leader, the Saudis reportedly had to ask him not to humiliate Mubarak. (You know, like Chinese President Hu did to Obama.) In fact, Mubarak may be the only despot Obama didn't bow to.
You'd think Mubarak and Obama would be natural allies. Mubarak lives in Egypt; Obama created a pyramid scheme known as Obamacare. To win Obama's support, maybe Mubarak should have dropped the whole "president" thing and called himself "czar." Obama seems to like czars.
Or he should have announced that Egypt was going to blow $500 billion on a high-speed bullet train nobody wanted.
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.
When it came to Iran, however, the flame of democracy didn't burn so brightly in liberal hearts. Even when the Iranian protester, Neda, was shot dead while standing peacefully on a street in Tehran, Obama responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone.
But a mob of Egyptians start decapitating mummies, and Obama was on the horn telling Mubarak he had to leave. Obama didn't acknowledge Neda's existence, but the moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama said, "We hear your voices."
He can hear their voices? He couldn't hear the voices of the tea partiers, and they were protesting on the streets of Washington, D.C.
But as long as Obama can hear the voices of protesters in Cairo, why doesn't he ask them what they think about ObamaCare? Maybe the Egyptians can change his mind.
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.
Time and again, Democrats' fecklessness has emboldened America's enemies and terrified its allies, which I believe was the actual slogan of the State Department under Jimmy Carter: "Emboldening America's enemies, and terrifying her allies, since 1976."
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.
Ann Coulter is legal affairs correspondent for Human Events magazine.