Coulter calls 9/11 widows "witches"

[tbonetrexler]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Conservative author Ann Coulter sparked a storm on Wednesday after describing a group of September 11 widows who backed the Democratic Party as millionaire "witches" reveling in their status as celebrities.
ADVERTISEMENT

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," published on Tuesday, referring to four women who headed a campaign that resulted in the creation of the September 11 Commission that investigated the hijacked plane attacks.

Coulter wrote that the women were millionaires as a result of compensation settlements and were "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

A spokeswoman for publisher Crown Forum said it had set a first print run of 1 million copies of "Godless" and there were 1.5 million copies of Coulter's previous four books in print.

The four women, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, declined to discuss the book in detail but issued a statement saying they had been slandered.

"There was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again," said the statement signed by the four, along with a fifth woman, Monica Gabrielle.

The four women, who live in or around East Brunswick, New Jersey, became friends after September 11 and formed a group that agitated for the investigation. "Our only motivation ever was to make our nation safer," they said.

Coulter, whose books include the bestseller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," argues in the new book the women she dubs "the Witches of East Brunswick" wanted to blame
President George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks.

She criticized them for making a campaign advertisement for Democratic presidential candidate Sen.
John Kerry in 2004, and added: "By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

PERSONAL ATTACKS

Asked by Reuters why she made such personal comments, Coulter said by e-mail, "I am tired of victims being used as billboards for untenable liberal political beliefs."

"A lot of Americans have been seething over the inanities of these professional victims for some time," she added.

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record) of New Jersey said Coulter's "shameless attack" on the widows sparked disgust. "Her bookselling antics and accompanying vulgarity deserve our deepest contempt," he said in a statement.

The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp., slammed the comments in an article on Wednesday headlined: "Righty writer Coulter hurls nasty gibes at 9/11 gals."

Coulter, a regular television commentator who is hugely popular among some conservatives, was challenged on NBC's "Today" show on Tuesday over what host Matt Lauer called "dramatic" remarks, prompting her to say, "You are getting testy with me."

Coulter is known for a combative column after September 11 saying, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In one book, she wrote, "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

Her latest comments were quoted on radio stations in New York on Wednesday and the book was the subject of debate on Web sites such as www.salon.com. The Daily News newspaper's front-page headline was "Coulter the Cruel."

The controversy appeared to be doing no harm to sales of Coulter's latest book, which was listed as the second-best seller of the day at online retailer Amazon.com on Wednesday afternoon.

What a b*tch! Thats about all i can say about this.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Ann Coulter expressed her opinion about 4-only 4, 9/11 widows who have interjected themselves into the political arena and have financially benefited from being in that arena. They are not sacred cows. If they have a right to express their opinion, so does Ann.

[tbonetrexler]

Ann Coulter expressed her opinion about 4-only 4, 9/11 widows who have interjected themselves into the political arena and have financially benefited from being in that arena. They are not sacred cows. If they have a right to express their opinion, so does Ann.


If you are mad about the title George, go talk to Reuters, i only cut and pasted it.

[benson11]

I have to agree with George, once they started accepting speaking fees, they opened themselves up to the attacks.

[tbonetrexler]

I will admit that some of the comments she makes are understandable and justifiable. But some are just plain slanderous. For Example:

"By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

[jasper45]

This is what free speech is all about. Ms. Coulter is just freely expressing her opinions, both with these remarks, and her book. There is nothing wrong with that. If you don’t agree, don’t buy her book, and express your feelings as you have done here.
Anne Coulter has done nothing wrong, or anything out of place here. In fact, it’s nothing other than what the famed Dixie Chicks have done. Freedom of speech only protects you from prosecution by the government, not from other people.

[CaptainGonzo]

Ann Coulter releases her new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" on 6/6/06, then generates a firestorm with her her comments on these four 9/11 widows...

Coincidence? I think not.

Controversy sells books.

I, for one, am not buying.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Ann Coulter releases her new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" on 6/6/06, then generates a firestorm with her her comments on these four 9/11 widows...

Coincidence? I think not.

Controversy sells books.

I, for one, am not buying.
Gonzo, it is certainly not a coincidence. Those comments are inside the book.

[MalahatTwo7]

Sigh... the Love of Freedom of Speech.... Ya don't gotta like, just accept it.

BTW, I have not opinion either way regarding the article. It is what it is - a lot of words on a page. ;)

[Resq1scnd2none]

What do you want to bet, that these 4 will have (if they have not already) a meeting with Cindy Sheehan?
I would also surmise that these 4 are not popular among SOME of the wives and family members of the remaining 339?

And funny how the liberal minded people, critique and berate a conservative writer for expressing their views. But, laud Michael Moore who has denounced the US for years as a political hero?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are birds of the same feather. Hasn't anyone figured that out yet?

[jasper45]

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are birds of the same feather. Hasn't anyone figured that out yet?


Well, one would look much better naked than the other. :p I do know what you mean though, and you are correct in your statement.

[Ltmdepas3280]

Ann Coulter is a cold, heartless, rightwing B*tch ...... How can someone so skinny be so full of hot air

[Bones42]

Who or what made Ann Coulter an expert on anything and does anyone actually care what she says? I saw it on the news and really just don't care what this woman says. Is she someone important that I am missing and should care?

[jkuhn22]

None of these famous authors/movie makers are experts in anyway. However they are far more entertaining than the real experts on cspan. It's sad that Americans care so little for what is actually going on in the country. More than half the country cares so little they don't even vote, but they are more than willing to complain.

[MalahatTwo7]

Voting takes deep thought and introspection. Complaining only requires one to breathe. :(

[MalahatTwo7]

Clinton Slams Coulter For 'Vicious' Attack On 9/11 Widows
Pataki 'Stunned' By Conservative Author's Comments

POSTED: 10:20 am EDT June 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out at Ann Coulter Wednesday for her "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on a group of activist 9/11 widows.

Coulter, a right-wing television pundit, described the four widows from New Jersey -- Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza -- as "self-obsessed."

Coulter writes in a new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,"' the Clinton said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."

Clinton made the comments after delivering a speech on protecting children from exposure to sex- and violence-saturated media.

The women, who are still pushing for changes in how the government guards against future attacks, issued a joint statement, saying they "have been slandered."

They added, "Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day."

New York's Republican Gov. George Pataki also voiced anger and surprise at Coulter's attack on the 9/11 widows.

Pataki said he "was really stunned and I don't think it's at all fair or accurate."

He said that he's spoken with many grieving family members and the hurt is real, the pain is real, and the suffering 4½ years later has not lessened.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

[baileydonk]

Freedom of speech only protects you from prosecution by the government, not from other people.

THANK YOU!!!! Sometimes I want to make a sign for my house that says "The First Amendment protects you from the government, not from me.
This is my home and you WILL be kicked out on your arse for statements that **** ME OFF."

[pvfire424]

What do you want to bet, that these 4 will have (if they have not already) a meeting with Cindy Sheehan?

I would also surmise that these 4 are not popular among SOME of the wives and family members of the remaining 339?

And funny how the liberal minded people, critique and berate a conservative writer for expressing their views. But, laud Michael Moore who has denounced the US for years as a political hero?


Whoa ! hold on just a minute. I havn't seen anywhere that states these widows have anything to do with the Fire Department.

Gearoge was correct in his first reply. There are only 4 widows envolved with this group.


Gonzo was also correct, this is controversy plain and simple, in this case the media is being vaugue about the comments in order to stir up obvious emotions, fortunately we are all smart enough to see through this rouse.

[Resq1scnd2none]

Whoa ! hold on just a minute. I havn't seen anywhere that states these widows have anything to do with the Fire Department.

Gearoge was correct in his first reply. There are only 4 widows envolved with this group.


Gonzo was also correct, this is controversy plain and simple, in this case the media is being vaugue about the comments in order to stir up obvious emotions, fortunately we are all smart enough to see through this rouse.

You are correct as well and I never said these 4 widows had anything to do with the FDNY. But, my point in which you hightlighted is saying that while the 4 denounce "this and that" about 9-11, stand on the soap box and look for attention etc...blah blah blah. I am sure a majority of the widows and families want to "get on with their lives" and don't need others speaking on their behalf. Now I say that tongue in cheek, meaning NEVER FORGET 9-11. Just don't use it for monentary/political gain the way these four widows seem to be.

[CaptainGonzo]

Ann Coulter is a cold, heartless, rightwing B*tch ...... How can someone so skinny be so full of hot air

Michael Moore is a lying, conniving bleeding heart leftwing millionaire "bahstid" who tries to pass himself off as the "average Joe Schmoe".

I am not a fan of either one of them.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Who or what made Ann Coulter an expert on anything and does anyone actually care what she says? I saw it on the news and really just don't care what this woman says. Is she someone important that I am missing and should care?
Do you know anything about her or her background?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Do you know anything about her or her background?
Only that shes a rich girl from Connecticut, who has done a great job of self-promotion.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Only that shes a rich girl from Connecticut, who has done a great job of self-promotion.
I think that is only a partial biography.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Oh yeah. She tried running for Congress as a Libertarian (they didnt even want her) and she wore a fur coat even in the summer when she was in College. She's a role model for all.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

How about filling us in on all her good works. She talks a good game. What has she DONE that is GOOD in this world?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

How about filling us in on all her good works. She talks a good game. What has she DONE that is GOOD in this world?
I don't really know. I was just asking. I'll check it out.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

From her website:

Ann Coulter is the author of four New York Times bestsellers —How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

[Bones42]

Do you know anything about her or her background? Not until I read your last post, that's why I asked. And after reading it, I still really don't care what she says. :cool: I also don't see why anyone else would either...but hey, everyone's free to listen to who they want.

[pvfire424]

... so she's had difficulty holding down a job

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Just curious, you guys who are bashing Ann Coulter...

Have you read the book? Have you read ANY of her books or her column?

If not, you are dooing the same thing the media is doing. They haven't read it, either.

[pvfire424]

Sorry, George. Any opinion I've formed of the subject in question has been formed by what "I've heard", ( from the media).

My last comment was made tounge in cheek.

[Bones42]

No, never read any of her stuff, don't think I will either. Then again, I'm not bashing her, I just don't care what she says, it was just a hot topic on the news and I got curious to see if anyone actually cared/listened to her.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

No, never read any of her stuff, don't think I will either. Then again, I'm not bashing her, I just don't care what she says, it was just a hot topic on the news and I got curious to see if anyone actually cared/listened to her.
I didn't say you were.

Her books are actually quite interesting and entertaining. She may be acerbic, but it is difficult to argue that she is not intelligent. For example, in "Treason", she details, actually using citable facts, the parallels between liberalism and communism back to the forties. I don't agree with everything she says, but it is interesting nonetheless.

[scfire86]

Ann Coulter releases her new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" on 6/6/06, then generates a firestorm with her her comments on these four 9/11 widows...

Coincidence? I think not.

Controversy sells books.

I, for one, am not buying.
Gonz. I'm with you on this one. And thanks to Norm we know all we have to know about Coulter's motives.

A ____ and his _____ are soon parted.

I would be interested to see how many ____ part with their _____ buying this book.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You know what is funny? All of these liberal legislators and hacks that are calling for a boycott of this book. They don't like what she has written. They think that she is mean and cruel.

How come they didn't call for boycott's of those potential Pullitzer winners written by Al Franken, Al Gore and the like? They were filled with similar vitriole. Seems like total hypocrisy to me.

No, I am not in favor of a book burning. I'm not in favor of Hypocrisy either.

[firepics]

I just find it amusing that she is blaming these women for making money off 9-11, when she seems to be doing the same thing.... :rolleyes:

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I just find it amusing that she is blaming these women for making money off 9-11, when she seems to be doing the same thing.... :rolleyes:
It's not even close to the same thing.

[E229Lt]

Oh George,


http://www.internetweekly.org/images/ann_coulter_card.jpg

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Oh George,


http://www.internetweekly.org/images/ann_coulter_card.jpg
Can you ship me the full-size version? It would look great in my office.

[E229Lt]

Can you ship me the full-size version? It would look great in my office.


Nah, this is more your style:

http://www.redmeatblog.com/photos/AnnCoulter.jpg

[scfire86]

LT.

How about this one?

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Nah, this is more your style:

http://www.redmeatblog.com/photos/AnnCoulter.jpg

Now this rocks. Michael Moore probly couldn't pick that up.

[scfire86]

You know what is funny? All of these liberal legislators and hacks that are calling for a boycott of this book. They don't like what she has written. They think that she is mean and cruel.

How come they didn't call for boycott's of those potential Pullitzer winners written by Al Franken, Al Gore and the like? They were filled with similar vitriole. Seems like total hypocrisy to me.


Calling for a boycott is okay. They are not asking for censorship. Conservatives have called for boycotts of people and companies who support liberal causes. I know several folks here in OC who hate Ben and Jerry's ice cream and have asked me to not buy it for that very reason.

I've read one of Franken's books. I don't consider it vitriolic. He points out the errors and inconsistencies in Coulter's and other conservative pundits writings. If that is vitriol I can only shake my head on what a low bar that has become to jump over.

Do you see Franken, Gore, Moore or any of the others ridiculing people who have lost loved ones in this conflict?

I don't.

Both sides have their extremes. Coulter just happens to be the one on the right....far right.

Nothing says you have to listen to what she says.

[scfire86]

Even Pataki (http://www.syracuse.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1149715156264770.xml&storylist=ny#continue) disapproves of Coulter's remarks. And he is hardly liberal.

[scfire86]

2008, here we come.

[MarcusKspn]

That is just plain scary.

[CaptainGonzo]

Damn you SC!
I almost lost my breakfast when I saw that!

[ChiefReason]

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are birds of the same feather. Hasn't anyone figured that out yet?
Same feather?
I agree that both attack their subjects with the same zesty "take no prisoner" manner, but similarities end there.
Coulter is more intelligent, articulate, mainstream and drop dead gorgeous.
I am aroused when I look at her.
I am repulsed when I look at him.
No one, not even Ann Coulter, disputes the fact that 9/11 was a terrible, terrible tragedy and many families will never be the same again. Some go about grieving very privately while others hit the media trail.
Those grieving in private have no desires other than to pick up the pieces of their lives, remember their loved ones and move on.
Others choose to go by way of the book signing tours, martini bars, speaking tours, be seen with the country's power brokers; all the while, taking money to do it and then are all offended when they become fair game for challenges to their motives.
I don't know if Ann Coulter is capable of "thoughtful" discussion, but she puts it out there, is fearless and is multi-faceted.
Her point was that, until a national tragedy, no one would have heard of these folks, but since we do, they ARE fair game.
Welcome to the public arena, ladies.
CR

[ChiefReason]

From her website:

Ann Coulter is the author of four New York Times bestsellers —How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
What a LOSER! :cool:
CR

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

First of all she aint THAT good looking. Secondly, I see her resume. What I havent seen is that she has DONE anything except keep her trap flapping. Chief R. I will stand by my post that she and Moore are the same old song and dance. Lots of bluster / no substance.

[tbonetrexler]

You know what is funny? All of these liberal legislators and hacks that are calling for a boycott of this book. They don't like what she has written. They think that she is mean and cruel.

How come they didn't call for boycott's of those potential Pullitzer winners written by Al Franken, Al Gore and the like? They were filled with similar vitriole. Seems like total hypocrisy to me.

No, I am not in favor of a book burning. I'm not in favor of Hypocrisy either.

Ok, George, where are the masses of conservatives calling for the boycott of this book? I am sure that they have called for boycotting other books that attack conservatives.

Hypocrisy goes both ways you know.

It's not even close to the same thing.

How is it not? She is making money on 9/11 by bashing the loved ones of those who gave all.

[neiowa]

Ok, George, where are the masses of conservatives calling for the boycott of this book? I am sure that they have called for boycotting other books that attack conservatives.


Well shirley how about you give us some specific examples? The "boycot" is primarily the tantrum of the dem left.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

First of all she aint THAT good looking. Secondly, I see her resume. What I havent seen is that she has DONE anything except keep her trap flapping. Chief R. I will stand by my post that she and Moore are the same old song and dance. Lots of bluster / no substance.
OK. Fair point. What the hell has Michael Moore or Al Franken done?

For that matter, what have most of our politicians "done"? Sports heroes? etc. Seems like everybody that the public idolizes hasn't done crap. Doesn't really seem like a fair criteria until we judge all our "heroes" the same.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Ok, George, where are the masses of conservatives calling for the boycott of this book? I am sure that they have called for boycotting other books that attack conservatives.

Hypocrisy goes both ways you know.



How is it not? She is making money on 9/11 by bashing the loved ones of those who gave all.
Just a quick note: You are not really equipped to be in this debate.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/reviews/benshapiro/200642.html
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060609/NEWS03/606090393/1007

This is all that I could find in 7 seconds.

As far as the money on 9/11 stupid argument: Nobody in Ann Coulter's family died in the attacks. She is also not talking about 9/11, she is responding to those talking about 9/11.

[JHR1985]

The four widows are basically the same as Shehan. Shehan's son was not drafted. He voluntered to join. Correct me if I'm wrong but he was a mechanic and he wasnt required to go out on patrol, he just opted to go out. I may be wrong but thats what I have heard. He gets killed and she becomes a celebrity by going out and complaining loud enough so as to get media attention.

The four widows, while 9/11 was a horrible thing. But to try to go out and gain media attention and try to make their opinons matter just because they are widows is a whole different deal.

You dont see the other several hundred widows lining up to speak out or inject themselves into the politcal arena(whoever said that, good words).

but, thats just my opinon

oh yeah What the hell has Michael Moore or Al Franken done?

Michael Moore blew up the Team America Hide out.... duh

and Al Franken..."I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggonnit, People Like Me"

[ChiefReason]

First of all she aint THAT good looking. Secondly, I see her resume. What I havent seen is that she has DONE anything except keep her trap flapping. Chief R. I will stand by my post that she and Moore are the same old song and dance. Lots of bluster / no substance.
Well, if it is the same old song and dance, I like her packaging better than Moore's.
And it appears that they are both selling a lot of bluster with no substance.
HOLD THE MAYO!
And just for kicks, let's have a debate between the four 9/11 widows and Ann Coulter on national TV. Greta Van Sustern can moderate.
I will pick Coulter to win. And if a chick fight breaks out? I'm still taking Coulter.
And really, Mikey; you have seen me in person. To a guy like me, she's gorgeous. Let me have my moment.
CR

[ThNozzleman]

Coulter is a worthless tramp...someone should kick her right in the balls.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Ok, I have been googling and finding out more about this chick. One I read was that she only bathes a couple times a week. :eek: ....This must be true...It was on the internet :p ...

[NYSmokey]

She's a man, baby!!!!!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Coulter is a worthless tramp...someone should kick her right in the balls.
She's got more than you do.

I figured this topic would get you to crawl out from under your rock.

[scfire86]

The biggest difference is that Coulter is making personal attacks. She refers to these women as "harpies". Can one of the Irish folks on this board tell me if that is a term of endearment or not.

And it only reinforces Coulter having no credibility on this matter.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Here is a press release from those free speech defending liberals demanding that NJ booksellers ban Ann Coulter's Book.

New Jersey Political Press Releases

Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley & Linda Stender

QUIGLEY/STENDER CALL ON NJ MERCHANTS TO BAN SALE OF ‘VICIOUS’ COULTER BOOK

Hate-filled Attacks on NJ 9-11 Widows Has No Place on NJ Bookshelves

(TRENTON) - Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley and Linda Stender today castigated political commentator Ann Coulter for vicious remarks made against four New Jersey September 11th widows in her new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

ASSEMBLY DEMOCRATS
NEWS RELEASE

FOR RELEASE:
June 8, 2006

CONTACT:
Assemblywoman Quigley
(201) 217-4614
Assemblywoman Stender
(908) 668-1900
James Sverapa IV
(609) 292-7065


QUIGLEY/STENDER CALL ON NJ MERCHANTS TO BAN SALE OF ‘VICIOUS’ COULTER BOOK

Hate-filled Attacks on NJ 9-11 Widows Has No Place on NJ Bookshelves

(TRENTON) - Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley and Linda Stender today castigated political commentator Ann Coulter for vicious remarks made against four New Jersey September 11th widows in her new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

In her book, Coulter refers to the women as, "the Witches of East Brunswick," after the town where two of the women reside, and writes she has "…never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much." In promoting the book, she added further insult to injury by saying the women used their grief "…to make a political point," and used "…the fact that [they] lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about it [political viewpoints]."

In response to these incendiary, hate-filled attacks on women who suffered a terrible personal tragedy four-and-a-half years ago and have selflessly advocated to improve national security in the intervening years, the assemblywomen issued the following statement, denouncing Coulter’s attacks and asking New Jersey retailers to ban the sale of her book throughout the state:

"Ann Coulter’s criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate.

"Her assertion that these women enjoyed watching their husbands die on national television is hateful, hurtful, and runs counter to every sentiment expressed since the September 11th tragedy.

"Coulter’s vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books. By making these claims, she proves herself worse than those she is attempting to vilify - she is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others.

"No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."


In case you missed it, here is the pertinent passage:
We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."
It is funny that there is no call for the Jersey Girls to stop their hateful tirade against our President, including their baseless assertions that Pres. Bush knew that the terorist attacks were going to occur and allowed them to happen. I gues free speech is only free speech when it is liberal free speech.

Before you answer, liberals, be careful. This book banning (burning) thing can cut both ways....

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Raise your right arm high in the sky and let out a hearty "SEIG HEIL".Trying to ban a book is pure silliness. Don't worry there are plenty of folks out there on the conservative side trying to get such subversive classics such as A Catcher in the Rye banned from schools. No, I think we dummy middle ground types will just sit back and watch the mudslinging and stupidity continue. Anyone for a chocolate pudding no holds barred cage match between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter ?

[RoughRider]

Raise your right arm high in the sky and let out a hearty "SEIG HEIL".Trying to ban a book is pure silliness. Don't worry there are plenty of folks out there on the conservative side trying to get such subversive classics such as A Catcher in the Rye banned from schools. No, I think we dummy middle ground types will just sit back and watch the mudslinging and stupidity continue. Anyone for a chocolate pudding no holds barred cage match between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter ?

I would love to watch that!! :D

I loved and would like my son to read A Catcher in the Rye. It's Heather has two Moms that I have a problem with.

[RoughRider]

Monday, June 12, 2006 11:05 p.m. EDT
Media Proves Coulter Right


In their outrage over Ann Coulter’s new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." the media have proved the very point they dispute -– the church of liberalism has a doctrine of infallibility and liberals hide behind a bevy of sacred cows to defend its tenets.


In her book, Coulter writes that ever since Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Channel broke the monopoly on the news and the floodgates opened, the leftist media and the Democrats have been trying "to re-create a world where they can hurl slander and treason without anyone arguing back –- they needed a doctrine of infallibility” that would prevent critics from answering back, leaving their fallacious doctrines unchallenged.


"They would choose only messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to,” she writes. "That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing hysterical women. You can’t respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering.”



Among them, Coulter writes, are "people with "absolute moral authority” in the words of Maureen Dowd describing Cindy Sheehan -- Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, a terminal illness or as a last resort being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela.”



And so we get the likes of the "Jersey Girls" exploiting the deaths of their husbands on 9/11, Sheehan exploiting the death in Iraq of her son to attack President Bush, Joe Wilson, Rep. John Murtha and other untouchables. To challenge their assertions is blasphemy and "over the line.” And an assault on the "sacred.”



In her book Coulter writes of all of the above unchallengeable messengers, but the liberals in the media have focused on one group -– the Jersey Girls -– four New Jersey 9/11 windows who have blatantly exploited the deaths of their husbands exactly as Sheehan has exploited the heroic death of her son -– to castigate the president and his administration, and become lionized millionaires in the process.



And, just as Coulter has written, she has been lambasted by the media and such liberal Democrats as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for daring to attack their untouchable spokeswomen. Get Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," along with a special offer from NewsMax magazine. Click Here.



The Jersey Girls - Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken and Patty Casazza – "scarcely representative of the hundreds of 9/11 widows” as Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal, are, being widows, allegedly exempt from being criticized, not for their widowhood, but for their exploitation of it for the crassest of political motives.



The four, three of whose husbands worked for the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, first attracted attention when they came together to complain that the average settlement of $1.6 million the government was planning to pay 9/11 victims' families was not enough.



After succeeding in getting their payments increased they began attacking Bush for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks. They demanded the establishment of a commission to explain why the government had not prevented the attack. From the beginning their target was never the hijackers who murdered 3,000 people, including their husbands, but the Bush administration.



They cut commercials for Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, launched vicious attacks on Condoleezza Rice and leapt to the defense of Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton administration Justice Department official who had erected the so-called "wall” that prevented intelligence agents from sharing information with law enforcement agents about suspected terrorists in the U.S.



Two years ago, long before Coulter focused on the Jersey Girls, the Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote about their "venerable status”



"Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York?” she asked. "In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers ... were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."


"The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn't necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual. All that the widows have had to say -- including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant--on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration. They had become prosecutors and investigators, unearthing clues and connections related to 9/11, with, we're regularly informed, unrivalled dedication and skill.”


And untouchable, as Coulter has charged.



As Coulter said in a TV interview Saturday night, the media has portrayed her comments about the Jersey Girls as an attack on all 9/11 widows. This, she explained, is "specifically about four women who have turned themselves into political activists against the President, defending Bill Clinton, [and] attacking Condoleeza Rice ...”


Coulter went on to explain that her chapter was about liberal infallibility and how they "keep sending up these human shields to make pure partisan political points. Like Cindy Sheehan, like the Jersey Girls ...”



Coulter explained that in the chapter "I have a whole slew -- plenty of other examples of the use of human shields ... sending out spokesmen we can’t respond to.”



NBC's Brian Williams saw Coulter’s criticism of the Jersey Girls as crossing the line. In introducing the segment on Coulter’s remarks, Williams said, "just when you think that it seems that there are no limits on anything, someone comes along and makes a comment that goes over the line -- the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things are, it turns out, still sacred.”



And there you have it. The politicized Jersey Girls represent something "sacred.” They must not be criticized -- to do so is to challenge the Liberal Doctrine of Infallibility. They are the sacred cows who immunize the indefensible liberal insanities and slanders of the Democratic Left from scrutiny, solely by virtue of their massively exploited widowhood.



Just as Coulter said.

[KenNFD1219]

A book in the same vein as Coulter's is "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy" by Thomas Sowell. Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046508995X/sr=8-5/qid=1150213392/ref=pd_bbs_5/002-6030290-2738450?%5Fencoding=UTF8)
This book opened my eyes to a lot of the lies and foolishness of the liberals in this country. After reading that book, I believe that the radical liberals (Moore, Kerry, Kenedy, et. al.) believe they are intellectually in the top 1% of all people.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Rough Rider, that's a great article. What is the source?

[voyager9]

Rough Rider, that's a great article. What is the source?

I saw it on NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/12/231923.shtml)

In don't agree with much(most) of what Coulter says, but in this case it seems that the "Jersey Girls" are using their grief and a national tragedy to forward a political agenda and Coulter called 'em on it.

Critisicm is commonplace in politics and grief does not make anyone immune to it.

[kfactor]

Wow, I've never heard so much cr*p in my life. People all the time take up various "agendas" after they have personally impacted - MADD immediately comes to mind. If we are talking about people who exploited 9/11, what about Vincent Dunn? He sold the Skyscraper Safety Campaign folks a line of junk regarding high rise safety which has essentially all been refuted by the various studies (NIST, etc.). Dunn didn't blame the terrorists, he blamed the architects and engineers who built the towers for design and build short-cuts.
I've been an independent for years (I had enough of both parties) so don't respond with any of your liberal bashing, but it shows how far in the crapper this adminstration and Republican controlled Congress are when the right is relying on Coulter and a Gay Marriage Amendent to bail them out.

[NYSmokey]

Wow, I've never heard so much cr*p in my life. People all the time take up various "agendas" after they have personally impacted - MADD immediately comes to mind. If we are talking about people who exploited 9/11, what about Vincent Dunn? He sold the Skyscraper Safety Campaign folks a line of junk regarding high rise safety which has essentially all been refuted by the various studies (NIST, etc.). Dunn didn't blame the terrorists, he blamed the architects and engineers who built the towers for design and build short-cuts.
I've been an independent for years (I had enough of both parties) so don't respond with any of your liberal bashing, but it shows how far in the crapper this adminstration and Republican controlled Congress are when the right is relying on Coulter and a Gay Marriage Amendent to bail them out.

Would you care to elaborate on your comments about Retired FDNY Deputy Chief Dunn? What line of junk did he sell the Skyscraper Safety Campaign folks? Even before 9/11 he was speaking out against the building industry and how they don't care about firefighters (i.e. lightweight truss systems).

For those of you not familiar with Vincent Dunn, here is some of his work:

http://www.vincentdunn.com/Changes-9-11-04.pdf

http://www.vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

or you can read more at www.vincentdunn.com

[kfactor]

I could type for a day and not cover all of the problems with Dunn's arguments and you would have to read both his arguments and then the various reports from NIST etc. , but probably the biggest deception he pulled on the Skyscraper group is the safety of modern high-rises> they are extremely safe from the hazards of fire and not the "house of cards" that we have heard from the Skyscraper group. As an example of a more specific issues, he is out of his league when talking about structural engineering issues - he talks about the external columns of the towers as tube steel - they were far from that - they were box section columns. He over simplifies a truss connection - considers them a theoretical pin connection when is reality they can carry a moment in many cases. He also is not even close when it comes to the issue of safety factors and load combinations in structural design as well. He also misrepresents the difference between performance and specification codes/standards. And I could go on.

And on the issue ot speaking out against the building industry - so what, that's not what initiates real change. The last I checked a couple years ago, Dunn had never made a formal proposal to any of the U.S. model code organizations to reverse, etc. any of the practices he considers so dangerous and wrong. He has no problem flying all over the country giving seminars to FF's about his issues with building construction, but where are the public proposals, where is the action at the code level?? My assumption is the FF audience is an easy one - just his presence overwhelms many a FF- instant and almost absolute credibility. But in the code arena is another story - particularly on the structural engineering side, that is a complex and well-developed disciplince. And if you are going to make case for a change, you're also going to have to talk about real risk and real data, not "house of cards" scare tactics.

I notice that you didn't address the issue of Dunn not blaming the terrorists, but rather the engineers and architects that designed the towers. Looks to me like he exploited what essentially was a missile attack on the towers to peddle his "the building industry is bad" message. In one of his articles on why the towers collapsed, he mentions "terror attack" once and never mentions terrorists. How can you talk about the collapse of the towers on 9/11 and not even once place any blame on the terrorists that planned and carried out the attack?? Sounds like a "blame the U.S." attack that the right wing of this country claims liberals do all the time - sounds to me like Chief Dunn is using a pretty liberal approach by conservative's standards.

That is also one of the main focus of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign:
Here is a quote from Monica Gabrielle:
"Until we do that, it is not an investigation, has not been an investigation and we will never know the truth as to why those buildings collapsed and killed nearly 3,000 innocent people.

We owe it to them to find the truth."

The truth is that terrorists killed those people Ms. Gabrielle.

The mud is being thrown pretty thick on this thread. If you're not going to call a spade a spade no matter who the individual is involved, then that's no different than Michael Moore tactics or anyone similar.

[RoughRider]

Wow, I've never heard so much cr*p in my life. People all the time take up various "agendas" after they have personally impacted - MADD immediately comes to mind. If we are talking about people who exploited 9/11, what about Vincent Dunn? He sold the Skyscraper Safety Campaign folks a line of junk regarding high rise safety which has essentially all been refuted by the various studies (NIST, etc.). Dunn didn't blame the terrorists, he blamed the architects and engineers who built the towers for design and build short-cuts.
I've been an independent for years (I had enough of both parties) so don't respond with any of your liberal bashing, but it shows how far in the crapper this adminstration and Republican controlled Congress are when the right is relying on Coulter and a Gay Marriage Amendent to bail them out.

I believe you miss the point if you believe Coulters argument is about a specific agenda. I believe her contention is; if you have an agenda and choose to influence policy change then it should be fair to be criticized from those who oppose your position. I agree with her in this instance but my terminology and approach would be different.

[E40FDNYL35]

...... If we are talking about people who exploited 9/11, what about Vincent Dunn? He sold the Skyscraper Safety Campaign folks a line of junk regarding high rise safety which has essentially all been refuted by the various studies (NIST, etc.). Dunn didn't blame the terrorists, he blamed the architects and engineers who built the towers for design and build short-cuts. .....

Can you back your statement with proof that your right and he's wrong?
kfactor another quick question...Have you ever fought a high- rise fire?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Wow, I've never heard so much cr*p in my life. People all the time take up various "agendas" after they have personally impacted - MADD immediately comes to mind. If we are talking about people who exploited 9/11, what about Vincent Dunn? He sold the Skyscraper Safety Campaign folks a line of junk regarding high rise safety which has essentially all been refuted by the various studies (NIST, etc.). Dunn didn't blame the terrorists, he blamed the architects and engineers who built the towers for design and build short-cuts.
I've been an independent for years (I had enough of both parties) so don't respond with any of your liberal bashing, but it shows how far in the crapper this adminstration and Republican controlled Congress are when the right is relying on Coulter and a Gay Marriage Amendent to bail them out.

I fail to see where the Rep. party is "relying on" Ann Coulter for anything.

The way I see it, the Rep. party is relying on Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and the Kennedy clan to do all their work for them.

[ChiefReason]

Why is it that we always find ourselves locked in a battle over opinions simply because someone comes along and states an interesting perspective on an issue and we feel compelled to either agree or disagree with it, which in turn sparks the great debates.
Why can't we simply consume someone's perspective, find it interesting, chalk it up to one of Life's little diversions and move on to the next one?
I have read books on a range of subjects, not to arm myself with knowledge so I could beat back any challenge to the subject matter, but because I wanted to peak my curiousity and hopefully, gain some knowledge.
I admire Ann Coulter for stating what others may have been thinking and saying privately. She didn't attack the widows of the fallen firefighters or cops. She attacked wives of stockbrokers who bitched that a million point six wasn't enough MONEY. And to make the point that these four widows weren't blaming the terrorists for 9/11; they were blaming Bush. To here them talk, you'd think Bush was at the terrorist training camp teaching them how to make bombs. It's all hogwash.
And don't get me started on Cindy Sheehan. She is still desperately trying to be newsworthy. Still trying to get that made-for-TV movie deal based on her pathetic lies. I mean life!
CR

[scfire86]

I saw it on NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/12/231923.shtml)

If NewsMax is allowed to be a credible source I get to use Daily Kos for contrary viewpoints.

NewsMax's bias is well known. They are the ones who spread the rumors of Hillary shunning Gold Star Moms when nothing could have been further from the truth.

[scfire86]

I fail to see where the Rep. party is "relying on" Ann Coulter for anything.

The way I see it, the Rep. party is relying on Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid and the Kennedy clan to do all their work for them.

Must be why Bush has such a high approval rating.

[NYSmokey]

Did a google search on "k factor." It is an engineering term. The plot thickens.

[Bones42]

She didn't attack the widows of the fallen firefighters or cops. She attacked wives of stockbrokers Oh, so it's Ok as long she is not attacking FF's/cops wives?

[scfire86]

This type of childish attack is comprised of "guilt by association" and "ad hominem" elements, neither of which carry any weight in RATIONAL discourse. You can tell when someone has lost an argument when they resort to such nonsense as this. If there were logical justifications for the stances of those who oppose Cindy Sheehan or these specific 9/11 widows, there would be no need for them to resort to attacking her character or pointing out who she may have found common cause with in support of her position.
These DO NOT address the core issues of the debate, unnecessary military action, the wasting of human lives, the destruction of the U.S.'s international reputation, and the burdening of Americans with the greatest debt of any country IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

[firemedic53]

Remember those movies about the last days of Hitler? Remember Goebbels wife? That's Ann Coulter - tucking in the kids, singing lullabyes and handing out the cyanide pills.....a true believer. She also gives a spirited defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy, one of her heroes apparently and probable fantasy bunker-mate. I don't think she should be banned; it's far more entertaining to watch all this play out. I'll give the skinny little monster this though - she sure knows how to sell books.........

[RoughRider]

Remember those movies about the last days of Hitler? Remember Goebbels wife? That's Ann Coulter - tucking in the kids, singing lullabyes and handing out the cyanide pills.....a true believer. She also gives a spirited defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy, one of her heroes apparently and probable fantasy bunker-mate. I don't think she should be banned; it's far more entertaining to watch all this play out. I'll give the skinny little monster this though - she sure knows how to sell books.........

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

This is very funny! :rolleyes:

[RoughRider]

This book is not about four women from NJ.


HEY YOU, BROWSING 'GODLESS' — BUY THE BOOK OR GET OUT!
June 7, 2006


The long-anticipated book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" was finally released this week. If The New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

"Godless" begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted — with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner — even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift — especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

"Godless" examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)
The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals — who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? — is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with "Slander" or "Treason," and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion — otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where — thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU — the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

[jasper45]

I think this is hilarious. Not the debate with regard to the “widows”, but just the sheer role reversal. Go back and re-read some of the threads about ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’, and then think about the arguments made here and now. Any conservative opposition was met with the old “freedom of speech” argument then, and rightly so. She has the absolute right to say whatever she wants to, and if you don’t like it, don’t buy. This is no different than the Dixie chicks.

You can tell when someone has lost an argument when they resort to such nonsense as this.

You want to know something, I agree with this statement. It goes right along with this quote; don’t you think?

Coulter is a worthless tramp...someone should kick her right in the balls.

Quotes, such as this one tell volumes about an opinion.

[ChiefReason]

Oh, so it's Ok as long she is not attacking FF's/cops wives?
Yes. :cool:

[doughesson]

I really don't understand what the furor is about.Ann Coulter expressed her opinion about four people who have taken their victim status and used it to gain credibility for political uses.That makes them fair game,no matter how their spouses died.
It reminds me of a girl from down the block that would throw ice balls at me and then run shrieking to her house saying I couldn't retaliate because she was a delicate girl.
Those that said this are right,if you don't like what she says then don't read her columns and don't buy her books.If she's really all that wrong,she'll fade from the scene soon enough.

[ThNozzleman]

Ann Coulter is a Republican hero. I think that says it all.

[DennisTheMenace]

Ann Coulter is a Republican hero. I think that says it all.No she is not, she might be the hero of a certain small subset with in the party, but by no means does she reflect the opinions of the majorty of the party. She wrote the stuff, and talked about the stuff on the tv circuit/book tour to preach to the choir, if you agree with what she was saying on TV you have already drank the kool-aid, and that is fine, but don't try to make others do the same. And don't let her views paint other conservatives or Republicans, her view are her own.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Ann Coulter is a Republican hero. I think that says it all.
Michael Moore is a Democratic hero. I think that says at all.

[ThNozzleman]

No she is not, she might be the hero of a certain small subset with in the party, but by no means does she reflect the opinions of the majorty of the party.
Small subset's ***...I think you need to take another look at the GOP. She is one of their top ten poster children, which is why she is on Fox "News" constantly. But, I don't blame you; I'd distance myself from this idiot, too. She's a disgrace to humanity.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Small subset's ***...I think you need to take another look at the GOP. She is one of their top ten poster children, which is why she is on Fox "News" constantly. But, I don't blame you; I'd distance myself from this idiot, too. She's a disgrace to humanity.
You guys should distance yourself from Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and the Dixie Chicks for the same reason.

[DonSmithnotTMD]

She also gives a spirited defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy

About 16 years of evidence from Soviet archives indicates he was on the right track in a lot of ways.

[BFDNJFF]

You guys should distance yourself from Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and the Dixie Chicks for the same reason.

You forgot Al Franken , Alec Baldwin and Janeane Garofalo.

[ThNozzleman]

You forgot Al Franken , Alec Baldwin and Janeane Garofalo.
Really? I must have missed them trashing people who lost loved ones in the attacks on the World Trade Center. Coulter is a tasteless, worthless bitch, who not only uses her twisted, nasty attitude to make bucks, she BELIEVES every delusional bit of crap she spews. Here is a statement made by these "broads" and "witches" in reaction to Coulter's nonsense...

Statement by five 9/11 Widows:

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.


1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

(signed)
September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Sounds reasonable, to me...unlike the insulting crap Coulter spews forth with reckless abandon. No respectable journalist would ever give her an ounce of credibility. Yet, the rebublican/conservative side keeps propping her up. She's a disgusting worm who is obviously insane.

[BFDNJFF]

Involve yourself in politics and go on an attack and expect not to get a rebuttle just because your husbands were killed on 911. You are sounding just like the liberal left Ann was talking about in her book that uses widows as human shields to spew off rhetoric. Seems to me like they are using there husbands deaths an I am saddened for there loss but feal no pitty for them when they are now using there husbands as a platform to be heard.



Yeah that letter I am sure was written word for word by them and not put together by some liberal lawyer.

[ThNozzleman]

Involve yourself in politics and go on an attack and expect not to get a rebuttle just because your husbands were killed on 911.
Bull****. Only Coulter is stating that these women don't expect a response, not them. Only Coulter is conjuring up some crazy idea that the "left" only puts forth speakers who have emotional ties to the issues they care about in order to prevent other people from challenging them on the issue. These women have been fighting for their beliefs from day one, and they never expected not to be challenged. Coulter has received a dressing-down because of her low-life tactics, and no other reason.
You are sounding just like the liberal left Ann was talking about in her book that uses widows as human shields to spew off rhetoric.
Just who IS this "liberal left" you speak of? You guys are so paranoid it's pathetic. The people who oppose the issues you support are Americans just like you, regardless of what idiots like Coulter think...get over it.
Seems to me like they are using there husbands deaths an I am saddened for there loss but feal no pitty for them when they are now using there husbands as a platform to be heard.
And I'm sure they don't give one damn about your frickin' pity, either. They are not "using" their husbands deaths for anything other than an attempt to prevent it from happening again. They of all people have the right to do what they are doing.
Yeah that letter I am sure was written word for word by them and not put together by some liberal lawyer.
If you're so impressed by the simple, straight-forward wording of their statement that you think only a lawyer could have written it, then I really don't know what to say further...maybe you should read more.

[Bones42]

So, after a few pages, I guess I found out my answer. Some people do care what she says. :rolleyes:

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Silly me. You're right nozzlecommie, they never called the 9/11 widows bad names. Of course, that's like me saying I never stood up and yelled "Yankees Suck!".

They have done equally hideous things. They have insulted our Commander-in-Chief and derided our troops. Speaking ill of our troops is the worst-they are not in the politicial arena.

It is notable that even in the Jersey Girls response to Ann Coulter, they take shots at the United States. I'm sorry their husbands were killed, but screw them.

[scfire86]

You guys should distance yourself from Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and the Dixie Chicks for the same reason.
As should you guys from David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and Gary Bauer.

[scfire86]

You forgot Al Franken , Alec Baldwin and Janeane Garofalo.
And I forgot to add, Rush Limbaugh (convicted felon), Bill O'Reilly (sexual predator) and Sean Hannity (blowhard chickenhawk).

[scfire86]

Yeah that letter I am sure was written word for word by them and not put together by some liberal lawyer.
Then you must not have gotten much past HS freshman composition. There is nothing in the letter than any decent HS english student could have written.

[VinnieB]

I could type for a day and not cover all of the problems with Dunn's arguments .........

........The mud is being thrown pretty thick on this thread. If you're not going to call a spade a spade no matter who the individual is involved, then that's no different than Michael Moore tactics or anyone similar.


Please do.....I am really interested in what you have to write. But know this, prior to 9/11, Chief Dunn and Chief Norman both, in seminars and writing, had fears and issues with building like the WTC. The members of the FDNY are all to familiar with building built with Federal Monies.....all those buildings have atleast 1 notorious fire connected to them...ie Richmond Plaze, Confucious Plaza, and Tracy Towers, and....including the WTC in the early 80s. Chief Dunn was reiterating these facts and the additional facts that this Fire killed a few thousand people. Is it not a fact that we can not control a fire more than 2500 sq feet in a high rise? What does your research and experiance conclude?

Granted this was not a fire that started in a waste paper basket that communicated to a partition, it was started by a plane, laydened with fuel, that slammed into it at a high rate of speed. As did a B-25 in 1945 into the Empire State building, yes it was smaller and slower, but still carrying plenty of fuel. That fire, due to the design of the building, was contained to 2 floors and extingushed in 40 minutes......and they nothing close to the tech we have available today with regards to tools and equipment.

[BFDNJFF]

Then you must not have gotten much past HS freshman composition. There is nothing in the letter than any decent HS english student could have written.


So is this going to turn into a me you bash ? Stop drinking that Kool-Aid and stay on the subject. You and me both know those woman did not write that letter and had someone write it and affix there names to it. :rolleyes: They are to in the public eye now to go and take a chance to write something that may be screwed up that may tarnish there apearance in the public eye. I guess you don't know to many Jersey girls do you ?

[E229Lt]

Eileen Cirri with her daughter, Francesca, at their Nutley, N.J., home.

I am not a "harpy." I am not a "witch." I have never taken a moment's pleasure from my husband's death on Sept. 11, 2001.
What I am is a "9/11 widow." I am a mother of three, and I dread today - Father's Day - more than any other.

For four straight years, Father's Day has been a raw reminder of what I - and thousands of women like me - lost on that cloudless Tuesday morning almost five years ago.

Today, I will watch my three beautiful daughters and be amazed at their resiliency - and how their lives honor their father every single day. Of course, I will also think about what we might have been doing today as a family - what we should be doing today. A barbecue, probably, or maybe a day at the beach with Dad. Today, the hole in my heart will grow a bit bigger.

So I will seek comfort in being with other 9/11 families, people who know what it's like to be forced to mourn so very publicly. Whether I want to or not, I still live in a 9/11 fishbowl. Complete strangers feel free to judge how I choose to grieve, how I should channel my energy. Through activism over safety and security? Into concerns about the Ground Zero memorials? Or simply by raising my children quietly in the shadows of those fallen towers?

Everyone seems to have an opinion. And to have no compunction in expressing it. I am all for free speech. But still, it feels different when it's you - and your deepest pain - they're talking about.

Yes, I still grieve. The loss of my husband is ever present; the scar will never completely heal. Yet, I, like many of my friends, am in a very different place emotionally than I was four years ago. I'm stronger. I'm healing. But for every two steps forward I take, something creeps from those shadows to set me back - sometimes just half a step.

Each day's newspaper brings a fresh reminder of that day: a story about the fight over federal Homeland Security funding, something about the endless Ground Zero controversies, and I can't see a movie without fear of being confronted with a trailer for a 9/11 movie. On a bad day, even hearing the radio announcer say that the time is 9:11 a.m. can jolt me.

This is my fourth Father's Day of being angry because thousands of kids have no father, thousands of women have no husband. But this year I'm also angry about being judged. Angry that people are telling me how, and how not, to grieve. I want people - especially those who think it's okay to reduce our situation to an unflattering one-word stereotype - to know that our families still struggle to get by. That some days are harder than others. That there is no single, easy or "right" way to get through what we must endure.

So before you pass judgment, again, I ask: Does anyone want to trade places with me today?

Eileen Cirri is a member of Tuesday's Children, a 9/11 family support organization. Her husband, Lt. Robert Cirri of the Port Authority Police Department, was killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

[BFDNJFF]

Not for nothing the post you just made has nothing to do with anything Ann Coulter stated for she is not one of the 4 discussed. So I see no reason it was even braught into the discussion other than to stir the pot up some more. :rolleyes:

[E229Lt]

Not for nothing the post you just made has nothing to do with anything Ann Coulter stated

Since the author quotes Coulter I would think it is fair that it be "braught" into the discussion. But maybe you're "RIGHT"

[NYSmokey]

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00

On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00

On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98

[scfire86]

So is this going to turn into a me you bash ? Stop drinking that Kool-Aid and stay on the subject. You and me both know those woman did not write that letter and had someone write it and affix there names to it. :rolleyes: They are to in the public eye now to go and take a chance to write something that may be screwed up that may tarnish there apearance in the public eye.
Then prove it. All you have is your own assumptions which are pretty worthless.

I guess you don't know to many Jersey girls do you ?
I only know one. She is a graduate of Princeton.

[BFDNJFF]

Just as you do and Ann we all have a right to our own opinions if you don't like mine then so be it. I could care less for yours also. I still don’t hate you but just disagree. That’s the given right we have which also means your not immune to criticisms just for your stature whether a 9-11 victims widow or the president of the USA. I may be right of center on my views but I have a right to them and as do you. I never stated the fact that Ann wasn’t a slight nut but so are these four woman in my opinion but anyone in the political limelight has got to be nuts.

Cheers.

This subject has been beaten to death now.

[scfire86]

Fair enough. I just resented the remark about Joisey girls not being able to write their remarks.

I am married to someone who makes a lot more money than I and is better educated (formally). A lot of my co-workers are married to professional women as well. Doctors, lawyers, corporate execs, engineers (design engineers not apparatus drivers), teachers, firefighters and police officers. You name it.

And I have no doubt there are folks in the FDNY with spouses of a similar nature.

[BFDNJFF]

I guess being from Jersey most my life I look at most of them differently, and it was sarcasm. :)

[CaptainGonzo]

Who gives a fat rat's rump if the jersey girls had a someone write the letter for them?

Does the President write his own speeches? No.
Do the members of the House and Senate write their own speeches? No.
Do Governors write their own speeches? No.

Should some of the people who post here have someone write their posts for them? Hell Yeah!

[scfire86]

Should some of the people who post here have someone write their posts for them? Hell Yeah!
Geez Gonz. Are you saying I should get the ball and chain to start proofing my posts?

[ChiefReason]

Many of us have lost loved ones. Our grief and despair at the time of the loss cannot be measured by the circumstances of the death.
While many choose to grieve in private or with family by our side, others choose to “share” their experiences publicly, with the idea that others may learn or feel solace from knowing that they are not alone with their feelings and in some cases, unanswered questions.
Some choose to accept the circumstances of their loss. They will not blame God, doctors, police, the fire chief, the Army general or the President of the United States. They will ask questions that will hopefully be answered so that some sense may come out of what might have been an untimely death.
I missed my father today-Father’s Day-just like I have for the past 14 years since his death. A plane piloted by terrorists did not kill him. I did not watch him “burn to death”. No; I had to watch him die over a two month period until he slipped into a coma and died from the poisons and toxins that collected in his body when his only kidney shut down. And I didn’t blame anyone for it. There was no reason to place blame. If you are angry and looking to place blame, then you are NOT giving your loved one and their loss the final respect that they deserve.
I wasn’t looking at how much money I would get. I didn’t get any. In fact, I had to help pay for the funeral and head stone. But this isn’t about me.
Had I chosen to “go public”, I guess it would have been to go up against the tobacco lobby, because in the end, it was cigarettes that killed my dad. Maybe I should have blamed President Clinton for not coming down hard enough on the tobacco companies. Maybe I should have been protesting in front of Phillip Morris and the others. But I didn’t. But if I had, then I was opening myself up to the ones who disagree with me and even dislike me, for they have opposing views.
And had I chosen to go public and allied myself with anti-smoking lobbyists, I would be fair game for anyone who disagreed. I wouldn’t be crying foul and sitting there in my self-pity, indignant that not everyone was sympathetic.
When you choose to walk through that door that leads to the public limelight, you had better be prepared for the ones who don’t carry your views. If you are going to allow others to use your name for their cause, then you had better understand that others might not agree with “their” cause. Therefore; you also become a “target”.
If you don’t like it; then go back to obscurity.
NOTHING is sacred in this country anymore. Too many have screamed their First Amendments rights to the point that there is no more decency. Yeah; you can disagree with the war, but do you REALLY have to protest at the funeral of a fallen soldier? They have that right, but that doesn’t mean that it’s decent, moral or ethical.
Widows and widowers of 9/11 victims have a right to their opinions just like the rest of us. And that also means that there will be others who don’t hold those same opinions. Good or bad.
You can write a letter to the editor or you can let it go. That is up to every one of us.
You can disagree with some or all of what I have said here. It’s my opinions and you are certainly entitled to your’s.
And I won’t fault you for that.
CR

[FlaFireGator]

No 1 Bestseller ! Here is some more!!!!

Party of Rapist Proud to be Godless
June 14, 2006


I thought I'd put off that column on ethanol subsidies I'd been planning to write this week and instead address the topic that has so riveted the nation — the hot new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

First of all, I'm getting a little fed up with people trying to make money off my book. Worthless little cable TV shows with teeny-tiny audiences, ridiculous legislators and tabloid newspapers are all trying to make a name for themselves off the profundity of "Godless."

Second, let's pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist.

My book makes a stark assertion: Liberalism is a godless religion. Hello! Anyone there? I've leapt beyond calling you traitors and am now calling you GODLESS. Apparently, everybody's cool with that. The fact that liberals are godless is not even a controversial point anymore.

In addition to the consensus position that liberals are godless, no one has made a peep about that swipe I took at Hillary, proposing that she have a chat with her husband before accusing others of being "mean" to women in light of Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Bill Clinton raped her. Hillary beat a hasty retreat on her chubby little legs and is now hiding behind Rahm "Don't Touch My Tutu" Emanuel.

Yes, the Democrats' pit bull, Rahm Emanuel, is a former ballerina. And they wonder why the concerted effort of the MSM (as we call the mainstream media) and the Democratic Party can't lay a finger on me. A ballerina. Hey, if the padded, silky shoe fits ...

The establishment's current obsession with me is the MSM's last stand. They've deployed the whole lineup of yesterday's power brokers against me, and all they've accomplished is to make my book the No. 1 book in the country. In other words, their efforts to defeat me have just created more people like me. Now who's stuck in an unwinnable quagmire, losers?

Take note, conservatives: No American need ever fear the liberal establishment again. It's all over but the sobbing.

Back when there were only three TV stations and no Internet, talk radio or Fox News, it used to be so easy for the MSM to destroy reputations — Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Robert Bork, Dan Quayle, Oliver North, Clarence Thomas, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Paula Jones and Linda Tripp, to name a few of the MSM's prey.

Liberals aren't having so much fun now that the rabbit has the gun.

Last Wednesday, Brian Williams began the "NBC Nightly News" — currently watched exclusively by old ladies in nursing homes — with a report on "civility" in America, which has apparently been horribly despoiled by my book. Williams complained that the "explosion in our media, our deafening national noise level and our changing mores have made this a much different era in America than the one our parents grew up in."

Oh, the civility of having only three TV stations back in our parents' day! It was even more civil in the Soviet Union where there was only one TV station.

In precisely five minutes on the Media Research Center's Web site, I turned up some random examples of the sort of civility we got from the MSM before the alternative media allowed conservatives to be heard, too. These are all-new quotes I've never even seen before. There are about a hundred more in my book "Slander."

— On Ronald Reagan: "I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man (Ronald Reagan) and followed him the way we did."— CBS News White House reporter Lesley Stahl on NBC's "Later With Bob Costas," Jan. 11, 1989

— On Pat Buchanan: "On the road I travel to the mall in Wheaton, Md., two white men severely beat two black women Tuesday. One was doused with lighter fluid, and her attacker tried to set her afire. Both men cursed the women for being black. I couldn't help but shudder: That could have been me. This heinous act happened only hours after Pat Buchanan voters gave him 30 percent of the vote in the Maryland GOP presidential primary." — USA Today columnist and former "Inquiry" page editor Barbara Reynolds, March 6, 1992

— On Lee Atwater: "(Lee Atwater) was a scoundrel, one of the darkest figures to dominate our recent politics, a man with a comprehensively cynical view of his fellow creatures. ... He made it in the most improbable way, learning to dress at Brooks Brothers and keep his funky white trash wickedness too. ... In running campaigns that played on racial divisions, he was something worse than a bigot; he was a man who pretended to be a bigot in hope that it would sell." — Washington Post op-ed by reporter Marjorie Williams, March 30, 1991

— On Newt Gingrich: "So how do you put an end to what Jim Wright called 'mindless cannibalism'? Do you put a muzzle on Newt Gingrich?" — "CBS This Morning" co-host Kathleen Sullivan, June 1, 1989

Ah, the civility of the old media! Sadly for the MSM, the Silent Majority is silent no more.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
!

[NYSmokey]

For me to POOP ON!!!!! :D

[scfire86]

Ann starts off calling Clinton a rapist. Apparently she never read Ken Starr's report which detailed the unreliability of both Broderick and Willey. Then she makes a catty remark about Hillary's ankles as if that was a factor of one's ability to govern.

Ann is becoming equivalent of a bad horror movie. After you stopped being shocked and start laughing in ridicule.

That rabbit she speaks of needs better aim.

[ChiefReason]

When you get past your indignation, maybe you will discover that what Ann Coulter is doing isn't any worse than what the Jersey girls are doing.
It's all about face time, celebrity, notoriety and MONEY.
CR

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00

On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00

On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98
This will surprise some of you, but I have read most of her books. The quotes above are cute, but the majority of them are satirical or sarcastic comments that need the surrounding text to be put into context. Whoever put this list together was very, very creative.

[NYSmokey]

This will surprise some of you, but I have read most of her books. The quotes above are cute, but the majority of them are satirical or sarcastic comments that need the surrounding text to be put into context. Whoever put this list together was very, very creative.

It wasn't me! I don't have the time to do all of that research :D

[E229Lt]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
This will surprise some of you, but I have read most of her books.

Nope, doesn't suprise me, George.

[ThNozzleman]

When you get past your indignation, maybe you will discover that what Ann Coulter is doing isn't any worse than what the Jersey girls are doing.
The hell it's not. These ladies are working for a cause the believe in, regardless of how much it may involve politics. Coulter is an ugly, mean, heartless bitch who's in it for the money. The fact that she is completely insane and actually believes her own diabolical rantings is something else entirely. I just love how the right-wingers try to distance themselves from her whenever she spouts her crap, while secretly agreeing with everything she says or writes. Usually, they have some kind of twisted sexual attraction to this horrid wretch of a woman and get their jollies while they imagine themselves "taming the shrew." Come on, now! I know the right-wingers are all about propping up some eye candy, but Coulter? Bleeeech!

[ChiefReason]

The hell it's not. These ladies are working for a cause the believe in, regardless of how much it may involve politics. Coulter is an ugly, mean, heartless bitch who's in it for the money. The fact that she is completely insane and actually believes her own diabolical rantings is something else entirely. I just love how the right-wingers try to distance themselves from her whenever she spouts her crap, while secretly agreeing with everything she says or writes. Usually, they have some kind of twisted sexual attraction to this horrid wretch of a woman and get their jollies while they imagine themselves "taming the shrew." Come on, now! I know the right-wingers are all about propping up some eye candy, but Coulter? Bleeeech!
I guess you just blew right past the my longer post just ahead of the one that you lifted the quote from.
And I say again, that Ann Coulter is no different than the Jersey girls. You talk of Ann Coulter as if she has no causes. You can't seem to get past the surface of her beauty-inner and outer.
Do you honestly believe that Coulter didn't know that she was going to catch all kinds of hell for her 9/11 comments?
The fact that she can articulate her positions on a range of political sub-sets makes her someone that people listen to and more recently READ.
Yeah; she's #1 on the New York Times' Best Seller List because she's Bleeeech!
I'll take that over the ****y-moany coming from the other side.
And I'll lay odds that she digs firefighters. :D
CR

[jasper45]

And I'll lay odds that she digs firefighters.
CR


I’ll give you that one, Chief. Think back to an appearance by her on ‘Hannity & Colmes’, just post Katrina. The topic of course, was the “bumbling and stumbling” of FEMA. More specifically, they were talking about the sexual harassment training that IAFF members detailed to the area received. More than once, she asked what single, red-blooded woman would not want to be sexually harassed by a firefighter. So, I would say that she is a fan of firefighters, which is fine by me.


What I do love is how bent the left gets when a conservative speaks out on a controversial issue, yet when a lefty does the same, it is their right to free speech, and it is “common sense”, and so on. Somehow attempting to imply that a conservative is somehow inferior, thought wise, or is in some way ignorant. I will say this though, I am now going to go out and purchase Ann’s book. I wasn’t before, but because of this thread, I will. It has my curiosity up. I’m quite sure that the topic at hand is nothing but a few from the left jumping up and down, and making assumptions based on a few snippets, and quotes to suit their opinion.
Something too typical of all politics today.

[E229Lt]

More than once, she asked what single, red-blooded woman would not want to be sexually harassed by a firefighter.

Great, now I can add "Badge Bunny" to my list of descriptors.

[jasper45]

Great, now I can add "Badge Bunny" to my list of descriptors.



And the problem here is? I’ll take her being a fan, as opposed to the fat, out of shape whacker who seems to always make their way into the engine house. Attractive, in shape, rich and successful female? I'll tolerate that any day of the week.

People are getting too bent over this, just as they are with the Dixie Chicks, just as they did with Michael Moore.
If some lefties are going to assume that she speaks for conservatives, so be it. I guess a conservative can assume the same with Michael Moore. They are both in the same class, as she is a Libertarian, I would guess most conservatives are too “liberal” for her taste.
She is not a politician, she is not a policy maker, and she is in no more of a position of authority than any other Hollywood type. She is nothing but an author, and an entertainer. If you don’t like what she has to say, don’t give her more attention than she is already being given.

[scfire86]

This will surprise some of you, but I have read most of her books.

To quote a near great movie line, "And Liberace was gay??? I didn't see that one coming."


I’ll take her being a fan, as opposed to the fat, out of shape whacker who seems to always make their way into the engine house.

I guess there are different types of women that drop by our firehouses in the OC. Not quite what you see on TV regarding housewives. But the firefighters out here seem to do quite well with a number of good looking ladies.

[jasper45]

I guess there are different types of women that drop by our firehouses in the OC. Not quite what you see on TV regarding housewives. But the firefighters out here seem to do quite well with a number of good looking ladies.



I have been to So Cal a couple of times, along with the “Surf City”, and if this weren’t the case, I would have called you a liar, ;) or blind. :D
There is no comparison of the talent in your neighborhood with anywhere else, although Las Vegas might make a strong showing.

[scfire86]

I'm sure she is just trying to get a few laughs.

According to her Rep. John Murtha is the reason soldiers invented fragging. (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_conten t_id=1002689569)

She sure has a great sense of humor.

[DennisTheMenace]

http://www.bartcop.com/coulter-virgins.jpg

[RoughRider]

I have been to So Cal a couple of times, along with the “Surf City”, and if this weren’t the case, I would have called you a liar, ;) or blind. :D
There is no comparison of the talent in your neighborhood with anywhere else, although Las Vegas might make a strong showing.


Props given to SoCal but have you walked around midtown Manhattan on a hot summer day?

[jasper45]

Props given to SoCal but have you walked around midtown Manhattan on a hot summer day?

I won't argue too much, if at all. Midtown is awesome, but it is still hard to ignore all of them walking in bikinis.

[pvfire424]

. I will say this though, I am now going to go out and purchase Ann’s book. I wasn’t before, but because of this thread, I will...


So, does the WT get a commision off the deal ? :D

[ThNozzleman]

And I say again, that Ann Coulter is no different than the Jersey girls.
Right. Just keep telling yourself that.
You talk of Ann Coulter as if she has no causes.
Oh, we all know what her chief cause is...$$$$$$$.
Do you honestly believe that Coulter didn't know that she was going to catch all kinds of hell for her 9/11 comments?
Well, duh! That's pretty much her money making scheme.
The fact that she can articulate her positions on a range of political sub-sets makes her someone that people listen to and more recently READ.
"Articulate" her positions? Heh, heh...pretty fancy word for what this bitch does.
You can't seem to get past the surface of her beauty-inner and outer.
Attractive, in shape, rich and successful female? I'll tolerate that any day of the week.
And I'll lay odds that she digs firefighters.
Just as I expected...nothing but wet dreams for this skank from the right. All too predictable.
What I do love is how bent the left gets when a conservative speaks out on a controversial issue, yet when a lefty does the same, it is their right to free speech, and it is “common sense”, and so on.
Again, show me where any of the liberals listed in this thread have ever uttered such mean-spirited bull**** about people who lost loved ones in the WTC attacks. You guys blast Franken, Garafolo, and Moore...but you've yet to post anything they've said that's anywhere NEAR the viscious blather that Mann Coulter spouts time and time again. The very fact that you guys even take up for this worthless, pathetic excuse for a civilized human is pitiful.

[ThNozzleman]

She sure has a great sense of humor.
Yeah...real frickin' funny. What a bitch. She's a great example of everything that's wrong with this nation.

[jasper45]

Again, show me where any of the liberals listed in this thread have ever uttered such mean-spirited bull**** about people who lost loved ones in the WTC attacks.

I never said that any of them did. Although, any number of them are quick to call our Marines and soldiers "cold-blooded killers", without a trial. Or perhaps we have all forgotten about Ward Churchill, he's a lefty who said the WTC victims got what they deserved.


You guys blast Franken, Garafolo, and Moore...but you've yet to post anything they've said that's anywhere NEAR the viscious blather that Mann Coulter spouts time and time again.

I never blasted Franken, or Garafalo, even though I believe them to be wrong. Moore is just a goof who I am not going to waste my time with. Ward Chuchill is another story entirely. His anti-American rhetoric is as disgusting as it gets. In case anyone forgets, he is a hero for many a lefty.

The very fact that you guys even take up for this worthless, pathetic excuse for a civilized human is pitiful.
I wasn't "taking" up for her, I was simply pointing out an interesting role reversal. I look to her for direction as much as I look to you, or anyone else.
What is interesting with this whole thread though, is how quick name calling gets called childish when it is done by some, yet when others do it, it's all OK.

[jasper45]

Just as I expected...nothing but wet dreams for this skank from the right. All too predictable.


Wet dreams? Hardly, but nice try. There is nothing wrong with thinking that she is attractive, or smart, or opinionated for that matter. I happen to also think the same about Jeanine Garafolo, even though I think her political views are wrong. You won't find me calling her a "skank", just because I disagree with her viewpoints.
This is what I have come to expect from the party of "tolerance and inclusion".

[scfire86]

.
This is what I have come to expect from the party of "tolerance and inclusion".

And I've lost count of the times I've been called a communist or a traitor by right wingers.

Please don't even begin to try and wrap yourself in platitudes of virtue.

[jasper45]

And I've lost count of the times I've been called a communist or a traitor by right wingers.

If they did call you that, they were wrong in doing so. I had thought I was clear on my position with regard to that. I am also quite confident I could match you incident for incident of the opposite.
The only differance is I am called a "nazi", or a "fascist".

Please don't even begin to try and wrap yourself in platitudes of virtue.

I wasn't "wrapping" myself in anything. I was merely pointing out some observations I made.
This is a pointless "discussion". You call conservatives wrong, hypocrital, or any other descriptor, I point out the same in lefties and I am accused of "wrapping" myself in virtue.
If you can't see I was making a generalization, just like what was made on me, I guess I really can't help you then.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Right. Just keep telling yourself that.

Oh, we all know what her chief cause is...$$$$$$$.

Well, duh! That's pretty much her money making scheme.

"Articulate" her positions? Heh, heh...pretty fancy word for what this bitch does.



Just as I expected...nothing but wet dreams for this skank from the right. All too predictable.

Again, show me where any of the liberals listed in this thread have ever uttered such mean-spirited bull**** about people who lost loved ones in the WTC attacks. You guys blast Franken, Garafolo, and Moore...but you've yet to post anything they've said that's anywhere NEAR the viscious blather that Mann Coulter spouts time and time again. The very fact that you guys even take up for this worthless, pathetic excuse for a civilized human is pitiful.
You know what? About the most mean-spirited liberal I have ever heard is YOU nozzlecommie. The amount of utter anger and hatred that spews forth from you is almost unimaginable.

However, most of the time, there is at least a cogent thought to what you are saying. If the best you can do is say that Ann Coulter is out to make money, you ain't even close to winning. I think she would tell you the same thing.

You think it's honorable to "take up" for Moore, Garofalo and Streisand? You really are delusional.

BTW< how's that evidence on the war for oil thing coming? I haven't recieved it yet.

[scfire86]

You know what? About the most mean-spirited liberal I have ever heard is YOU nozzlecommie. The amount of utter anger and hatred that spews forth from you is almost unimaginable.
Jaspar. Does this help?

BTW< how's that evidence on the war for oil thing coming? I haven't recieved it yet.
Here are a couple of quotes to help you out with that:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

[BFDNJFF]

Those quotes still don't say the war was for oil. They state they have assets to help rebuild there own country. Not one quote states we went to war for there oil and intend to take it.

[scfire86]

Those quotes still don't say the war was for oil. They state they have assets to help rebuild there own country. Not one quote states we went to war for there oil and intend to take it.
Yeah. Okay. I'm sure the idea of all that oil just lying there never entered into anyone's mind of being a potential revenue source for things other than rebuilding Iraq. And it is verrrry unlikely any of the companies engaged in the rebuilding effort wouldn't pad their expense accounts knowing black gold was paying the freight.

You can't be that naive.

[ChiefReason]

Hey, Nozz:
You want to talk about grieving widows and family members for their losses?
Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?
The Left gets all bent about "prisoners" and their treatment at Gitmo or at Abu Grabyourass, but not a word from the left on this recent tragic event?
It makes me want to puke. They need to get on the right side of a cause, because from where the Left is, it's a great camera angle but sucks for anything meaningful.
The Left fears Ann Coulter because PEOPLE LISTEN TO HER.
And she says what needs to be said. Like it or not.
CR

[RoughRider]

CR,

AMEN.

I wonder why I didnt see this on the cover of Newsweek and the NYT along with Gitmo coverage?


LEADERSHIP: Medal of Honor Awarded for Iraq Action



October 23, 2003: In today's world, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that one man can make a difference. Paul Ray Smith is on the way to becoming the first serviceman to receive the Medal of Honor since MSG Gary Gordon and SFC Randall Shughart fought their last battle in Mogadishu on October 3, 1993.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, SFC (Sergeant First Class) Smith was a platoon sergeant/acting platoon leader in the 1st Brigade's B Company, 11th Engineer Battalion attached to the 2-7 Task Force. Bravo Company was in contact with Saddam's forces nearly every day during the second phase of the campaign. After a pause below As Samawah and Karbala, the drive on Baghdad from the south carried the 2-7th into Saddam International Airport.

On the morning of April 4, the Task Force was inside of the airport and several enemy soldiers had been captured, so a containment pen had be to quickly built. There was a wall 10 ft tall paralleling the north side of the highway, on the battalion's flank just behind the front lines. Smith (whose callsign was 'Sapper 7') decided to punch a hole in it, so that the inside walls would form two sides of a triangular enclosure and the open third side could be closed off with rolls of concertina wire.

Smith used an armored combat earthmover to punch through the wall and, while wire was being laid across the corner, one of the squad's two M113s moved toward a gate on the far side of the courtyard. The driver pushed open the gate to open a field of fire, revealing between 50 and 100 enemy soldiers massed to attack. The only way out was the hole the engineers had put in the wall and the gate where the hardcore Iraqis were firing.

What happened next was equal to Audie Murphy's legendary World War II heroism. Iraqi soldiers perched in trees and a nearby tower let loose with a barrage of RPGs and there were snipers on the roof. A mortar round hit the engineers' M-113, seriously wounding three soldiers inside. Smith helped evacuate them to an aid station, which was threatened by the attack as well.

Smith promptly organized the engineers' defense, since the only thing that stood between the Iraqis and the Task Force's headquarters were about 15 to 20 engineers, mortarmen and medics. A second M113 was hit by an RPG, but was still operational. Dozens of Iraqi soldiers were charging from the gate or scaling a section of the wall, jumping into the courtyard.

Smith took over the second APC's .50-caliber machine gun and got the vehicle into a position where he could stop the Iraqis. First Sergeant Tim Campbell realized that they had to knock out the Iraqi position in the tower and after consulting with Smith, led two soldiers to take the tower. Armed only with a light machine-gun, a rifle and a pistol with one magazine, the trio advanced behind the smoke of tall grass that had caught fire from exploding ammunition.

Smith yelled for more ammunition three times during the fight, going through 400 rounds before he was hit in the head. Shortly before taking the tower and gunning down the Iraqis inside, Campbell noticed that the sound of Smith's .50-caliber had also stopped. Campbell figured Smith was just reloading again.

The medics worked on SFC Smith for 30 minutes, but he was dead.

According to the citation, his actions killed 20 to 50 Iraqis, allowing the American wounded to be evacuated, saving the aid station and headquarters (as well as possibly 100 American lives). Fellow soldiers credit Smith with thwarting the advance of well-trained, well-equipped soldiers from the Special Republican Guard, which was headed straight for the 2-7 Task Force's headquarters (Tactical Operations Center), less than a half-mile away. The battle captains, commanders and journalists huddled at the operations center were trying to protect themselves against tank fire and snipers in the nearby woods They had no idea about the possible onslaught of Republican Guard from the nearby complex.

Smith, a veteran of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was a 33 year old from Tampa, Florida. He left behind a wife, a son and a daughter.

[RoughRider]

Recent Coulter rebuttal


Ann Coulter: Newsweek Lied


The left-leaning Newsweek magazine lied about what she wrote in her book, an indignant Ann Coulter said during an appearance on Thursday night's Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News Channel.


"I'm sitting in a Fox studio in L.A.," Coulter said. "I don't know why there's a copy of Newsweek here rather than Human Events. Here is Newsweek describing Ann Coulter as saying '9/11 widows enjoyed their [husbands'] deaths.' That is simply a lie . . . That is a lie. If you can't deal with the facts and you refuse to say what the argument is, I think that's a total lack of confidence in your position and it certainly shows a complete lack of understanding [that] Americans can find out the truth these days - that it's not the mainstream media monopoly it was 10 years ago."

What Ann wrote about the so-called "Jersey Girls," and not all the other 9/11 widows in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," was "these self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them, The whole nation was wounded, all our lives were reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much."


It is this one single paragraph in 310 pages of carefully documented facts that devastate the sacred tenets of the church of liberalism that the liberals and their media allies have seized upon to characterize a very serious book about very serious matters.

What did Coulter really say about the other 9/11 widows?

Ann addressed the matter of the hundreds of other 9/11 widows - lines in her book her liberal critics carefully ignore.

She wrote: "A lot of widows support Bush - a lot support Pat Buchanan. But they were not trying to convert their personal tragedy into a weapon to dictate national policy or redesign lower Manhattan. None of the weeping widows issuing demands, I note, were firemen's wives," Coulter observed.

"And how about we hear from some wives of proud fighting Marines? While the professional 9/11 victims turned themselves into the arbiters of what anyone could say about 9/11, some poor woman in Astoria, Queens, was being told her husband died in a car accident. She won't be paid millions of dollars, feted in Vanity Fair, or granted federal commissions to investigate why her husband died."

[jasper45]

You want to talk about grieving widows and family members for their losses?
Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?



Chief, this is an excellent point you make here. There is a difference of opinion that is allowed in this country, it is guaranteed. Voicing this difference of opinion is patriotic, and what is needed to keep this country strong. What is not patriotic however is exactly what you described.
There is an extremely vocal group of lefties who are very quick to condemn, vilify, or otherwise call our Marines and soldiers cold-blooded killers. They are quick to condemn our military, without a trial, or with a minimum of actual proof. This has happened many times on this forum, as well. I’ve seen it here. Yet, when our soldiers are brutally tortured and murdered in cold blood, and their bodies booby-trapped, not a word is spoken in outrage. That is truly disgusting, and stomach turning all at the same time.
Our Marines and soldiers are NOT the bad guys, and to say that they are is un-American, and is un-patriotic. Those men and women are the true heroes, providing us with peace, and our ability to have a difference of opinion. They have suffered, and sacrificed everything from the creature comforts we take for granted to their lives. Everyone of us owes them a debt that can’t be repaid. To turn on them is the most vile of actions.
It is repulsive to me that the lefties are so quick to condemn Gitmo, yet don’t even speak one word of disgust about the torture and murder of these two GI’s. Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind.
Say what you will about Ann Coulter, she respects our military personnel, and at the least recognizes their sacrifice.

[RoughRider]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060621/i/r3439341170.jpg?x=216&y=345&sig=9eIv3hjH72IFYquQLszSmQ--


This message is civil? :rolleyes:

[DennisTheMenace]

Hey, Nozz:
You want to talk about grieving widows and family members for their losses?
Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?
The Left gets all bent about "prisoners" and their treatment at Gitmo or at Abu Grabyourass, but not a word from the left on this recent tragic event?
It makes me want to puke. They need to get on the right side of a cause, because from where the Left is, it's a great camera angle but sucks for anything meaningful.
The Left fears Ann Coulter because PEOPLE LISTEN TO HER.
And she says what needs to be said. Like it or not.
CR
we are better than the terrorist and insurgents. honor means something to us, it means nothing to them, so we SHOULD be ****ED AS HELL when anyone fighting on our behalf pulls crap like at Abu Grabe or the current aleged atrocities. During Desert Storm we would not even take pictures of the outside of the EPW camps in order to stay in compliance with the laws of war.

You really need to rethink your name, because Ann Coulter is not reasonable in the least, she just goes out and runs her mouth or key board to appeal to one section of our party to sell books. She is as bad as a 1980's tele-vangalest.

[Bones42]

not for nothing, but a picture of a lady with a sign in the backround really isn't much of a picture. IF she was holding it, acknowledging it, or something actually to do with the sign, that would be a different story.

And I'm not saying she was or wasn't, but in that picture, it shows nothing.

Ok, feel free to continue with these ramblings...

[RoughRider]

not for nothing, but a picture of a lady with a sign in the backround really isn't much of a picture. IF she was holding it, acknowledging it, or something actually to do with the sign, that would be a different story.

And I'm not saying she was or wasn't, but in that picture, it shows nothing.

Ok, feel free to continue with these ramblings...



Bones,

I agree with you to some degree. I also believe you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. I borrowed the pic from Reuters. It was one of many.

[BFDNJFF]

Bones,

I agree with you to some degree. I also believe you can tell alot about someone by the company they keep. I borrowed the pic from Reuters. It was one of many.


She went to rally with Hugo Chavez , Nuff said.

[ThNozzleman]

Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?
If you think that, then you're a frickin' idiot. Quit throwing out BS like this...you're only making yourself look like a fool.

[ChiefReason]

we are better than the terrorist and insurgents. honor means something to us, it means nothing to them, so we SHOULD be ****ED AS HELL when anyone fighting on our behalf pulls crap like at Abu Grabe or the current aleged atrocities. During Desert Storm we would not even take pictures of the outside of the EPW camps in order to stay in compliance with the laws of war.

You really need to rethink your name, because Ann Coulter is not reasonable in the least, she just goes out and runs her mouth or key board to appeal to one section of our party to sell books. She is as bad as a 1980's tele-vangalest.
Those at Abu Grayeb were dealt with. Were it not for the press and the Internet, nothing would have come of this. Posing people in suggestive positions doesn't quite meet MY standard of cruel and unusual. Nobody was beheaded. Nobody was tortured. Truth be known, they were willing participants.
And you're absolutely right about Desert Storm.
And that's the problem and where we are at today. Too much information.
With this most recent revelation, I am of the opinion that we send the press home, restrict the information being sent home by our troops; in fact, send the troops home, turn it over to Black Ops and take care of business.
To mutilate, torture and murder our troops in a most uncivilized and inhumane manner is reason enough in my mind to switch strategies and accept the fact that WE are the only ones fighting by rules of engagement and are paying dearly because we ARE honorable.
Soooooo, if this creates a moral dilemma for some of you, then we need to turn this insurgency over to a group of our own militants in the CIA and Special Forces and show no mercy.
And if that's a problem for some of you, then you clearly don't understand what we are dealing with.
We can't play nice and accomplish our mission.
And you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
Right or Left.
CR

[ThNozzleman]

And you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
Bull crap. Thankfully, the majority of America disagrees with you.
And if that's a problem for some of you, then you clearly don't understand what we are dealing with.
Right. Obviously, it's YOU who don't know what we're dealing with. But, hey...I'm sure the world is glad you have it all figured out.
With this most recent revelation, I am of the opinion that we send the press home, restrict the information being sent home by our troops; in fact, send the troops home, turn it over to Black Ops and take care of business.
Chief "Reason" my ***. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Are you really that stupid?

[ChiefReason]

If you think that, then you're a frickin' idiot. Quit throwing out BS like this...you're only making yourself look like a fool.
You want to discuss the issues, then discuss them.
You want to call me names, I'll report your post and won't have any more to do with you.
What's your pleasure?
CR

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

If you think that, then you're a frickin' idiot. Quit throwing out BS like this...you're only making yourself look like a fool.
Brought to you as a Public Service by the Quintessential Fool.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You want to discuss the issues, then discuss them.
You want to call me names, I'll report your post and won't have any more to do with you.
What's your pleasure?
CR
You miss the point. He is the cool, compassionate liberal. Ann Coulter is a witch. Get it right.

[ChiefReason]

Chief "Reason" my ***. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Are you really that stupid?
See; I gave you the opportunity to discuss the issues, but you want to attack me personally. I tried to be respectful. I didn't attack YOU, now, did I?
Sooooo....
CR

[scfire86]

Hey, Nozz:
You want to talk about grieving widows and family members for their losses?
Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?
The Left gets all bent about "prisoners" and their treatment at Gitmo or at Abu Grabyourass, but not a word from the left on this recent tragic event?
It makes me want to puke. They need to get on the right side of a cause, because from where the Left is, it's a great camera angle but sucks for anything meaningful.
The Left fears Ann Coulter because PEOPLE LISTEN TO HER.
And she says what needs to be said. Like it or not.
CR
CR. Who? Which individuals believe these brave soldiers deserved to be mutilated and killed. Show me one statement from anyone that believes that.

You know what makes me puke? The idiot who sent them there in the first place. The same idiot who said "Bring it on". The same idiot who flew to Baghdad under cover of darkness to look the new Iraqi PM "in the eye". And more importantly. The military leadership that put these three brave men into a position where they were easily overwhelmed because help was not available or too far away. The same group of idiots who are accusing the dems of wanting to "cut and run" because a resolution to set a timetable for withdrawal is cowardice. These same people believe the Iraqi government will one day realize we won't be there and will have to stand on its own feet. Fat chance. The Iraqis will never be ready to take on the insurgency if they know we'll always be there to bear the sacrifice of blood and have the US taxpayer pay the freight.

But rather than force a committment to get out and not have to read about brave men and women dying they'd rather just brand us liberals as cowards.

If that doesn't make you puke I feel sorry for you.

[jasper45]

But rather than force a committment to get out and not have to read about brave men and women dying they'd rather just brand us liberals as cowards.


Now why in the world would you go and make public a set time for complete and total withdrawal? I was under the impression you had served in the military, was I mistaken in that thought? Have you ever heard of “operational security”? We (our military) try to keep our plans/operations hidden from our enemy, and there are things that as civilians have NO business knowing.
I contend that we are making progress towards leaving; just today, the British government announced that they would turn over security in the Muthana province to Iraqi forces. A small move, but progress nonetheless. The plan to be done with Iraq is when they are able to do things for themselves.
I only recall saying I think that your opinion is wrong, and I know I never called you a coward. Besides, why would you be offended if someone called you a liberal? Are you ashamed of that label?


Who? Which individuals believe these brave soldiers deserved to be mutilated and killed. Show me one statement from anyone that believes that.

Show me a quote in which they have come out with as much fury over the beheading of these soldiers, as they continually do about Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Graib. That is what is really troublesome, in my opinion. Most of these lefties will only criticize our Marines and soldiers, and never condemn the actions of those animals who are the true savages with their actions, Muslim extremists. They won’t, because they are too afraid to because Islam is somehow seen as the victim here, and it has somehow become “mainstream“ to bash on Christianity.

[scfire86]

Now why in the world would you go and make public a set time for complete and total withdrawal? I was under the impression you had served in the military, was I mistaken in that thought? Have you ever heard of “operational security”? We (our military) try to keep our plans/operations hidden from our enemy, and there are things that as civilians have NO business knowing.
How about an exit strategy instead of the open ended ticket currently in place?

I contend that we are making progress towards leaving; just today, the British government announced that they would turn over security in the Muthana province to Iraqi forces. A small move, but progress nonetheless. The plan to be done with Iraq is when they are able to do things for themselves.
I only recall saying I think that your opinion is wrong, and I know I never called you a coward. Besides, why would you be offended if someone called you a liberal? Are you ashamed of that label?
Not ashamed at all. And contend all you want. Bush flew into the Green Zone. Three years later it is only part of the city that is secure. It's like saying the US is secure because you toured around Fort Bragg for a day.


Show me a quote in which they have come out with as much fury over the beheading of these soldiers, as they continually do about Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Graib. That is what is really troublesome, in my opinion. Most of these lefties will only criticize our Marines and soldiers, and never condemn the actions of those animals who are the true savages with their actions, Muslim extremists. They won’t, because they are too afraid to because Islam is somehow seen as the victim here, and it has somehow become “mainstream“ to bash on Christianity.
There are things I am outraged about and never hear any indignation from conservatives. Things like selling our children's future to the chinese and other foreigners. But I don't get all weird about it.

[RoughRider]

You miss the point. He is the cool, compassionate liberal. Ann Coulter is a witch. Get it right.


I think he proves her point. :)

[ThNozzleman]

See; I gave you the opportunity to discuss the issues, but you want to attack me personally. I tried to be respectful. I didn't attack YOU, now, did I?
You wanna make some more open-ended statements about how liberals (like myself) think these guys deserved what they got? Go ahead...and I'll call you an idiot all day long. The last time I checked, the liberals are the ones bringing the needless death and destruction to the forefront, which is immediately met by wails from the right that we don't discuss anything but the bad. Don't sit there and accuse me of not caring about the soldiers when you supported the son of a bitch that sent them to fight this needless war in the first place.

[ThNozzleman]

But rather than force a committment to get out and not have to read about brave men and women dying they'd rather just brand us liberals as cowards.
No doubt. What gets me is they have the audacity to blame the whole mess on the "left" while completely ignoring the fact that EVERYTHING that is wrong with this war (including the outright lies used as an excuse to start it) can be totally blamed on them and the neo-con fools they support. They accuse us of not caring about the soldiers or supporting them...while they are the ones who sent them there and apparantly want to leave them in that worthless hell-hole indefinitely. They screwed up, yet refuse to accept the fact that they did. And just like good ol' Norm, most don't care how many bodies pile up before someone finally pulls the plug. The vast majority of people there want our troops OUT of Iraq, and the sooner the better. I ask you, how many have to die before the right-wingers here feel their pathetic, power-tripping egos are satisfied?

[jasper45]

How about an exit strategy instead of the open ended ticket currently in place?

Well, an exit strategy is far different from a published date of withdrawal. The president has stated that when his military leaders tell him to withdraw forces, we, as a nation will withdraw our forces. I would also say that that is an exit strategy. I know that will never please the left, but then again I don’t think any answer will. I would venture a guess that if all of our forces were removed tomorrow, somehow the lefties would criticize either this move as being “political”, or leaving a vacuum in place for Islamic extremists to fester.


Bush flew into the Green Zone. Three years later it is only part of the city that is secure. It's like saying the US is secure because you toured around Fort Bragg for a day.

Not really a good analogy, in my opinion. It might be better if it was Lincoln touring Ft. Bragg following the Confederacy surrender, but again, those people were not the savages we are dealing with today. There was some honor and decency among them, and for the most part they tried to wear uniforms and function as a military, rather than as barbarians, which is what we are fighting today.
No, we are not a nation at war inside of our own borders, other than to prevent animalistic acts of terror. Iraq is what it is, which is unique to itself. As such, there are no defined rules. I don’t want to see us there any more than anyone else does, and for some very personal reasons. Put your partisan ideology down and look at it objectively, there will be plenty of time for that in the near future. Any timeline would prove to be a disaster for everything that has been done and accomplished so far.

This whole deal has been a very loud wake up call for the US, though. We are no longer a nation capable of sacrifice for a way of life. We are too greedy, too fat, and too lazy. We can’t alter our lifestyles one bit to sacrifice for our troops.



There are things I am outraged about and never hear any indignation from conservatives. Things like selling our children's future to the chinese and other foreigners. But I don't get all weird about it.
We do need to get weird about our debt, and we will pay for our fiscal mismanagement in the years to come. The Trade Center attacks, along with a war on two fronts are very expensive, and will be so in the near future. You know as well as I that Washington, no matter who is in charge, are the kings of wasting money. Sometimes I think that is all government is good at, wasting tax dollars.

[jasper45]

What gets me is they have the audacity to blame the whole mess on the "left" while completely ignoring the fact that EVERYTHING that is wrong with this war (including the outright lies used as an excuse to start it) can be totally blamed on them and the neo-con fools they support.


Wrong. Unless of course John Kerry, Evan Bye, as well as Hillary Clinton are now “neo-cons”, to name just a few. All voted in favor of moving militarily against Iraq. There were no lies, only your assertion that they are lies. Your slanted views are understandable, considering the links you provide to the majority of your posts. Information Clearing House is nothing more than a left wing spin prop.
Anyway about it though, this thread has run its course. It was a useful discussion.

[ThNozzleman]

There was some honor and decency among them, and for the most part they tried to wear uniforms and function as a military, rather than as barbarians, which is what we are fighting today.
War is war, and death is death...it doesn't matter if it comes from the point of a knife three inches away, or bombs from 30,000 feet. The fact that some wear a uniform changes nothing. These people are fighting with what they can, however they can...just like we would do if our nation were occupied by an overwhelming conventional force.
We can’t alter our lifestyles one bit to sacrifice for our troops.
And just how are we supposed to do that? You call for "sacrifice" to support the troops...does that mean putting another yellow ribbon sticker on our cars?
Sometimes I think that is all government is good at, wasting tax dollars.
Unfortunately for your case, the republican controlled government spending is unprecedented...and there's no end in site, as far as they're concerned.

[ThNozzleman]

All voted in favor of moving militarily against Iraq.
I do not let anyone off the hook...but most were operating on the lies and half-truths of the Bush administration.
There were no lies, only your assertion that they are lies.
Where are the WMD, Jasper? And don't give me the same lame story about "bad intel", either. The Bush administration knew damn well there were no WMD's. Where are the mushroom clouds? The nuclear program? The yellow cake? Aluminum tubes? What about it? Where are all those terrorist connections?
Your slanted views are understandable, considering the links you provide to the majority of your posts. Information Clearing House is nothing more than a left wing spin prop.
Heh, heh...right on, man. Whatever you say.
Anyway about it though, this thread has run its course. It was a useful discussion.
Yeah...a "useful" discussion about Mann Coulter, one of the most worthless bitches to ever waste fresh air. But, I don't blame you for bowing out...you have nothing. Reality is hard to handle, huh?

[jasper45]

And just how are we supposed to do that? You call for "sacrifice" to support the troops...does that mean putting another yellow ribbon sticker on our cars?

Don't be insulting, not everyone has jumped on the "yellow ribbon" sacrifice you speak of. If you don't know what sacrifice means, I can't help you or anyone else out with that.

[ChiefReason]

You wanna make some more open-ended statements about how liberals (like myself) think these guys deserved what they got? Go ahead...and I'll call you an idiot all day long. The last time I checked, the liberals are the ones bringing the needless death and destruction to the forefront, which is immediately met by wails from the right that we don't discuss anything but the bad. Don't sit there and accuse me of not caring about the soldiers when you supported the son of a bitch that sent them to fight this needless war in the first place.
If their checkpoint was over run by Al Quaeda and they were in fact overwhelmed, that was a military decision and not a George Bush decision. And while your liberal cronies are crying that terrorists in custody are being mistreated, that our troops are terrorizing women and children and that they are being accused of atrocities, they show little compassion and NO SUPPORT for the troops. If your liberal cronies are behind our troops, they have a strange way of showing it.
You want to talk about honor? Where is the honor in allowing a butcherous bastard to slaughter his own people, invade other peaceful countries, exact biological chemicals on a race of people and sit by and allow it to happen? Where is the honor in that? You want a comparison? How about WWII? I guess my father and the rest of the military shouldn't have gone to war after the slaughter at Pearl Harbor. But more died at Ground Zero than at Pearl Harbor. Oh wait; you're probably one of those who believe that there is no connection between Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein.
So, smart guy, what exactly would move YOU to commit our troops to a military action?
And why on Earth would you call former First Lady Barbara Bush a bitch? One of the sweetest and respected First Ladies in the history of this country.
And now, it's somehow my fault because I supported Bush for President? How will I live with myself?
So, Bush's approval rating is up. That oughtta really **** you and the other liberal Lefties off.
Whoa; this just in. They HAVE found WMDs in Iraq. You liberals will want to keep that quiet.
I gotta sign off. Ann Coulter is on Hannity and Colmes and that's "must-see TV". :cool:
CR

[jasper45]

Yeah...a "useful" discussion about Mann Coulter, one of the most worthless bitches to ever waste fresh air. But, I don't blame you for bowing out...you have nothing. Reality is hard to handle, huh?
Don’t mistake my “bowing” out as running. I stated clearly that this thread has run its course. I don’t have the time to sit here and constantly type, retype, and then retype again, on a subject that none of us are going to change our position on. I could care less about Ann Coulter, and what she has to say, or how many time you call her a bitch. The debate I was referencing came as a result of the original thread, and mostly into this last page. That aspect is long gone. Coulter is not a policy maker, and all she did was reap from all of the FREE publicity that this thread has given her.
I have no problem with reality, and you really have done nothing to change my viewpoints, so don’t pat yourself too hard. I value a good difference of opinion, and have expressed that in the past, and will welcome it in the future. Many of the comments in this thread have done nothing to help viewpoints, or positions on any issue.
I am not bowing out because “I have nothing”, it has just become … boring?
I just happened to have a night free tonight, and am fresh back from a mountain excursion. I simply am not going to wreck my "mountain fix" with anymore of this.

I did forget to ask though, what intelligence service you must have worked for. In order to be so sure there were no WMD’s moved during our buildup, surely you had an integral role in the intel community. Surely you were not relying upon news agencies for your sources, were you?
Again though, al of us, and this does include you, are able to sit here and debate this, with no real repercussions for our decisions. None of us has clue one, what it is like to be the president, and read threat assessments, and then make decisions that affect millions of peoples lives. No, it is much easier to sit in front of our computers and accuse someone we have never met of killing thousands upon thousands of people, all so he can make a buck or two.
Take a look at every president from the start of their terms to the end. By the end, they all look haggard and worn out. It has to be a stressful job.
But hey, you have access to better intel than they do, so what am I saying.

[ChiefReason]

CR. Who? Which individuals believe these brave soldiers deserved to be mutilated and killed. Show me one statement from anyone that believes that.

You know what makes me puke? The idiot who sent them there in the first place. The same idiot who said "Bring it on". The same idiot who flew to Baghdad under cover of darkness to look the new Iraqi PM "in the eye". And more importantly. The military leadership that put these three brave men into a position where they were easily overwhelmed because help was not available or too far away. The same group of idiots who are accusing the dems of wanting to "cut and run" because a resolution to set a timetable for withdrawal is cowardice. These same people believe the Iraqi government will one day realize we won't be there and will have to stand on its own feet. Fat chance. The Iraqis will never be ready to take on the insurgency if they know we'll always be there to bear the sacrifice of blood and have the US taxpayer pay the freight.

But rather than force a committment to get out and not have to read about brave men and women dying they'd rather just brand us liberals as cowards.

If that doesn't make you puke I feel sorry for you.
Hmmm:
I don't believe that I said ANYONE SAID IT. I believe I said:
Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?
You may attribute that statement to me and note that I said probably, which means that I wasn't stating it as fact. I was making an inflammatory comment that was unsubstantiated by fact. Ah; freedom of speech, eh?
And thank you for the sentiment. At least you feel SOMETHING for me.
So; does this mean you support my idea to pull the troops and turn it over to the CIA and Iraqi soldiers?
Can I put you down in my plus column?
CR

[FlaFireGator]

Here, I'll let Ann speak for herself. :)


GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING
June 21, 2006


I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

How about these pungent points:

— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.

[ChiefReason]

Here, I'll let Ann speak for herself. :)


GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING
June 21, 2006


I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

How about these pungent points:

— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.
I gotta tell ya:
She is SUCH a breath of fresh air.
CR

[scfire86]

Not really a good analogy, in my opinion. It might be better if it was Lincoln touring Ft. Bragg following the Confederacy surrender, but again, those people were not the savages we are dealing with today. There was some honor and decency among them, and for the most part they tried to wear uniforms and function as a military, rather than as barbarians, which is what we are fighting today.
Read up on a Revolutionary War figure named Francis Marion. Aka the Swamp Fox. He is known for his skill in fighting a superior superpower using unconventional methods and doing some very ungentlemenly type things to his British victims and their sympathizers. Sound familiar?

This isn't a football game. So stop with the decency and honor mantra.

[scfire86]

Hmmm:
I don't believe that I said ANYONE SAID IT. I believe I said:
What do you want, a press release? From who? If you are so desperate to know an opinion of those you claim aren't outraged why don't call or write them and ask? It isn't difficult in this day and age.

You may attribute that statement to me and note that I said probably, which means that I wasn't stating it as fact. I was making an inflammatory comment that was unsubstantiated by fact. Ah; freedom of speech, eh?
And thank you for the sentiment. At least you feel SOMETHING for me.
You're right. Flatulence is what I feel when I read your posts.

So; does this mean you support my idea to pull the troops and turn it over to the CIA and Iraqi soldiers?
Can I put you down in my plus column?
CR
Sure. Just get ready to add stars to the wall in Langley.

[scfire86]

I gotta tell ya:
She is SUCH a breath of fresh air.
CR
Not fresh at all. We had a night show commentator here in LA named Joe Pyne (http://www.tvparty.com/empyne.html) back in the 50's and 60's.

Ann Coulter is following the same schtick to seperate conservatives/fools from their money. And from the looks of it she's doing a great job of it.

[DennisTheMenace]

Those at Abu Grayeb were dealt with. Were it not for the press and the Internet, nothing would have come of this. Posing people in suggestive positions doesn't quite meet MY standard of cruel and unusual. Nobody was beheaded. Nobody was tortured. Truth be known, they were willing participants.
And you're absolutely right about Desert Storm.
And that's the problem and where we are at today. Too much information.
With this most recent revelation, I am of the opinion that we send the press home, restrict the information being sent home by our troops; in fact, send the troops home, turn it over to Black Ops and take care of business.
To mutilate, torture and murder our troops in a most uncivilized and inhumane manner is reason enough in my mind to switch strategies and accept the fact that WE are the only ones fighting by rules of engagement and are paying dearly because we ARE honorable.
Soooooo, if this creates a moral dilemma for some of you, then we need to turn this insurgency over to a group of our own militants in the CIA and Special Forces and show no mercy.
And if that's a problem for some of you, then you clearly don't understand what we are dealing with.
We can't play nice and accomplish our mission.
And you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
Right or Left.
CRFighting with honor is the ONLY WAY for an American to fight. It is that simple. It was true while fighting on Iwo Jima, it is true fighting in Iraq. To do otherwise you are giving up a lot more than a few American lives. Has nothing to do with the press or the internet, or letters home. It is about honor, lowering ourselves to the level of the bad guys dishonors ourselves and those that have died fighting for our ideals.
Semper Fi,
Dennis

[ThNozzleman]

Whoa; this just in. They HAVE found WMDs in Iraq. You liberals will want to keep that quiet.
Heh, heh...right on, man. WMD were just lying about everywhere, huh?
If their checkpoint was over run by Al Quaeda and they were in fact overwhelmed, that was a military decision and not a George Bush decision.
Bull****. They wouldn't be there in the first place without Bush and his minions.
And while your liberal cronies are crying that terrorists in custody are being mistreated, that our troops are terrorizing women and children and that they are being accused of atrocities, they show little compassion and NO SUPPORT for the troops. If your liberal cronies are behind our troops, they have a strange way of showing it.
I'll denounce ALL of it, and lay the blame squarely at the feets of people like you. I guess your idea of support is leaving them to die so a few powerful and rich people can become a little more rich and powerful. Some "support."
You want to talk about honor? Where is the honor in allowing a butcherous bastard to slaughter his own people, invade other peaceful countries, exact biological chemicals on a race of people and sit by and allow it to happen?
Hum...seems we've forgotten that the same neo-con bastards now running our nation were the ones who propped this guy up, in the first place. And again, there is no difference between the civilians Saddam killed in the war with Iran and the civilians we kill with bombs and bullets today. Guys like you pass it off as acceptable losses and blame it on the "terrorists" being harbored in their homes. What's the difference? Oh, yeah; we have "honor" attached to every bomb that kills or mutilates a child. Nice.
So, smart guy, what exactly would move YOU to commit our troops to a military action?
Well, I tell you this: It would take a hell of a lot more than the lies your fearless leader told us.
I did forget to ask though, what intelligence service you must have worked for. In order to be so sure there were no WMD’s moved during our buildup, surely you had an integral role in the intel community. Surely you were not relying upon news agencies for your sources, were you?
Jasper, your ignorance in spite of the truths that have been realized about this needless war is amazing. There was MORE than sufficient intel about the true state of Iraq's military capabilities. But, it looks like I was right, and you and Bush were wrong. I mean, all you have now is that Saddam is a "bad guy" and did "bad things" as an excuse for your war that has killed thousands upon thousands. When presented with the neo-con agenda for gaining control of this area of the world under the guise of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" you refuse to accept it. Our government has NO interest in that area of the world except for the oil that is overly abundant there. Wake up and get the stars out of your eyes.

[JHR1985]

Why did this thread go from Coulter's book Godless to the war in Iraq?

[Bones42]

I wonder if Coulter would use a fog nozzle or a smootbore?

[BFDNJFF]

So WMD's have been found in Iraq. Over 500 munitions found that should have never been there according to Sadam. Some may say only 500 but 15 of these munitions killed over 5000 kurds. :eek:

Declassified Report (click here) (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)

[ThNozzleman]

Wow...Fox News...imagine that. However, from that same report...

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Again, Iraq was no threat to anyone, especially not us. The key points from the statement you linked to pretty much amount to the same vague notions that were used to start this war in the first place..."assessed to still exist"..."could be sold on the black market"..."possibility...cannot be ruled out"..."most likely"..."it has been reported"..."insurgants and Iraqi groups desire..." Along with twenty year-old munitions containing trace amounts of sarin, these are hardly reasons for an invasion that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

[BFDNJFF]

The point I was trying to make is there were weapons even though Sadam and the UN stated there were none. If they are not dangerous I vote we store them in your garage. :rolleyes: I am sure a terrorist would love to get there hands on them.

[MalahatTwo7]

I wonder if Coulter would use a fog nozzle or a smootbore?

Ya know, I was kinda wondering something similar. I'll bet she has no problem with volleys over career either. ;)











**there that shoulda stirred the pot real good. ;) **

[scfire86]

Fighting with honor is the ONLY WAY for an American to fight. It is that simple.
This is imperative when you are an invading country claiming the moral high ground in your effort. If you end up becoming no better than the government you are kicking up you end up alienating those who were supportive of your initial efforts in the process.

I would think those supporting this war for the purposes of regime change would understand that. Yet they don't.

[ameryfd]

Noz...

Just to provide some proof, I'm guessing these are some of the lies you were trying to make your point about. Let the neo-cons defend these. :rolleyes:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

AND

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

AND

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

AND

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

AND

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."


AND

"after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

AND

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

AND

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

AND

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

AND


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

AND

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

[scfire86]

If their checkpoint was over run by Al Quaeda and they were in fact overwhelmed, that was a military decision and not a George Bush decision.
Outstanding!!! You are hearby deemed a master of the obvious. If you reread my post I clearly stated "military" leadership. That would be those directly in the chain of command. I won't blame Bush for poor judgement by those in the field. And while I'm not there on the ground I think I can safely say this was poor judgement.

[ThNozzleman]

Just to provide some proof, I'm guessing these are some of the lies you were trying to make your point about. Let the neo-cons defend these.
And smoking guns and mushroom clouds...don't forget those! It always amazes me to hear the right STILL defend this stupid invasion. I'll tell you one thing...if I had supported this stupid war, I KNOW I wouldn't be able to sleep, because the blood of thousands would be on my hands. I wonder if a million dead people would be enough to convince them that this was a huge mistake? Two million? Come on, righ-wingers...how many bodies have to pile up to prove your point? How many soldiers have to die to prove how tough we are? I want a number out of you. Where does the loss of life start to outweigh the seizure and control of resources? Just what is your acceptable blood-to-oil ratio?

[RoughRider]

And smoking guns and mushroom clouds...don't forget those! It always amazes me to hear the right STILL defend this stupid invasion. I'll tell you one thing...if I had supported this stupid war, I KNOW I wouldn't be able to sleep, because the blood of thousands would be on my hands. I wonder if a million dead people would be enough to convince them that this was a huge mistake? Two million? Come on, righ-wingers...how many bodies have to pile up to prove your point? How many soldiers have to die to prove how tough we are? I want a number out of you. Where does the loss of life start to outweigh the seizure and control of resources? Just what is your acceptable blood-to-oil ratio?


Uh, boy. One should not wear his tin foil hat whilst in the sun.

[ChiefReason]

Outstanding!!! You are hearby deemed a master of the obvious. If you reread my post I clearly stated "military" leadership. That would be those directly in the chain of command. I won't blame Bush for poor judgement by those in the field. And while I'm not there on the ground I think I can safely say this was poor judgement.
SC:
I was stating the obvious for Nozz, but he still blames Bush. Therefore, he disagrees with you on that issue.
So, if I understand where the discussion is now, we are dropping bombs on innocent civilians, so it's okay if they kill innocent civilians.
It's ALL George Bush's fault. Ann Coulter is a bitch. We will use soundbytes that have been regurgitated a thousand times. Clinton never had sex with that woman...
My nephew is home from Iraq for R & R. He believes in this cause. He will go back when his leave is up. He believes we should stay until we have won.
I love him very much and would die inside were something to happen to him, but his platoon, company, and battalion all believe in the cause, too.
It seems that everyone who disagrees with some of you on this issue of Iraq are either idiots or are stupid.
But I have yet to see anyone who has gone over there to visit or whatever and come back and say "they don't want to be there; they think we are making a mistake; they don't think we can win this." They are all saying the same things. It's right; it's just; it's worth it.
So spew your puke.
CR

[jasper45]

However, from that same report...

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."



Hmmm, that's weird ... The Department of Defense has offered no OFFICIAL statement in regard to this finding. But hey, go ahead and keep jumping to conclusions to fit your viewpoint.

[ameryfd]

And smoking guns and mushroom clouds...don't forget those! It always amazes me to hear the right STILL defend this stupid invasion. I'll tell you one thing...if I had supported this stupid war, I KNOW I wouldn't be able to sleep, because the blood of thousands would be on my hands. I wonder if a million dead people would be enough to convince them that this was a huge mistake? Two million? Come on, righ-wingers...how many bodies have to pile up to prove your point? How many soldiers have to die to prove how tough we are? I want a number out of you. Where does the loss of life start to outweigh the seizure and control of resources? Just what is your acceptable blood-to-oil ratio?

You took the bait Noz. Please look who made those quotes. If your "lies" argument is valid, you need to call these people the same names you call the President.

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

AND

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

AND

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

AND

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

AND

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


AND

"after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

AND

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

AND

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

AND

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

AND


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

AND

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Are they all liars too? ;)

[ChiefReason]

amerfyd:
I am guessing they are either idiots or just stupid.
If they believe what they said, then I feel sorry for them.
It is the most ridiculous things I have ever read.
Blah, blah, blah.
CR

[jasper45]

Read up on a Revolutionary War figure named Francis Marion. Aka the Swamp Fox. He is known for his skill in fighting a superior superpower using unconventional methods and doing some very ungentlemenly type things to his British victims and their sympathizers. Sound familiar?



Sure, sounds an awful lot like today, except for where the “Swamp Fox” was strapping explosives to his men, and then blowing them up in a fruit stand, or coffee shop. Civilians are as likely a target as our Marines and soldiers are, in Iraq. These terrorists are not freedom fighters, as some would like us to think. They are savages, and butchers, they are nothing more than animals. They are people who shield themselves with children, and women. They are cowards.
For anyone to even imply that our troops are somehow on par with them, well, that person is an ignorant fool.

[scfire86]

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

AND

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

AND

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

AND

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

AND

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


AND

"after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

AND

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

AND

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

AND

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

AND


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

AND

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Are they all liars too? ;)

Aahhh yes. The infamous Dem WMD quotes. Could you point to one of those statements that advocates a preemptive unilateral invasion of Iraq? More importantly, are you suggesting now that we should follow their leadership on this issue? Because many of them support a withdrawal and ending military support in that nation.

[scfire86]

So, if I understand where the discussion is now, we are dropping bombs on innocent civilians, so it's okay if they kill innocent civilians.
Not quite sure what this statement means.

It's ALL George Bush's fault.
Where does the buck stop if not with him?

Ann Coulter is a bitch.
Unknown. You'll have to check with the AKC

Clinton never had sex with that woman...
I have always been curious as to why conservatives were obsessed with Clinton's sex life. Why is that CR?

My nephew is home from Iraq for R & R. He believes in this cause. He will go back when his leave is up. He believes we should stay until we have won.
Please define winning. You would be the first. I know people who have come home and told me it is the biggest cluster**** imaginable. They have no intention of going back and in one case I know an officer who is going to retire rather than put in his papers for a promotion because it would require him to go back for a THIRD tour. I appreciate your nephew's service.

I love him very much and would die inside were something to happen to him, but his platoon, company, and battalion all believe in the cause, too.
I have just pointed out my anecdotes to the contrary.

It seems that everyone who disagrees with some of you on this issue of Iraq are either idiots or are stupid.
But I have yet to see anyone who has gone over there to visit or whatever and come back and say "they don't want to be there; they think we are making a mistake; they don't think we can win this." They are all saying the same things. It's right; it's just; it's worth it.
So spew your puke.
CR
See above.

[scfire86]

Sure, sounds an awful lot like today, except for where the “Swamp Fox” was strapping explosives to his men, and then blowing them up in a fruit stand, or coffee shop. Civilians are as likely a target as our Marines and soldiers are, in Iraq. These terrorists are not freedom fighters, as some would like us to think. They are savages, and butchers, they are nothing more than animals. They are people who shield themselves with children, and women. They are cowards.
For anyone to even imply that our troops are somehow on par with them, well, that person is an ignorant fool.
Our conflict didn't have a component involving religious zealots who are willing to commit suicide in pursuit of their beliefs.

[jasper45]

I have always been curious as to why conservatives were obsessed with Clinton's sex life.

Perhaps because it was Monica? I mean c‘mon, if you’re the president, there is no way she is the first in line. You have to be able to do better than that; I’ve been to DC, there are a lot of beautiful women there. (just trying to lighten the atmosphere a bit)

That was then, this is now. Kind of a lot has happened since then, and I’m not condoning it now. The issue has always been about perjury, though, which President Clinton is guilty of. Whether or not an investigation should have happened, is open to debate, but it did in fact happen, and he lied while under oath. End of story, at least for me.


Please define winning. You would be the first. I know people who have come home and told me it is the biggest cluster**** imaginable. They have no intention of going back and in one case I know an officer who is going to retire rather than put in his papers for a promotion because it would require him to go back for a THIRD tour.

Winning for me personally, is when Iraq can be entrusted to handle their own security, law enforcement, and is able to operate on its own. I trust our military leaders to know when this is, and our civilian leaders to listen to the military when they say it’s time to go.

I also know of many people who have served numerous tours there. We have a reserve Marine infantry company here, as well as a National Guard MP unit; both have sustained numerous casualties, with several KIA. None of them were thrilled at being deployed there, yet they understood the purpose of it. Who really wants to be separated from their family, friends, and everything they know and love, to live in an oven for a year, or more. However, they are not bitter, or anti-Bush, or anti-Iraq, they actually seem to take pride in what they have accomplished while deployed.

It is truly a shame that the officer you know is going to retire, his experience and knowledge would be beneficial to other members being deployed. No one should need to be deployed three times. His service has my respect.

[scfire86]

That was then, this is now. Kind of a lot has happened since then, and I’m not condoning it now. The issue has always been about perjury, though, which President Clinton is guilty of. Whether or not an investigation should have happened, is open to debate, but it did in fact happen, and he lied while under oath. End of story, at least for me.
After a trial, a jury of his peers believed otherwise. Unless of course you have some information unavailable to them we should know about.


Winning for me personally, is when Iraq can be entrusted to handle their own security, law enforcement, and is able to operate on its own. I trust our military leaders to know when this is, and our civilian leaders to listen to the military when they say it’s time to go.
When exactly is that moment? If I know there is someone who will be there to face the danger because I am not ready I might not ever be ready. Especially if I am the government of that nation. Why should I pay for the defense of the nation when someone else will do it? I say set a time. Force them to be ready to stand on their own. Next year will be five years since the war started. That should be adequate time. If they aren't ready and the region falls into anarchy so be it. I could not in good conscience ask any of our brave men and women in uniform to bear the burden when able bodied Iraqis are running around not in their military, or police force providing external and internal defense. Yet another parallel to Vietnam. Americans are paying the price in blood for Iraqis who aren't interested in bearing that part of the burden.

I also know of many people who have served numerous tours there. We have a reserve Marine infantry company here, as well as a National Guard MP unit; both have sustained numerous casualties, with several KIA. None of them were thrilled at being deployed there, yet they understood the purpose of it. Who really wants to be separated from their family, friends, and everything they know and love, to live in an oven for a year, or more. However, they are not bitter, or anti-Bush, or anti-Iraq, they actually seem to take pride in what they have accomplished while deployed.
And I've already relayed my anecdote of people who believe just the opposite. I know many more who got out of the military prior to the start of the war for similar reasons.

It is truly a shame that the officer you know is going to retire, his experience and knowledge would be beneficial to other members being deployed. No one should need to be deployed three times. His service has my respect.
I agree.

[scfire86]

Coulter v Hitler Quiz (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html)

[RoughRider]

Morning SC,

Damn you're up early. I haven’t had my first trade yet!

"After a trial, a jury of his peers believed otherwise. Unless of course you have some information unavailable to them we should know about."

Sooo, if I get busted for selling crack and subsequently my best customers say “its fine with them” its all good?

Did he not get disbarred for his crime?

[ChiefReason]

I have always been curious as to why conservatives were obsessed with Clinton's sex life.
It was Clinton who had the obsession for brunettes in berets.
CR

[ThNozzleman]

But I have yet to see anyone who has gone over there to visit or whatever and come back and say "they don't want to be there; they think we are making a mistake; they don't think we can win this." They are all saying the same things. It's right; it's just; it's worth it.
Heh, heh...you crack me up. You should really get out more.

[ThNozzleman]

Hmmm, that's weird ... The Department of Defense has offered no OFFICIAL statement in regard to this finding. But hey, go ahead and keep jumping to conclusions to fit your viewpoint.
Hmmm...that's weird; it was posted as proof of WMD being found. So, who's really jumping to conclusions?? :rolleyes:

[ThNozzleman]

I have always been curious as to why conservatives were obsessed with Clinton's sex life.
Heh, heh...because when they have no real point, they resort to attacking a former president for something that happened ten years ago.

[ThNozzleman]

By the way, I'm still waiting for some of you right-wingers to post the number of bodies that is acceptable to complete Bush's "mission." But, just like the challenge to prove that this war was about anything BUT oil, you have failed to follow up. So, how about it? A hundred thousand? Is the "mission" worth a million dead soldiers? Surely such an important mission as GWB's "bringing democracy to the Middle East" would be worthy of a few thousand more dead soldiers, right? How about my challenge to you to explain why we haven't "liberated" dozens of other countries from mean and evil leaders? Surely bringing democracy to China would better the lives of many, many more people than in Iraq. Should we start bombing China tomorrow? And invade them next week? If not, then why did we invade Iraq? So many questions, yet so few answers from you guys.

[ThNozzleman]

You want to call me names, I'll report your post and won't have any more to do with you.
Go right ahead...I could care less. But, hey...just accuse me of thinking that dead soldiers are "getting what they deserve" again and see what I call you. As someone who has endured name-calling over and over again on these forums with no action taken by the webteam, I think you are just whining a little too much, here.

[Nine3Probie]

With all due respect, Noz, how is the war about oil when I'm still paying near $3.00 a gallon?

Oil prices (per barrel) have nearly doubled since February of 2003 (I believe crude was at around $38 per barrel). Average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the beginning of March 2003 in Tennessee was $1.89. What are you paying now? Around $2.60 or so?

If we went there for the oil...where is it? Why are we still depending on the OPEC nations if we have access to all that oil for the taking? Where is your proof that we went there for the oil...because I'm sure not seeing the results over here in Jersey.

Thanks.

[ameryfd]

Aahhh yes. The infamous Dem WMD quotes. Could you point to one of those statements that advocates a preemptive unilateral invasion of Iraq? More importantly, are you suggesting now that we should follow their leadership on this issue? Because many of them support a withdrawal and ending military support in that nation.

I think that the congressional vote that authorized the use of force in Iraq (that many of these same people voted for) pretty much backs up thier statements. Gore supported the invasion, Clinton supported the invasion ,and the Democrats voted for it.....now these same people who said the same things as the President, voted for the action that the President took and read the same intellegence as the President are now calling the President a liar and calling for withdrawl? Seems to me that just show the two-faced, political opportunistic, can't lead, lying sacks of crap, cut and run idiots that they are.

Please show me where their high moral ground is after all that?

[ameryfd]

By the way, I'm still waiting for some of you right-wingers to post the number of bodies that is acceptable to complete Bush's "mission." But, just like the challenge to prove that this war was about anything BUT oil, you have failed to follow up. So, how about it?

And you my friend have still not called Clinton, Kerry, Polosi, Berger and Gore liars for their quotes about WMD. So How about it, or do you judge Bush haters by a different standard?

[ChiefReason]

Go right ahead...I could care less. But, hey...just accuse me of thinking that dead soldiers are "getting what they deserve" again and see what I call you. As someone who has endured name-calling over and over again on these forums with no action taken by the webteam, I think you are just whining a little too much, here.
Nozz:
Have I EVER called you names? I can answer that with one word...NO!
In fact; if you care to go back, you will find that we have actually been on the SAME side of an argument.
My comment: Because the Left isn't saying anything about the "brutal mutilations and killings" of our two soldiers in the Triangle of Death are they? They probably think they deserved it, because we shouldn't be there anyway, right?
Now; if that says YOU, then call me all the names you can muster.
The fact is; I have NEVER called you anything, questioned your intelligence or your sanity. I have tried to be respectful with our discussions and thought you were my friend from Tennessee. But apparently, you don't like anyone with opposing views or opinions.
It probably wouldn't have worked anyway.
But I always thought that you were Billy to my Captain America; riding down the roads on our hogs, talkin' politics and changing the world.
I have to stop...too choked up.
Fox News ought to cheer me up. :cool:
CR

[ChiefReason]

I think you are just whining a little too much, here.
And you got your skirt in a bunch over nothing.
CR

[RoughRider]

By the way, I'm still waiting for some of you right-wingers to post the number of bodies that is acceptable to complete Bush's "mission." But, just like the challenge to prove that this war was about anything BUT oil, you have failed to follow up. So, how about it? A hundred thousand? Is the "mission" worth a million dead soldiers? Surely such an important mission as GWB's "bringing democracy to the Middle East" would be worthy of a few thousand more dead soldiers, right? How about my challenge to you to explain why we haven't "liberated" dozens of other countries from mean and evil leaders? Surely bringing democracy to China would better the lives of many, many more people than in Iraq. Should we start bombing China tomorrow? And invade them next week? If not, then why did we invade Iraq? So many questions, yet so few answers from you guys.

As many solders as needed to keep Islamofascists from killing innocent Americans lives. After all we are at war. I agree, there are many rouge Dictators and Terrorist Nations in the world but they don’t have a decades old track record of murdering innocent Americans.

I’m sure this comes as no surprise to you but I will always respect a President that doesn’t lead by consensus or political wind change. To me that’s not leadership. I’m glad we will stay in Iraq until the first democratically elected Government is able to fend for itself. I’m glad we are finally taking the fight to them. Cuz I have always enjoyed away games!


"Heh, heh...you crack me up. You should really get out more."

Yeah, cause there is a lot happening in Jefferson Tennessee.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

>>Yeah, cause there is a lot happening in Jefferson Tennessee.<<

OOOOOHHHHH!!!! DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!

[baileydonk]

there are many rouge Dictators


Sorry, I just can't let that go by... I believe you mean "rogue", not that they are wearing blush...

:D

[ChiefReason]

Yeah, cause there is a lot happening in Jefferson Tennessee.
I pulled in to Nazareth,
I wuz feelin' 'bout half past dead;
I jus need a place,
Where I can lay my heeeaaaaad...

Hey, mister, can ya tell me,
Where a man might find a bed?
He shook his head and looked at me
And "no wuz all he said....

If ya wanna be a bird, you got to do a little flyin'...

Man; I got to jump on the hog and hit the road.
CR

[scfire86]

"After a trial, a jury of his peers believed otherwise. Unless of course you have some information unavailable to them we should know about."

Sooo, if I get busted for selling crack and subsequently my best customers say “its fine with them” its all good?

This post makes absolutely no sense. Try again.

[RoughRider]

Sorry, I just can't let that go by... I believe you mean "rogue", not that they are wearing blush...

:D

Obviously, spelling is not my strength.

[RoughRider]

This post makes absolutely no sense. Try again.


Your right.

Ok, he was impeached and disbarred for perjury for his conduct as President. His “peers” both left and right not wanting to lose their jobs by exposing the many skeletons “believed otherwise”. Just because they didn’t have the balls to follow through doesn’t make him innocent.

[scfire86]

His “peers” both left and right not wanting to lose their jobs by exposing the many skeletons “believed otherwise”. Just because they didn’t have the balls to follow through doesn’t make him innocent.
And you know this how? Another answer might be they believed the whole thing to be ridiculous and voted accordingly. Which is exactly what it was.

And thanks to "Scooter" Libby we now know that perjury isn't that big a deal. He is being tried for the same charges as Clinton and all his conservative friends (including Bush) can talk about is his exemplary service to his country as a public servant.

Whereas when Clinton was being impeached for perjury we heard from conservatives about how the very pillars of our nation were being shaken and it demanded his conviction so our society didn't fall into anarchy.

Or words to the effect.

[ameryfd]

You took the bait Noz. Please look who made those quotes. If your "lies" argument is valid, you need to call these people the same names you call the President.

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

AND

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

AND

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

AND

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

AND

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


AND

"after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

AND

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

AND

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

AND

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

AND


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

AND

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Are they all liars too? ;)

Come on guys....Noz was quick to jump on these quotes when he thought they were made by Bush.... If you called them lies when you thought Bush said them..... Why won't anyone from the left call them lies when you learned that it was Democrats, who read the SAME intellegence, voted FOR the war and SAID there were WMD?

You guy's have a glaring double standard. :confused:

[NonSurfinCaFF]

This book opened my eyes to a lot of the lies and foolishness of the liberals in this country. After reading that book, I believe that the radical liberals (Moore, Kerry, Kenedy, et. al.) believe they are intellectually in the top 1% of all people.

Hey so would that put them in the same 1% as TH :D

[ChiefReason]

Come on guys....Noz was quick to jump on these quotes when he thought they were made by Bush.... If you called them lies when you thought Bush said them..... Why won't anyone from the left call them lies when you learned that it was Democrats, who read the SAME intellegence, voted FOR the war and SAID there were WMD?

You guy's have a glaring double standard. :confused:
I've noticed that scfire is treating it lightly and Nozz isn't responding to it.
Spin it, libs. Try a little left-handed English on it. It's easy to see that Kerry was on the bandwagon for election year votes. The rest were playing follow the leader.
But that all changes with Bush.
CR

[Nine3Probie]

May I have a crack at this one?

After a trial, a jury of his peers believed otherwise.

The same can be said of OJ Simpson.

[MamaLieut]

With all due respect, Noz, how is the war about oil when I'm still paying near $3.00 a gallon?

Oil prices (per barrel) have nearly doubled since February of 2003 (I believe crude was at around $38 per barrel). Average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the beginning of March 2003 in Tennessee was $1.89. What are you paying now? Around $2.60 or so?



How is the war all about oil? FOLLOW THE MONEY.

So.. that $3.00 a gallon (cheap compared to where I live)... it's not you or I or Joe Soldier that sees any benefit from that.

Any guesses which industry has had the largest profit margin increase since this war began?

Where's Ann on THAT expose? Oh... right. Henpecking at some women who lost their husbands, their children's daddies, and DARED to be angry about it. Using the death of these men, and the agony of their wives' pain, to sell books. What a class act!

Meanwhile, the fat cats of that industry-that-we-dare-not-name-lest-we-be-branded-unpatriotic-commies are sleeping to the sweet "ch-ching" of money..

How many soldiers a barrel will be sacrificed? That's the true crime. Wake up and smell the crude...

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Yawn! We heard all that 15 years ago. Wasn't true then, isn't now :mad:

[ThNozzleman]

Come on guys....Noz was quick to jump on these quotes when he thought they were made by Bush.... If you called them lies when you thought Bush said them..... Why won't anyone from the left call them lies when you learned that it was Democrats, who read the SAME intellegence, voted FOR the war and SAID there were WMD?
Um...I never stated they were made by Bush. I DID state I wouldn't let anyone off the hook. I'm as disgusted by the flag-waving, vote-pandering dems that bought the lies and went with the flow as I am Bush. However, Bush and his minions are STILL the main source of the lies, and are the architects of this stupid war. I don't know where you get the idea that I thought they were made by Bush. Perhaps you should pay better attention.

[ChiefReason]

How is the war all about oil? FOLLOW THE MONEY.

How many soldiers a barrel will be sacrificed? That's the true crime. Wake up and smell the crude...

:confused: So wait; it's about the money; it's about the crude. It's about Bush and his buddies profitting from the war, blah, blah, blah.
ALL tired arguments and all easy reasons for the liberals to deflect attention from the REAL reasons that we are fighting global terrorism.
You don't want to accept the truth.
The fact is; if we were fighting this war in Ethiopia, it wouldn't be about rescuing all the starving civilians from genocide; it would be about the diamond mines or ivory or whatever else they might export.
The fact is: if we were fighting this war in Cuba, it wouldn't be about liberating a country from a dictatorship and bringing democracy to a country that is geographically very close to us. No; it would be about the sugar cane and tobacco.
The fact is: there is a region on this Earth where there is fanaticism being heavily funded with money and weapons who want to control their countries and take it to their mortal enemy...the United States.
And it just so happens, it is where there is OIL. Go ahead and believe it's about oil.
But I will believe that it is a war about fighting an enemy who would kill us all if given the chance and I prefer to fight them over there, instead of here.
As for Ann Coulter, her comments on the Jersey girls were a short portion of her book. You all talk like it was the entire subject of her book. She attacks many libs and their causes in her book.
Stop treating her like she hunted these women down and exposed them. They threw their faces into the public arena for politics and profit. They are fair game. Deal with it.
CR

[ThNozzleman]

With all due respect, Noz, how is the war about oil when I'm still paying near $3.00 a gallon?
Because that's what they want you to pay? What you pay at the pump has very little to do with controlling worldwide oil resources, which has been the center of EVERY policy having to do with the Middle East since the navies of the west quit burning coal. Since that time, western nations (namely Britain and the U.S.) have attempted to maintain a strong presence or influence in these areas. With global oil supplies diminishing, and with what's left being increasingly harder to recover, it's no secret as to why the neo-cons invaded Iraq while conveniently ignoring many other nations in similar or worse conditions. If this area of the world was not the richest source of easily recovered oil, we wouldn't give two damns about it. It's all about power and control, regardless of the cost in lives...and it always has been.

[ThNozzleman]

You don't want to accept the truth.
Sure. Of course, you conveniently ignore the history of western "influence" (and by influence, I mean military force) for control of some of the very resources you mention so casually. You think the British Empire was formed to "spread democracy" and make friends? I suggest you educate yourself and quit being so damn gullible.
Stop treating her like she hunted these women down and exposed them. They threw their faces into the public arena for politics and profit. They are fair game. Deal with it.
"Fair game?" So that makes it okay for a vile, contemptous bitch like Coulter to attack them, simply for their attempt to bring the changes that we all know we need? The mere fact that you stand up for her position (and not just her right to have it) explains a lot about you, as do some of the other stupid statements you've made in this thread.

[ThNozzleman]

By the way, just which part of the September 11th Advocates list do you disagree with?

[ChiefReason]

Um...I never stated they were made by Bush. I DID state I wouldn't let anyone off the hook. I'm as disgusted by the flag-waving, vote-pandering dems that bought the lies and went with the flow as I am Bush. However, Bush and his minions are STILL the main source of the lies, and are the architects of this stupid war. I don't know where you get the idea that I thought they were made by Bush. Perhaps you should pay better attention.
Does your bike actually go in reverse when you BACK PEDAL, cowboy?

[ChiefReason]

Sure. Of course, you conveniently ignore the history of western "influence" (and by influence, I mean military force) for control of some of the very resources you mention so casually. You think the British Empire was formed to "spread democracy" and make friends? I suggest you educate yourself and quit being so damn gullible.

"Fair game?" So that makes it okay for a vile, contemptous bitch like Coulter to attack them, simply for their attempt to bring the changes that we all know we need? The mere fact that you stand up for her position (and not just her right to have it) explains a lot about you, as do some of the other stupid statements you've made in this thread.
For the record, Nozz, since you seem to have me pegged; I actually spent my college years in a classroom majoring in political science. I doubt that you have ever picked up a textbook on western civilization, international relations or any other required reading to pursue a poly sci degree.
You get your info from rags and websites and you trowel it here like it's the gospel and everyone who disagrees is stupid. I remember my instructor in world history, Dr. Ahn. He wrote on my junior year finals exam that my test was one of the best that he had ever seen. Got a "A" on it and an "A" for the year.
So, keep it up, Professor, but you really need to learn when someone is serious and someone is playing with you and your arrogant ignorance.
I'm done playing with you now.
And you can go keep us safe from democracy.
CIAO!
CR

[ThNozzleman]

Does your bike actually go in reverse when you BACK PEDAL, cowboy?
Maybe you can explain just how I'm "back-pedaling". I NEVER stated that I believed Bush made those statements, and I've never stated that I didn't hold the dems who lent ANY support to this stupid war accountable. But, nice try...now try actually addressing some of the questions I've posted.

[ThNozzleman]

I'm done playing with you now.
Heh, heh...so long there, "professor"! It's pretty obvious you've wasted your money on your "education."

[ThNozzleman]

By the way, I appreciate your complete disregard for the questions I asked...but I guess it was simply too much for an "educated" man like yourself. You crack me up.

[scfire86]

For the record, Nozz, since you seem to have me pegged; I actually spent my college years in a classroom majoring in political science. I doubt that you have ever picked up a textbook on western civilization, international relations or any other required reading to pursue a poly sci degree.
So CR. Are you saying the uS has never meddled in the internal politics of Iran or Iraq prior to this conflict? That we have always allowed self determination to rule the day?

[ThNozzleman]

So CR. Are you saying the uS has never meddled in the internal politics of Iran or Iraq prior to this conflict? That we have always allowed self determination to rule the day?
Well, of couse he is! And who would argue with such an "educated" man?? :D

[scfire86]

The same can be said of OJ Simpson.
I never said the system is perfect. It is a legal system, NOT a justice system.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution. And in both cases neither prosecuting bodies did an adequate job of proving their case.

Ken Starr had $70M, unlimited subpoena power, and over 100 FBI agents working for him.

And he failed to adequately prove his case to the jury in order to gain the votes required for conviction.

[MamaLieut]

ChiefReason-

I would expect an educated man such as youself to not be so naive!

Is it truly about liberating the oppressed masses? Saving the innocent victims of tyranny?

Then why the HELL are we not in Rwanda, Darfur, etc??? The genocide of millions is happening, well documented, right under our noses.

We're not there because... oh, right. Follow the money.

BTW, don't get too hot under the collar. If we're gonna live in glass houses, expect a few stones. I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.

[JHR1985]

Can I make one brief statement. This thread was about Ann Coulter, not Bush and Iraq. There are countless other threads about that. Go battle it out there, not here.

[ThNozzleman]

I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.
And you shall receive only more of the usual grandstanding from the likes of him, for people like him cannot accept the facts that our nation is not about all the noble grandeur they conjure up in their heads, but about power and control, regardless of how many have to die. How easy it is for them to let soldiers continue to die for their pride and arrogance, like this war was some goddamned sporting event that just can't be lost. How many more have to die before they realize that the neo-con wet dream they've bought hook, line, and sinker isn't worth it? Surely, for one so sure of the "mission" in Iraq, CR should be able to give us an approximate number of flag draped coffins required. I always thought it ironic how people like him continue to blame the "left" for soldiers deaths, when HE (and people like him) were the ones who sent them to die in the first place. To hear these guys continue to bleat about the "reasons" (long since debunked) we invaded a nation that was ZERO threat to us would be very funny if it weren't so damn pitiful.

[ThNozzleman]

Go battle it out there, not here.
We'll "battle" where we see fit, regardless of which "side" we're on. If you want to play thread-nanny, start your own forums, or report this one to the webteam.

[Firedawg3313]

Nozzelman,

The military should and I believe will stay until the job is finished regardless of the number of casualties. The fact of the matter is that the individuals in the military enlisted by choice not by coercion. The enlistments and reenlistments continue to meet expectations. They do understand the consequences of that, unless you honestly believe they're all stupid and incapable of thinking and making valid choices for themselves and should consider following your ideology. Regardless of whoever you personally blame for the war. Who are you to suggest that the individuals who are VOLUNTARY, that what they are doing is useless, stupid, futile or whatever term you choose to use? It's by their own choice not YOURS or any one else's that they serve.

If you want to change the U.S. to match your political ideology (it seems that you have all the logical and so called correct answers to all the problems), I suggest you run for the presidency, senate or house and begin there. You must feel absolutely fantastic about your own personal and socio-economic perfection.

As for Ann Coulter, if you don't like her, don't read the book (your answer will be I WON'T). If you agree or disagree with her is a simple matter of personal choice and nothing else. Whatever your belief, I fail to see how you can judge a books content and validity without at least reading it, whether you agree or not.

It's funny to see so many that go into the b!t@h mode but the really funny thing is that this country only has less that 50% (sometimes much less) of the voting population even bother to go into the voting booth.

[Nine3Probie]

I never said the system is perfect. It is a legal system, NOT a justice system.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution. And in both cases neither prosecuting bodies did an adequate job of proving their case.

Agreed! But again, just because it wasn't proven in a court doesn't mean it didn't take place, or that the person is truly innocent.

For the record, I am neither a Bush supporter, nor a Clinton/Gore/Kerry supporter (I truly am disgusted with the Demicans and Repulicrats). I support our troops, hope for a speedy withdrawl when the military sees fit (I trust the troops on the ground more than anyone to know when that time is), and pray it comes soon.

Stay safe, SCFire!

[scfire86]

Nozzelman,

The military should and I believe will stay until the job is finished regardless of the number of casualties. The fact of the matter is that the individuals in the military enlisted by choice not by cohersion. The enlistments and reenlistments continue to meet expectations. They do understand the consequences of that, unless you honestly believe they're all stupid and incapable of thinking and making valid choices for themselves and should consider following your ideology.

This is an interesting statement. I just watched a documentary on the French Foreign Legion. Towards the end one of the legionnaires stated the resignation about how the country of France is reckless with the lives of the Legion because a.) they are foreigners, and b.) because they are all VOLUNTEERS. While you don't say it as directly that is the implication in your statement. That I shouldn't be concerned about how the lives of our military personnel are used since they volunteered of their free will.

[Firedawg3313]

They understood the consequences of enlistment, just as I did. If you study the legion you will find that many were volunteers by governmental coercion. Just as many were coerced by the courts during the Viet Nam era (enlist or go directly to jail). You should have your own opinion but it is still their choice to make and not yours or mine.