Coulter attacks 9/11 Widows

[newbie]

Yep, good ole Annie got a little "testy" with Matt over at the Today show. Read the transcript:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[BubberMiley]

She seems really strung out and angry.

[GostHacked]

I think I just got dumber.

[Johnny Utah]

I'm just guessing here, Ann Coulter's point of view is these 9/11 Widows views are one sided. In 2004 their views were Anti-Bush while Pro-Kerry and if you called them on what they were saying you were attacking all 9/11 Widows as they think they represent every Widow, every family member who lost a loved one on 9/11..

They are using their 9/11 Widows status to say anything they want and have no one call them on their statements because their 9/11 Widows and you can't debate them as it's a big no-no..

[Liam]

I'm just guessing here, Ann Coulter's point of view is these 9/11 Widows views are one sided. In 2004 their views were Anti-Bush while Pro-Kerry and if you called them on what they were saying you were attacking all 9/11 Widows as they think they represent every Widow, every family member who lost a loved one on 9/11..

They are using their 9/11 Widows status to say anything they want and have no one call them on their statements because their 9/11 Widows and you can't debate them as it's a big no-no..

That's fairly close to Coulter's position. What Coulter does not consider, though, is that Bush's side also had its own group of 9/11 widows campaigning for him. Their side of the debate was fine, but how dare some of the surviving spouses of 9/11 dare to point out to the public that it was only because of their political activism that the Bush Administration even launched the 9/11 Commission? (That's right -- Bush didn't even want to investigate 9/11 and it was only after the public outcry when these women spoke up that Bush grudgingly went along -- and he still refused to do so under oath and without Cheney present.) Bush and the entire GOP politicized 9/11, essentially, from 9/12 on -- to the extent of even holding their political convention in NYC, the epicenter of all the GOP despise. But what gets Coulter the most angry is that these women seemed unassailable, like she thinks it is unfair for any 9/11 widow to speak out against Bush because, to semi-quote Coulter, "give me something I can hit you back with." Coulter isn't interested in these women at all beyond her own ability to play smackdown politics with what they say. Beyond that, Coulter went waaayy over the line by saying that she has never seen a group of women take so much glee in the deaths of their husbands. Unconscionable.

[BubberMiley]

Republican and Democratic soldiers, their families, and families of dead soldiers and victims of 9/11 have taken positions on both sides of the war debate. This is probably even more common among Republicans than Democrats. There's nothing wrong with anyone expressing their opinion; she's just mad because they don't agree with her.

Besides, like Matt Lauer said, it's ridiculous that she would insult these people in one breath and say it's wrong to even debate their arguments with the other.

[kimmy]

While she's deranged and the personal attack on 9/11 widows is tasteless to say the least, she does kind of have a point.

Does the fact that these people lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks make them more knowledgeable about national security? Or does it just make it harder to argue with them without coming across like an insensitive bully?

-k

[Liam]

While she's deranged and the personal attack on 9/11 widows is tasteless to say the least, she does kind of have a point.

Does the fact that these people lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks make them more knowledgeable about national security? Or does it just make it harder to argue with them without coming across like an insensitive bully?

-k

No, I don't think they are better at national security issues b/c they suffered a personal loss on 9/11. I don't think it was their position that they were better at national security issues. Their position was that they didn't support Bush because of X, Y and Z (he refused to investigate 9/11, he refocused the country's attention away from the war in Afghanistan, he refused to commit troops to finding OBL when he was trapped in Tora Bora, etc.). Personally, if I lost someone on 9/11 and saw my president use it cynically as Bush did and then call off the search for OBL so that troops could be diverted to Iraq, I don't think my anger would have been as contained as these widows'.

I think it's actually very easy to join a debate with someone who suffered loss as a result of 9/11. Acknowledge their loss, express your own grief, but then counter their positions with well-thought out policy arguments. Coulter doesn't do this -- she almost seems incapable of the basic kindness or ability to engage in the kind of genuine intellectual debate she repeatedly accuses others of lacking.

[August1991]

Coulter chose crude words but I recall Trudeau's comment to Margaret: if you're kidnapped, don't expect me to negotiate national interest for your release.

IOW, it is unfair to place one's personal stake up against the group as a whole.

Coulter is also right to call this "Liberal Infallibility". Cindy Sheehan is presented as an authority on military affairs, and it is a moral outrage to criticise her.

[newbie]

Even though she had no credibility with me, she completely loses it all with I have never seen a group of women take so much glee in the deaths of their husbands. That's not going over the line: that is demolishing it.

[Riverwind]

Cindy Sheehan is presented as an authority on military affairs, and it is a moral outrage to criticise her.

I agree that some in the media give victims way too much credibility when they speak on a topic, however, it is not necessary to resort to personal attacks to refute points brought up by these media darlings.

Coulter feels frustrated by the 9/11 widows because she does not know how to make a point without making personal attacks on an opponent. This fact says a lot more about the credibility of Coulter than the 9/11 widows.

[Liam]

I find it kind of ironic that Coulter's hero di tutti heroes is Senator Joseph McCarthy, the end of whose career was presaged by his belief that he was above reproach, above criticism, able to say and do what he wanted with total impunity and for whom the career ending question asked to him was , "at long last, have you no sense of decency, sir?" Unfortunately for Ann, people who fail to learn history are often doomed to repeat it.

[PocketRocket]

I was unable to view the video in the initial link, but found it here.....

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/

Regarding Coulter herself, I've said before and I'll say again. Her business is business, not politics.

And the business she is in is selling herself and her books.

She sells them by making outrageous statements and deliberately "stepping over the line".

And she is VERY good at it.

As a so called "political pundit", however, her statements must be taken with a grain of salt.

As for her remark about "these broads" being part of the liberal "unassailable" machine, well, that too could well be said in a civilised fashion.

Kimmy did so right here by raising the question.......

Does the fact that these people lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks make them more knowledgeable about national security?

........which is, after all, the whole point.

But that would not work for Coulter.

Being reasonable does not sell books.

Being outrageous does.

[PocketRocket]

This thread inspired me to do a little search on Coulter videos whilst enjoying my morning coffee.

It was an enlightening, not to mention entertaining, experience, but serves to reinforce the point I made in my previous post.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2665904

When it comes to hate speech, Ann does nothing but avoid the questions

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663937

And of course, the now famous (at least in Canada) contribution that Canada made in "sending troops to Viet Nam.

Interesting how she sidesteps when cornered.

http://abum.com/show/874/936142630.wmv

And the also famous "Canada is allowed to exist on the Same continent as the USA"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120002

In this little clip regarding Katrina........

"Coulter claimed it is "manifestly true" that no one anticipated the levee breeches, then admitted she doesn't know the "details" "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1536281/posts

And this one says it all. It's a montage of clips (put together by someone who is a Coulter fan, and an anti Liberal, which is fine) and the very last thing she says is ".....and judging by my book sales, versus those who are 'less strident'.....", where she basically lets slip the fact that the entire purpose of her controversial statements is to SELL BOOKS.

[BubberMiley]

Does the fact that these people lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks make them more knowledgeable about national security? Or does it just make it harder to argue with them without coming across like an insensitive bully?

Does it make them less knowledgeable? They have been affected so personally by these events; they have something they want to say: why not listen? You are free to disagree and, so long as you don't accuse them of finding glee in their husbands' deaths, I think you won't necessarily come across as insensitive.

[newbie]

A few more while we're at it.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...s&ct=image&cd=2

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...lterwisdom.html

http://www.nndb.com/people/474/000022408/

[GostHacked]

Newbie ... yeah I gotta stop watch her clips. I get dumber every time she speeks.

Provided some entertainment though.

[sharkman]

Thanks, Newbie, there's nothing like the wit and wisdom of Coulter to bring things into focus. No doubt her book will do quite well, as all of her previous books have done.

[BubberMiley]

If that's what's passed off as wisdom on the Right, I'll stick with Chomsky.

[GostHacked]

If that's what's passed off as wisdom on the Right, I'll stick with Chomsky.

Indeed. I really like Chomsky

[newbie]

Thanks, Newbie, there's nothing like the wit and wisdom of Coulter to bring things into focus. No doubt her book will do quite well, as all of her previous books have done.

Glad you enjoyed them. It is quite amusing to see the left (of which I am a part) go crazy everytime this broad opens her mouth. I used to be very enraged with her stupid and insensitve comments, but that what she feeds off. The right buys her books because she "attacks" the left. Her books are only entertainment though as they are totally inaccurate and garbage as far as factual content.

[newbie]

No doubt her book will do quite well, as all of her previous books have done.

Yep, no shortage of the kind of folks that she appeals to.

[GostHacked]

While she's deranged and the personal attack on 9/11 widows is tasteless to say the least, she does kind of have a point.

Does the fact that these people lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks make them more knowledgeable about national security? Or does it just make it harder to argue with them without coming across like an insensitive bully?

-k

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/dhs.fakeid/index.html

Retired NY Policeman who lost his son on Sept 11, 2001, gets a forged Mexican ID (that cannot be used to enter government facilities) with a different birthdate walks RIGHT IN to DHS. Somehow I don't think the government is up to snuff par as well.

[Darth Buddha]

If that's what's passed off as wisdom on the Right, I'll stick with Chomsky.

You'd be surprised how many libertarian leaning and moderate leaning Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with her schtick. As such, I think she does the country a service: those who aren't repelled by her are already unthinking knee-jerk neocon to the point of neofascist and are irredeemable, but those who are repelled are moving a bit toward the middle.

Similarly, the Democrats are considering & voting for some far more moderate candidates for the next election to avoid the revulsion for knee-jerk liberals too.

Moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats are the only true hope for the U.S. Much as the so-called "Gang of 14" Senators who have torpedoed both filibusters and outrageous rule changes are problem solvers, the only true pragmatists are in the middle, not the extremes.

[August1991]

So then, Ann Coulter doesn't believe in evolution. It's her loss.

John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?

Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory.

John Hawkins: If the science behind evolution doesn't stand-up, why do you think so many people who should know better so fervently believe in evolution?

Ann Coulter: A century of brain-washing combined with a desperate need to not believe in an intelligent designer.

John Hawkins: Do you think evolution, intelligent design, or something else should be taught in schools?

Ann Coulter: I would say teach them the one that has the strongest scientific basis to it, and if there's any time left over at the end of the day you could also teach them about the theory of evolution.

Some Right Wing Website