Ann Coulter to September 11th widows: You're a bunch of whitches and harpies

[malclave]

Ann Coulter, how do you feel about legalized gay marriage? About the regulation of pornography? About immigration? About identification cards?

I don't think she posts here.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I think you know what her answer would be.

You read Ann Coulter for the entertainment value. I dont read her everyday, nor even every couple of weeks, but every once in awhile I glance at her stuff and most of the time it just makes me laugh that she would actually come out and say what she does. Sometimes she even shocks me. I agree that she does nothing to ehance the conservative cause as she is just too "in your face" to engage in any real discussion.

If you ever catch her writing about Ted Kennedy or his clan, be prepared to laugh out loud. She certainly pulls no punches where Teddy is concerned.

Correct me if Iam wrong didnt you come out and say Micheal Moores 9/11 Film backfired and helped the republicans ? Wouldnt Ann Coulter also be doing the same ? Her views help push moderates away from republicans ?

 

[GarretSidzaka]

I don't think she posts here.

thank goodness

 

[Methos]

If you ever catch her writing about Ted Kennedy or his clan, be prepared to laugh out loud. She certainly pulls no punches where Teddy is concerned.

I’m reading “How to Talk to a Liberal (If you must)” now and you’re absolutely correct. Several times she’s slammed the Kennedy’s.

I originally picked this book to read due to a class I’m taking, and picked her as I didn’t like her. I figured reading a political book by someone I didn’t like would be easier to read through. Anyway, I’ve only read a couple chapters and she does make some good points, though in an odd way. Very aggressive, but an interesting and hilarious read. I suggest everyone who is arguing either way to pick up one of her books and try it out. I’m also curious how many people here (either side) have read any of her books, or are just arguing based off of “reports”.

I’ll probably pick up her Church book eventually, as I’d like to read her full comments on the 9/11 subject. As to the widows, once they went on TV and publicly made comments they ‘allowed’ themselves to be examined more closely. They cannot, nor should not, expect to be treated softly just because they are widows. While I am saddened at their loss, I do not believe that means they should be treated differently. Coulter may have been harsh, but that doesn’t mean she is, or isn’t, right. More facts are needed.

 

[MobBoss]

Correct me if Iam wrong didnt you come out and say Micheal Moores 9/11 Film backfired and helped the republicans ? Wouldnt Ann Coulter also be doing the same ? Her views help push moderates away from republicans ?

And I dont disagree. Not in the least.

 

[Archbob]

Is it just me, or does her book remind me of http://www.realultimatepower.net ?

 

[CurtSibling]

You think that is a heroic defense? Oh tay. /boggle.

Was it a cowardly defence then?

I still think you fancy the old bird.

 

[jameson]

As to the widows, once they went on TV and publicly made comments they ‘allowed’ themselves to be examined more closely. They cannot, nor should not, expect to be treated softly just because they are widows. While I am saddened at their loss, I do not believe that means they should be treated differently.

In other words, once they had the audacity to go public with their concerns, they opened the door to being insulted, disparaged and slandered just because Ann Coulter doesn't like their politics ? Do you think that's normal political discourse under any circumstance, let alone the kind of invective you let loose at people who've suffered a very real loss ?

It's quite possible to tell the 9/11 widows that, with all due respect for their loss, they're wrong about what needs to be done or they're wrong about who needs to be elected. But that, apparently, doesn't satisfy Coulter - she's trying to destroy their credibility and assassinate their character to further her own political agenda and, most likely, sell some more copies of her new book due to the controversy. Who's the one profiting personally, now ?

Coulter may have been harsh, but that doesn’t mean she is, or isn’t, right.
More facts are needed.

Exactly ! If Coulter wanted to make charges like this, more facts were needed. To insinuate that the 9/11 widows profited personally from their husbands' deaths without bringing any facts to the table is clearly slander, and I hope they sue her into oblivion (they did of course receive payouts from the 9/11 victims compensation fund, but I hope even Coulter isn't asinine enough to bring that up. After all, losing a husband in most of these cases meant losing a sizable part of the family income too).

 

[Methos]

doesn't satisfy Coulter - she's trying to destroy their credibility and assassinate their character to further her own political agenda and, most likely, sell some more copies of her new book due to the controversy. Who's the one profiting personally, now ?

I’m curious if you realize the above can be said for that small group of widows. Are they not using their loss to further their own political agendas? Did not the widows try and assassinate the characters of certain individuals? It goes both ways remember. I like how several individuals are quick to point out she’s [Coulter] is out to help herself, yet totally neglect the fact so is that small group of widows.

As to trying to sell more copies of her [Coulter] book, that’s a given.

In other words, once they had the audacity to go public with their concerns, they opened the door to being insulted, disparaged and slandered just because Ann Coulter doesn't like their politics ?

Not just Coulter, but everyone. If you or I went on TV and stated our political, or any other, views, would you not expect to have someone disparage you in some way? If so, than you’re blind to reality. That is how life is. It doesn’t matter that they are widows, or even if they were former drug addicts; once they voiced their opinion on TV they should expect ridicule in some way. This isn’t my opinion, but my observation on how things are.

To insinuate that the 9/11 widows profited personally from their husbands' deaths without bringing any facts to the table is clearly slander,

Who’s to say she hasn’t? Have you read the article in her book about these statements? Or are you basing your statements off of reports you’ve seen on TV or read in articles? If so, you yourself are arguing the very thing that you are doing. A lot of times news reports are edited in such a way to portray what the news agency wants you to see. I’ve watched speeches on TV and than watched the reports on them by newsgroups where they edited it in such a way that it was out of context with what the speaker really said. So do you honestly think that the short clips, or excerpts given in the news is everything she [Coulter] has said? I myself am going to wait until I can read her full article before giving an opinion on what she said.

If Coulter wanted to make charges like this, more facts were needed.

Unless you’ve read her full statements, we don’t know what facts she has.

So far I’ve only read two chapters in her [Coulter’s] book “How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must)”, so I still haven’t formed an opinion of her yet. I am neither arguing for or against here atm, but against those who are forming opinions based off of someone elses statements or opinions. Read one of her books and form your own opinion. Don’t take only what you see of her [Coulter] on TV to form an opinion. After I read her book I may decide I don’t like her, but at least I’ll have made that decision from reading her words, and not those edited or stated by another. As I stated previously, I bought Coulter's book mainly because I didn't like her.

 

[Mr. Do]

I’m curious if you realize the above can be said for that small group of widows. Are they not using their loss to further their own political agendas? Did not the widows try and assassinate the characters of certain individuals? It goes both ways remember. I like how several individuals are quick to point out she’s [Coulter] is out to help herself, yet totally neglect the fact so is that small group of widows.

"" indeed. The entire point of the argument, which I find it mind-boggling that you have missed, is that it is hypocritical for someone like Ann Coulter to condemn the 9/11 widows for any financial or political gain made while at the same time making political and financial gain out of their loss. And that's before you even consider that the motives behind the 9/11 widows and Ann Coulter are entirely different- you would have to be quite close-minded to assume that the widows are out for themselves; well, maybe they are, if you think they don't deserve peace of mind about the events around their partners' deaths.

And did the widows really assassinate the characters of certain individuals? I was not aware of this, could you provide a source? I really hope you're not one of those people who really think that disagreeing with someone's arguments and political actions is the same thing as the level of character assassination the widows have been subjected to...

 

[Rhymes]

Ann Coulter is an insane low life b*tch is. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just blind.

She is to rightist wath Michael Moor is to leftists, only 100 times worst : a disgrace.

 

[YNCS]

Some Ann Coulter quotes taken from another website:

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sink." --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 8/31/98

"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

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis." --This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start." --Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"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

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

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

"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

"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

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism." --MSNBC 2/8/97

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard." --Washington Post

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

 

[Methos]

And did the widows really assassinate the characters of certain individuals? I was not aware of this, could you provide a source?

Hmm, I was thinking they verbally attacked someone, but honestly now I can’t remember. Doing a little googling I get…

Here’s one article from the widow Kristen Breitweiser, and here are some more.

Too tired to google all of them, so I just did one of the four widows.

@YNCS: Just to clarify, are those statements she made at the source you listed? Or are those quotes that the source you listed stated and Coulter brought them to the publics attention?

 

[YNCS]

Those quotes are what Coulter said. She brought them to the public's attention by saying them in public.

 

[Mr. Do]

None of those come are even ad hominem attacks, yet alone character assassinations, as I think you've probably worked out from your quick search. The first article you linked to is very well-written and makes numerous excellent points without any personal attacks, although you can tell she has an attitude, but I think we can overlook that, perhaps. Retraction time perhaps?

 

[GarretSidzaka]

LMMFAO retraction

 

[YNCS]

None of those come are even ad hominem attacks, yet alone character assassinations, as I think you've probably worked out from your quick search. The first article you linked to is very well-written and makes numerous excellent points without any personal attacks, although you can tell she has an attitude, but I think we can overlook that, perhaps. Retraction time perhaps?

You're kidding, aren't you? Or is it that you don't know what an ad hominem is?

Here's some of Coulter's comments that are pure ad hominems:

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient."

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

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.

Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."

 

[Tulkas12]

To me? This is the very essence of freedom of speech. Being a public figure requires the burden of open speech about you. If this is how they chose to heal then they knew that eventually someone was going to trash them for it.
Alot of people consider this kind of healing indecent for a few different reasons.

I tend to be one that sees Coulter as too much bigot, but her research on the McCarthy stuff is great and probably one of the best kept secrets out there. We found out alot post cold-war.

 

[PCHighway]

Did you actually read the stories?

Of course I did. I read the other 15 that I recommended which had similar examples in them as well.

No brownshirts came and carried anyone one off in any of them.

I'm most certainly not comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany in the 30s. I'm saying that the U.S. has been twisted by fear and a desire for revenge. I've talked to numerous professors of Political Science and Sociology; they all agree that when the people of a nation are afraid, they often make the choice to sacrifice freedoms for alleged safety.
Of course, my own subjective view of the issue is that the neo-con's could have done a lot better job making this country safe. I also feel that they destroyed far more personal rights than they should have to achieve this so-called "safety" (which the 9/11 commission disagreed with).

I dont think what the FBI did in the 12 years olds case as harassment, neither in the case of the Toy Store owner.

That's just it, the difference between you and I. I find these cases incredibly troubling. Terrorism should never be used as an excuse for Homeland Security agents to force a small business-person to remove a "Magic Cube" in favor of a "Rubik's Cube" because of copyright infringement. Not only that, but Homeland Security was evidently inept, and the copyright was legit.
Safer... Yeah, right.

If you or I went on TV and stated our political, or any other, views, would you not expect to have someone disparage you in some way? If so, than you’re blind to reality. That is how life is. It doesn’t matter that they are widows, or even if they were former drug addicts; once they voiced their opinion on TV they should expect ridicule in some way. This isn’t my opinion, but my observation on how things are.

That's not really the issue here, as Mr. Do rightly pointed out. There is a line between what's acceptable and what's not. We do have laws against slander (or as MobBoss will tell you, libel). The first half of this thread largely deals with the issue Coulter brought up; that the widows secretly hated their husbands.
There is no way this can be proven, and thus it is slander/libel; I believe that was the point of view VoodooAce had.
I also find it paradoxical how some Republicans wail about the loss of moral values in this country and support this woman. This is not to say you wail about morals in society or support her, Methos; it's just that a few parts of the argument quoted above mirror those who do.
In fact, part of me wonders if you are arguing with Mr. Do, Jameson, and YNCS for the same reason you say you are reading one of Coulter's books.

As stated earlier, the widows did indeed respond (reported by Reuters) :
"'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."

Who’s to say she hasn’t? Have you read the article in her book about these statements? Or are you basing your statements off of reports you’ve seen on TV or read in articles? If so, you yourself are arguing the very thing that you are doing. A lot of times news reports are edited in such a way to portray what the news agency wants you to see. I’ve watched speeches on TV and than watched the reports on them by newsgroups where they edited it in such a way that it was out of context with what the speaker really said. So do you honestly think that the short clips, or excerpts given in the news is everything she [Coulter] has said? I myself am going to wait until I can read her full article before giving an opinion on what she said.

Jameson, I encourage you not to read that book! There are more credible sources to read if you are overcome with the desire to get a neo-conservative viewpoint.

I'm sure MobBoss can refer you to some neo-con spin that actually has some logic and facts in it. Of course, I'm sure it's flawed logic, but at least the facts are probably accurate. Maybe. Occasionally.

Methos, I have read fairly large segments of her books and articles in various research that I've done these past few years. I did most of it back when Coulter was popular. From my experience, the comments like the one we are debating, in her books, are 99% opinion quips catering to the base. From the recent articles I've read (including that FOX one posted in the first post of the thread) it seems that Coulter only talks about this for a few paragraphs in her new book--she isn't interested in defending the comments.

@YNCS: Just to clarify, are those statements she made at the source you listed? Or are those quotes that the source you listed stated and Coulter brought them to the publics attention?

Not sure I follow? It is a collections of statements (why YNCS included dates and shows) that YNCS says he found at a source. She made them all at varying points across a four year span. I've heard and read many of them, they are all credible, and a simple Google search for each would prove that .
Coulter would deny none of them.

Here’s one article from the widow Kristen Breitweiser, and here are some more.

Thanks. I've just added Kristen Breitweiser to my proverbial "heroine list" .

Looks like it's exactly like I expected it to be:
"Breitweiser did not seek to be an activist. She was a stay-at-home mother in suburban New Jersey and a George Bush supporter. Yet Breitweiser and the other so-called 'Jersey Girls' transformed by their grief and outraged by a lack of accountability are widely credited with forcing the creation of the 9/11 Commission and were instrumental in insuring the passage in Congress of the national security reforms it recommended."

I just finished reading her blog to Rove.
Sounds credible to me. I, like Mr. Do, see nothing libelous in her blog. Nothing that can even remotely compare to what coulter said.

You're kidding, aren't you? Or is it that you don't know what an ad hominem is?

YNCS, I don't want to speak for Mr. Do, but it seems to me that he was referring to the links Methos provided claiming that one of the widows made verbal attacks equate-able to what Coulter has said. I.e., the one above yours.

-Sorry about the formal-like writing. I usually try to write colloquially, but it's hard when you're tired . Ah well, back to modding.

 

[YNCS]

I tend to be one that sees Coulter as too much bigot, but her research on the McCarthy stuff is great and probably one of the best kept secrets out there. We found out alot post cold-war.

Coulter's "research" on McCarthy is pathetic. Here's what conservative David Horowitz said about Coulter and McCarthy:

In Coulter’s book [Treason], Democrats (whom she inexplicably conflates with liberals) come under blistering attack for their perfidious role in the so-called “McCarthy Era.” A lot of what she says about Democrats is true, but nearly half the members of McCarthy's own Senate Subcommittee on Governmental Operations were Democrats (as were members of the later-demonized House's Un-American Activities Committee). Bobby Kennedy was a McCarthy staff lawyer....

Democrats did allow the Communists to penetrate their party and their administrations in the 1930s and 1940s. The Truman Administration did dismiss Republican charges of Communist influence as partisan politics and was lackadaisical before 1947 in taking the internal Communist threat seriously. But in 1947 all that changed. Truman instituted a comprehensive loyalty program to ferret out Communist influence in government. It was the Truman Administration that prosecuted Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. In fact the decisive battles of this era took place inside liberalism. It was Walter Reuther – a socialist – who purged the Communist from the CIO and it was Truman’s anti-Communist policies that provoked the Communists into leaving the Democratic Party and forming the Progressive Party to oppose his re-election in 1948. By ignoring these complexities – or dismissing them – Coulter makes her case seem indefensible, even when it is not.
...
It is a shame that Coulter mars her case with claims that cannot be sustained. In making McCarthy the center of her history, ironically, she has fallen into the very liberal trap she warns about. It is the Left that wants McCarthy to be the center of (and in effect to define) the postwar era so that it can use his recklessness to discredit the anti-Communist cause. In fact, as Coulter herself points out, McCarthy began his anti-Communist crusade after the decisive battles of 1947 and 1948, surfacing only in 1950, after the onset of the Korean War. By then, even Henry Wallace, the Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, knew he had been duped. This is why McCarthy did not unearth any Communists in government or out (all they had all been previously identified by the FBI), and why FBI officials engaged in counter-intelligence work despised McCarthy for damaging their efforts.