Jump to content

Fin Fang Foom Defends Ann Coulter's 9/11 Widow's Position


FinFangFoom
This topic is 5992 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

For those of you who haven't read her new book - which means all of you, whereas I have already - let me explain her position about the 9/11 widows since it's being misrepresented in the media (what a shock).

 

Her point is that the Democrats trot out victims to make their points and then, like pussies, hide behind them by saying "How DARE you question someone who lost someone on 9/11!!!" So if anyone criticizes their POSITION on facts, Democrats can scream about how you're attacking victims.

 

Matt Lauer unintentionally and exquisitely proved Ann point on The Today Show yesterday. He chastized Ann and said don't they have a right to speak their minds and Ann agreed, but HER point was that it's also ANN'S right to call them on the carpet if their position is nonsense - which, if you know anything about what they've said (and none of you do) you know basically all of their ranting IS nonsense. So Ann is saying, if you're going to take a POLICITCAL position (like making a commercial for John Kerry) then you had better be prepared to suffer the consequences of jumping into the political pool.

 

Which we clearly see, they aren't.

 

Therefore, they should shut the fuck up. Their actions aid and abet the enemy during a time of war.

 

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

 

Informatively yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

RE: Fin Fang Foom Stupider Than Coulter?

 

Ann Coulter is probably laughing all the way to the bank as she says more outrageous things and gets more attention for it. I hope Foom didn't pay for this book out of his diaper fund. Here's a more accurate view of the event:

Massive chip on her Coulter

 

Ann's vicious screed

 

BY ADAM LISBERG

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

 

 

One of the controversial excerpts from Ann Coulter's new book 'Godless': '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.'

 

When their husbands were killed on 9/11, four New Jersey widows tried to find out why - and now no-holds-barred conservative pundit Ann Coulter is mercilessly denouncing them as "witches."

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her new book.

 

Her brutal words were challenged yesterday on national television by "Today" host Matt Lauer - and she was slammed by the widows she derided as self-absorbed, limelight-seeking "harpies."

 

"I'd like her to meet my daughter and tell her how anyone could enjoy their father's death," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four widows known as the "Jersey Girls."

 

"She sounds like a very disturbed, unraveled person," added Breitweiser.

 

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," the uncompromisingly right-wing Coulter writes the Jersey Girls have no right to criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to the terror attacks.

 

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

 

"And 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. . .

 

"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."

 

Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza bonded after their husbands died on 9/11, leaving them with seven children and a desire for answers.

 

They pushed to create the 9/11 commission, which put out a scathing report criticizing the Clinton and Bush administrations for not taking the terrorist threat more seriously - and found New York's emergency response system wasn't prepared for a serious attack.

 

"Our ports have not been secured. Our borders have not been secured. We still haven't caught [Osama] Bin Laden," Van Auken said yesterday. "She's not even talking about what we were talking about. She's just attacking."

 

The Jersey Girls - or, as Coulter calls them, "the Witches of East Brunswick" - have been criticized before, but never like this. Van Auken told the Daily News she was stunned by the vitriol.

 

"Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy," she said. "Watching it unfold on national TV and .seeing it repeated endlessly was beyond what I could describe. Telling my children they would never see their father again was not fun. And we had no plans to divorce."

 

When Lauer grilled Coulter about the book, she yelled at him so harshly that gasps echoed through Rockefeller Center - and then she made a wisecrack about CBS-bound former host Katie Couric.

 

"If you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?" Lauer asked.

 

As the exchange grew tense, Coulter said, "Look, you're getting testy with me."

 

She later added: "Hey, where's Katie? Did she leave or something?"

 

Last night, Coulter didn't back down from bashing the 9/11 widows. "These women got paid. They ought to take their money and shut up about it," Coulter said on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson."

 

Coulter made headlines in the past when she called for blowing up The New York Times Building, advocated forcing Muslims to become Christians and wrote an entire book that said every American liberal is guilty of treason.

 

Her controversial writings have made her a best-selling .author and syndicated columnist and put her on the cover of Time magazine. She's made big bucks in the process, buying a $1.5 million condo on the upper East Side.

 

Politicians of both parties denounced Coulter's comments.

 

"It's totally inhumane to be saying things like this about people who went through such agony," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.).

 

"It seems that she's just full of anger and hate," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan), who held a news conference yesterday with relatives of 9/11 victims on the country's failure to improve security.

 

"Like an insecure child, it's always been clear that Ann Coulter is prepared to do anything to get attention," added Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens). "This is a new low."

 

 

With Michael McAuliff in Washington

and Derek Rose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Fin Fang Foom Stupider Than Coulter?

 

This was the article that prompted me to write the post.

 

 

>BY ADAM LISBERG

>DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

 

 

>"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so

>much," Coulter writes in her new book.

 

The quote isn't put into context - what a shock.

 

 

>In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," the uncompromisingly

>right-wing Coulter writes the Jersey Girls have no right to

>criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to

>the terror attacks.

 

That's a lie. She doesn't say that. What a shock.

 

 

>"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles

>about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and

>stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

 

You may not like it, but it's true.

 

 

>"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."

 

You may not like it, but it's true.

 

 

>"Our ports have not been secured. Our borders have not been

>secured. We still haven't caught [Osama] Bin Laden," Van Auken

>said yesterday. "She's not even talking about what we were

>talking about. She's just attacking."

 

They prove Ann's point.

 

 

>When Lauer grilled Coulter about the book, she yelled at him

>so harshly that gasps echoed through Rockefeller Center

 

She didn't "yell" - that's a lie. What a shock.

 

 

>"If you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a

>political point of view?" Lauer asked.

 

Ann agreed they DID have the right. (see my initial post)

 

 

>Last night, Coulter didn't back down from bashing the 9/11

>widows. "These women got paid. They ought to take their money

>and shut up about it."

 

I agree.

 

 

>Coulter made headlines in the past when she called for blowing

>up The New York Times Building,

 

It would be a start.

 

 

>advocated forcing Muslims to

>become Christians

 

That's a lie. She said they should be "converted". You can't FORCE someone to become a Christian.

 

 

>and wrote an entire book that said every

>American liberal is guilty of treason.

 

That's a lie. What a shock.

 

 

 

>"It seems that she's just full of anger and hate," said Rep.

>Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan), who held a news conference

>yesterday with relatives of 9/11 victims on the country's

>failure to improve security.

 

Another professional victim.

 

Keep up the great work Ann.

 

Supportively yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Fin Fang Foom Stupider Than Coulter?

 

3F, how can you support this c*&% ? She has trotted out more people to make money than any Democrat. And the Repigs have never used 9-11 for political purposes, sure. This bitch is full of ill will!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Fin Fang Foom Stupider Than Coulter?

 

>"It seems that she's just full of anger and hate," said Rep.

>Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan)

 

She got it wrong. Coulter IS full of anger and hate. In fact, that's all she has to offer. Sooner or later she was going to attack the wrong target. She finally did, she's been called on it, and she can't understand why she's suddenly not being lionized like she has been. Her reaction: to be even more offensive and vitriolic! You go, girl! And please, someone lock her and FFF in a room somewhere (perhaps the alumni lounge of the Copacabana School of Dramatic Arts, from which they both seem to have graduated?) where they can slash each other with crazy bon mots and leave the rest of the world blissfully alone and unaware. . . BTW, if you think Matt Lauer was able to set Ms. Coulter back, she ain't seen nothing until the Fin's been unleashed on her! She'll be waving the white flag in 15 minutes! }(

 

If truth be told, I think Coulter and the entire psychotic right have peaked. The polls suggest that Americans have finally awakened and started seeing through this filth. They could give a flying fuck about Coulter and her friends' phony agendas. They want to know when and how we're ever going to be able to get out of Iraq, what we're going to do about the staggering Republican deficits, what's going to happen to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, how we're going to prevent terrorism, how we're going to protect ourselves (and rebuild after) major natural disasters, whether we're going to be able to afford to fill up the gas tank without having to cut back on food or mortgage payments or other essentials, and on and on and on. Coulter and the other right-wingnuts provided a certain kind of entertainment value, but their shtick is old and it no longer speaks to the concerns of most Americans. They're moving on, and before long Coulter and her ilk will be a little deformed asterisk in the history of American politics, if that! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In her own words she said 911 widows are enjoying their husbands' deaths. She is a woman who uses other people's facts and research for her books giving no credit. Her thoughts and content are unoriginal. She also uses her negligible beauty to pimp her books. Her views, along with her ears, are stupid. She isn't even trying to provoke serious thought or engage people in discourse that will bring about change for the better. She is a modern day barker.

 

She says these women are happy their husbands are dead. Again, these are her words. In my words, Ann has utilized the lowest common denominator to write a book to fund her lavish lifestyle. She is the cheapest literary concubine on the planet. I applaud the many anti-Ann websites and blogs that exist. I hope more pop up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coulter is enjoying all the publicity.

 

WHY ANYONE WOULD CARE WHAT THAT DRIED UP OLD FLAT CHESTED CUNT THINKS

 

She has been a #### for the right wing conservatives all along.

 

and I ment that in the nicest way possible ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the only one the right has to hang their hat on is Ann Coulter, I feel sorry for them. Never thought I would find myself feeling sorry for Republicans. This woman's remarks may energize the right, but they make any human being want to purge.

 

The politics of division have won a number of elections for the Republicans, and looks like we're gearing up for midterms with this over the top tirade against victims of 911. Are they going to trot out the swift boat captains next?

 

The really sad part for our country is that President Bush had the nation united as one right after 911, and proceeded to tear it apart with one divisive issue after another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

>For those of you who haven't read her new book - which means

>all of you, whereas I have already - let me explain her

>position about the 9/11 widows since it's being misrepresented

>in the media (what a shock).

>

>Her point is that the Democrats trot out victims to make their

>points and then, like pussies, hide behind them by saying "How

>DARE you question someone who lost someone on 9/11!!!" So if

>anyone criticizes their POSITION on facts, Democrats can

>scream about how you're attacking victims.

>

>Matt Lauer unintentionally and exquisitely proved Ann point on

>The Today Show yesterday. He chastized Ann and said don't they

>have a right to speak their minds and Ann agreed, but HER

>point was that it's also ANN'S right to call them on the

>carpet if their position is nonsense - which, if you know

>anything about what they've said (and none of you do) you know

>basically all of their ranting IS nonsense. So Ann is saying,

>if you're going to take a POLICITCAL position (like making a

>commercial for John Kerry) then you had better be prepared to

>suffer the consequences of jumping into the political pool.

>

>Which we clearly see, they aren't.

>

>Therefore, they should shut the fuck up. Their actions aid and

>abet the enemy during a time of war.

>

>Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

>

>Informatively yours,

>

>FFF

 

 

Don't you just love how conservatives hate Americans more than they hate foreign terrorists. Take the above rant as a case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

RE: The Rude Pundit on Ann Coulter......

 

6/8/2006

 

Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt, Part 2609 of an Endless Series (More Plagiarism? Edition):

 

It is a sad truism in the business of whoredom that someone younger, hotter, more hardcore is gonna come along and take away half the johns that the older skanks used to pleasure. One day, you can be blow job queen of the Strip; the next day, a 19 year-old with DSLs that'll suck a cock clean in three minutes or less is gonna have 'em linin' up like free burger day at the drive-through. So you gotta get crazier. Show that these little slits with tits are nothin' compared to you. Pretty soon, you're not only walkin' around in nothin' but a g-string and tube top, you're promisin' you'll go places no other hooker in Vegas'll go: "Yeah, sure, you can shit on my twat and then fuck me through the shit." "Yeah, you can bloody my asshole with a bottle and then fuck me through the blood." "Yeah, you can get ten of your friends to run a train on me while you stand on the side and jack off on a little boy holding a kitten before you make me eat the kitten." Then you can head back to the corner, hold your head up, spit out kitten hair, and show all the little slutettes who the nastiest cunt is.

 

There's so much that's fucked up about Ann Coulter and her latest "book" (if by "book," you mean, "Extended projectile vomiting retched out by a pencil-legged harridan scratching semi-words in her own puke") that it's hard to know where to start. There's the title of the "book," Godless, which quite intentionally must exist to make you think, as you walk into your local Barnes and Noble and glance over at the shrieking, howling display of volumes with Ann Coulter's picture on them, "Goddess." One might think no human being could be that needy, but, then again, Coulter's gotta compete with your Malkins and your Ingrahams and other conservative fuck dream demi-babes.

 

And the Rude Pundit's not gonna get into the whole "oh, Ann Coulter's wrong about this" argument, 'cause that would mean what she says merits any response other than: Are you really that fucking crazy? No, seriously, are you that...fucking...crazy? What else would you ask someone who writes, as Coulter does in the first chapter, freely available, regarding "fears" of water shortages: "Liberals are worried we’re going to run out of something that literally falls from the sky. Here’s an idea: Just wait. It will rain." Beyond the fact that most of Coulter's arguments seem to stem from understanding liberalism from 20 or 30 years ago, the sentence is breathtakingly, self-evidently stupid.

 

Then there's Coulter's comments about the 9/11 widows in the book and during her strange, defensive interview on Today. The problem that the Rude Pundit has with so many in our mighty right wing commentariat is that they like to beat up on disempowered people - the poor, immigrants, mothers who've lost children in war. You know, if you walk into a bunny hutch and just start ripping the heads off rabbits because how dare they look so fuckin' cute, you really can't walk out with your head held high, thinking you're some great warrior.

 

But what really pisses the Rude Pundit off is that not only is Coulter a shitty writer and a bugfuck crazed presence any time she is remotely challenged, but she has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself:

 

Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.

 

Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.

 

Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977:

 

Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.

 

Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.

 

Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman?

 

So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?

 

The Rude Pundit could end on a high note here. A note where he demonstrates how he's above it all. Fuck that. Sometimes you gotta jump in the gutter and have the slap fight with the w.h.o.r.e.s. Coulter is fond of saying that feminists are ugly, describing one as "physically repulsive." Has Coulter taken a look in the mirror lately? She looks like the crazed lingerer at a bar at 3 a.m., desperate for some fat fuck to take her home, beat her, and fuck her face. Bitch has been ridden hard and put away spooge covered, taken out the next day, stiff and sticky, and spit on to be cleaned up for her interviews before using her to wipe Republican asses. Goddamn, time does not treat the nutzoid well. The Rude Pundit wouldn't fuck her if he was given Rush Limbaugh's tiny, diseased prick to fuck her with.

 

 

// posted by Rude One @ 12:03 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: The Rude Pundit on

 

Are you trying to get twinkboylover28 aroused here?...

 

"Yeah, sure, you can shit on my twat and then fuck me through the shit." "Yeah, you can bloody my asshole with a bottle and then fuck me through the blood." "Yeah, you can get ten of your friends to run a train on me while you stand on the side and jack off on a little boy holding a kitten before you make me eat the kitten." Then you can head back to the corner, hold your head up, spit out kitten hair, and show all the little slutettes who the nastiest cunt is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9/11 Commish calls for boycott.

 

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON

 

A member of the Sept. 11 commission on Friday lashed out at conservative pundit Ann Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain.

 

In her latest book, Coulter criticizes the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11, attacks. The women also backed Democrat John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004.

 

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief- arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter wrote.

 

Former Rep. Tim Roehmer, D-Ind., a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, called Coulter's "hate-filled attack on the patriotic heroes of 9/12 _ the widows of 9/11 _ reprehensible and undignified."

 

Roehmer urged people not to buy her book. "Americans shouldn't contribute to her profiting from these vicious remarks."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Her point is that the Democrats trot out victims to make their

>points and then, like pussies, hide behind them by saying "How

>DARE you question someone who lost someone on 9/11!!!" So if

>anyone criticizes their POSITION on facts, Democrats can

>scream about how you're attacking victims.

>FFF

 

FFF both parties did this durring the conventions. They both used the victims and 9/11 and fear most of which is not true to get elected. Both parties are in the wrong.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

 

seaboy4hire@yahoo.com http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

CHICAGO June 14-18, NYC June 27-July 01

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b310/NobodyKnowsMe/sinz.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Her point is that the Democrats trot out victims to make

>their

>>points and then, like pussies, hide behind them by saying

>"How

>>DARE you question someone who lost someone on 9/11!!!" So if

>>anyone criticizes their POSITION on facts, Democrats can

>>scream about how you're attacking victims.

>>FFF

>

>FFF both parties did this durring the conventions. They both

>used the victims and 9/11 and fear most of which is not true

>to get elected. Both parties are in the wrong.

>

>Hugs,

>Greg

 

 

No Greg, both parties did not do what I (and ANN for that matter) am saying. The point is not that parties "used" 9/11 for political purposes but rather that Democrats use VICTIMS as spokesmodels for their positions so that when someone on the other side criticizes their position, the Democrats can scream "How dare you question them! How dare you attack them after their tragic loss." - i.e. The Jersey Girls

 

Another perfect example is Max Clelland. Anytime someone criricized his position on the war, instead of defending his POSITION, the Democrats would scream "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION HIS PATROTISM! HE LOST HIS LEGS FIGHTING THE WAR IN VIETNAM!!!" Even when a Republican would counter that he was not questioning Clelland's patrotism, like some life-sized demented Chatty Cathy, the DNC talking points string would be pulled again and out would belch the same "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION HIS PATRIOTISM!" bullshit. Give it a rest guys.

 

And so it goes with the four Jersey Girls. Yes they lost their husbands and that's tragic. I'm sorry for them. However, does that innoculate them from EVER being criticized about their positions on the War on Terror? This is not an unknown group of women who Ann is going after. They're women who decided to become political activists and I'm of the opinion that when you decide to become a political activist, all bets are off the table and you're fair game (I know, I'm mixing my metaphors.) The Democrats however believe that when it comes to the War on Terror, victims have "absolute moral authority" - as Maureen Dowd nonsensically put it. The last time I checked, the only one with "absolutely moral authority" was God, not Cindy Sheehan. Sadly, the state of the current Democrat party is such that they get the two confused.

 

Definitively yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3F, you know your take on the world often inspires appreciation for your sense of humor and biting wit.

 

 

But you are sorely misguided if you believe your friends the

Republicans have not engaged in the very SAME behavior you are decrying here. The names may change, but the game remains the same. Both parties should be castigated for dividing our country in such a duplicitous manner.

 

It was not too long ago that the Republicans would cry foul EVERYTIME the President's decisions were questioned with accusations that people with opposition opinions were not patriots and were unAmerican. Oh wait, that's still going on isn't it?

 

C'mon, get a grip. Both sides are guilty. Listen to any broadcast of Bill O'Reilly, or any commentary on FOX News. Don't be so blinded by your opinion that you can't see the other point of view. You have more intelligence than that.

 

As for the Coulter screech, she's just selling a book and smiling all the way to the bank. No, her scruples are not subject to question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>It was not too long ago that the Republicans would cry foul

>EVERYTIME the President's decisions were questioned with

>accusations that people with opposition opinions were not

>patriots and were unAmerican. Oh wait, that's still going on

>isn't it?

 

 

Then you should be able to site me a specific example.

 

Please give me the name, the quote and the context.

 

Patiently yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>Only a moron would side with or defend Ann Coulter.

 

 

Larry King's show this coming Monday (Jun 12) features the 4 widows that Coulter delights in trashing. From the sounds of it, the show will be aimed at trashing Coulter. For me - must see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFF seems to have attended the Tom DeLay school of "If I scream loud enough and point my finger at the Democrats nobody will notice I'm a lying, war-mongering, stealing, sack of shit". FFF, you would fit in perfectly here in Texas politics. The last person here to tell the truth was Sam Rayburn back in the 50's. Come on down.

 

Call Coulter, she might be interested in slithering along side as your running mate.

 

Respectfully and frustratingly yours,

 

HB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

RE: PATRIOTISM SMEARS

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=10955

 

RIGHT WING: WHEN IN DOUBT, ATTACK PEOPLE'S PATRIOTISM

 

Since September 11, 2001 whenever anyone has questioned the Administration or challenged its unilateralist policy, conservatives have resorted to attacking people's patriotism.

 

• ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT: When concerned citizens voiced opposition to excessive provisions of the Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft said on 12/6/01, "your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

 

• VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: When legitimate questions were asked about revelations that the White House was warned about a hijacking threat prior to 9/11, Vice President Cheney said on 5/16/02 that ”such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war.”

 

• HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER TOM DELAY: When criticism was raised about poor planning in the creation of the Homeland Security Department, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) said on 9/25/02, "These are people that don't want to protect the American people. They will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil." (This from a man who said “Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.”)

 

• SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST: When a Senator said there needed to be a radical change in the Bush Administration’s unilateralist foreign policy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said on 4/3/03, "Partisan insults launched solely for personal political gain are highly inappropriate at a time when American men and women are in harm's way."

 

• SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD: Under the headline “Rumsfeld: Critics Give Terrorists Hope,” Newsday reported on 9/9/03 that Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld said “that critics of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism.”

 

• PRESIDENT BUSH: When some raised objections to how the Homeland Security Department was being structured, President Bush said the Democratic-led "Senate is not interested in the security of the American people."

 

• WHITE HOUSE: When people questioned whether the President’s aircraft carrier speech was appropriate with combat still taking place, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on 5/7/03, “It does a disservice to the men and women of our military to suggest that the president, or the manner in which the president visited the military would be anything other than the exact appropriate thing to do."

 

• DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Responding to a questioner who said he did not support previous U.S. alliances with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on 10/30/03 "You said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him. It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies." Responding to a questioner who said he did not support previous U.S. alliances with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on 10/30/03 "You said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him. It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies."

 

• IRAN-CONTRA CONVICT/FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT OLLIE NORTH: Salon reports on that North's latest column, posted on the Heritage Foundation Web site "re-launches a rather tired conservative argument: By criticizing President Bush's foreign policy, the 'liberal' media is nurturing America's enemies." The story notes that "he argues the steady insurgency against U.S. troops springs from Baathist enemies who are urged on by America's anti-Bush news coverage."

 

• RIGHT-WING POLLSTERS: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was asked by troops in Iraq whether the public was concerned about the Administration's Iraq policy. She answered, "Americans are wholeheartedly proud of what you are doing, but there are many questions at home about the administration's policies" – a candid and factual answer, especially considering recent polls that say the same. Of course, her answer was immediately met with charges from right-wing pollster Scott Reed that she was "un-American."

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

BUSH'S PATRIOTISM SMEAR

 

By H.D.S. Greenway | November 29, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/29/bushs_patriotism_smear/

 

GEORGE W. BUSH and his supporters are past masters at impugning the reputations and patriotism of opponents, no matter how unimpeachable their reputations might be.

 

It was therefore amusing to watch the White House switch into reverse after Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio lectured her congressional colleague, retired Marine Colonel John Murtha of Pennsylvania, about how ''cowards cut and run, Marines never do." White House spokesman Scott McClellan compared Murtha to the lefty filmmaker Michael Moore after Murtha suggested a six-month timetable pulling troops out of Iraq. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said that war critics would ''prefer that the United States surrender to terrorists who would harm innocent Americans," and, as usual, Vice President Cheney played the heavy.

 

When asked about Cheney's criticism, Murtha, a combat veteran, said: ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like suggestions about what needs to be done." Murtha was referring to the fact that Cheney, who had ''other priorities" than fighting for his country, sought and received five deferments during the Vietnam War.

 

Then it dawned on the White House that, with the president's approval ratings in the cellar, perhaps it was not a good idea to launch personal attacks on such a man as Murtha, who has spent his congressional career backing and helping the military.

 

So, overnight, the rhetoric changed. From Bush in Asia to Cheney in Washington, Murtha became an honorable American -- misguided, perhaps, but no longer a coward or someone who wanted to have terrorists harm Americans. Schmidt, who appears not to have known who Murtha was, sort of apologized and had her remarks struck from the Congressional Record.

 

Letting up on Murtha didn't mean letting up on war critics, however. Cheney said that senators who suggested that he and the administration had manipulated prewar intelligence to fit their preconceived decision to invade Iraq were making ''one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city." This by the man who went back to the CIA again and again, leaning on them to find evidence to support an invasion of Iraq; this by an administration that spread a net of misinformation about Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda links, a charge that the CIA refused to confirm but that Cheney kept making anyway.

 

Yet for all of that, lying about WMD is too strong a word to use. It isn't that the administration knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The point is that the administration wanted to invade Iraq anyway, and WMD were only the most acceptable excuse. As antiterrorism expert Richard Clarke noticed right after 9/11, the Bush team was determined to use that national tragedy to push their Iraq agenda. Rumsfeld is quoted as saying after 9/11 that it would be better to start with bombing Iraq -- which had nothing to do with 9/11 -- rather than Afghanistan, in which Al Qaeda dwelt.

 

I am sure that the Bush administration thought there would be at least some weapons of mass destruction lying around in Iraq to justify its war. Indeed, it seemed reasonable that there might be and surprising that there were none. But weapons of mass destruction were the excuse, not the reason, for the war, and that was the deception perpetuated on the American people. The real reason was to get rid of a potential problem even if there was no immediate danger, control an oil-rich country that could be made friendly to Israel, and promulgate neoconservative theories about the transformational powers of democracy in the Middle East -- none of which would have been acceptable to Congress or the people as a cause for war.

 

And so by accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative, as the old song goes, they manipulated the available intelligence. Uninterested in anything that didn't support their Iraq plans, the Bush team ran through all the intelligence yellow lights, and some red ones, in order to sell their war. Bush's statement that Congress saw the same intelligence as he did is most certainly not true.

 

One longs for the straightforward arm-twisting of Lyndon Johnson in support of his lost war. When Idaho Senator Frank Church advocated negotiating with Hanoi, LBJ asked him whom he had consulted. When Church answered ''Walter Lippmann," the distinguished columnist, LBJ said: ''All right, Frank, next time you want a dam for Idaho you go talk to Walter Lippmann."

 

H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.

 

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeffOH

RE: The Rude Pundit on Ann Coulter......

 

6/13/2006

Ann Coulter Hurts The Rude Pundit's Brain:

 

Here's one sentence from page 95 of Ann Coulter's "book," Godless, defending Judge Charles Pickering: "In 1966, he testified against Klan member Sam Bowers, on trial for murdering civil rights activist Vernon Damer."

 

Here's the transcript of a 60 Minutes profile of Pickering: "Back in 1966, after civil rights activist Vernon Damer was killed by a firebomb, and notorious Klan leader Sam Bowers was charged with the murder, Pickering, then prosecutor in a nearby county, testified that Bowers had a reputation for violence."

 

The problem here is not plagiarism as much as it's just more cut and paste stupidity. Why? Because, see, for one thing, Bowers was charged with the 1966 killing of Vernon Dahmer and Pickering testified in 1967. But since Coulter's just taking it all from the 60 Minutes profile, which she doesn't cite until two pages and two footnotes later, she simply copies the exact same errors that CBS made.

 

Is this minor league shit? No. It's a constant pattern that, in a very objective, non-ideological way, ought to discredit Coulter. None of what the Rude Pundit is saying has to do with what Coulter believes or the strange way she scrawls her mad rantings in her own feces. And it's giving the Rude Pundit a fuckin' headache.

 

Like, for instance, Coulter "writes," "In a 1996 Los Angeles Times poll, 27 percent of respondents said they were more likely to vote for Bush because he was pro-life, but only 18 percent said they were more likely to vote for Al Gore because he was pro-choice." Now one could say the problem here is that nowhere in the entire chapter does Coulter offer a citation for this info and more from the poll. However, instead, howzabout this: umm, that'd be the year "2000." That ain't a typo. A typo would be "2020" or "3000." And this ain't about "de-bunking" or some such bullshit. She's just wrong. Objectively, demonstrably, factually wrong. On the simplest level. Oh, and it also ain't nitpicking to say that getting names and dates right might be important in a "book."

 

Again, this is just from glancing at the "book." No real effort required other than an ability to Google.

 

When the Rude Pundit purchased Coulter's "book," he went to an out of the way megastore where he could be anonymous. He asked for a paper bag so no one could see what he was carrying. He's been less discreet about buying lesbian porn mags. In fact, when he got it home, the Rude Pundit took the Coulter cover off and wrapped it in a copy of Chicks With Dicks. He'd rather people think that he jacks off to she-males than that he reads Ann Coulter.

 

 

// posted by Rude One @ 12:28 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah! Lloyd Bentsen did it when he told Dan Quayle he was no Jack Kennedy! Ann Richards told the truth even when it wasn't popular. And Molly Ivins tells the truth every single column she writes! To bad most Texans don't seem to want to listen to the truth. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...