Coulter, Clinton, and the Prostitution of 9/11

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw bricks, is the response that Senator Clinton received from Anne Coulter after criticizing Coulter’s newly released book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism:

“Before criticizing others for being ‘mean’ to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the very moment Willey’s husband was committing suicide.” Coulter

The heated exchange began with Senator Clinton noting her disgust at Coulter’s depiction of a group of women who were widowed by the 9/11 attacks:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out at Ann Coulter for a "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on a group of outspoken 9/11 widows, whom the right-wing television pundit described as "self-obsessed" and enjoying their husbands' deaths.

(. . .)

Clinton, who has felt Coulter's wrath over the years, responded angrily on Wednesday.

"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,'" the senator 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."

The . . . former first lady said she found it “unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country.” AP

The remarks to which Clinton refers were directed specifically at four New Jersey women — Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza — whom Coulter has dubbed “The Witches of East Brunswick.”

In her book, Coulter writes:

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.”

On NBC’s Matt Lauer, Coulter defended the controversial views expressed in her book:

LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?

ANN: No, of course I believe everything.

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, and in particular a group that had been critical of the administration: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.” And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Because they dare to speak out?

COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.

(. . .)

LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?

COULTER: No, but don’t use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don’t put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.

Coulter’s criticism of these four widows raises an important issue that Americans have been faced with on more than one occasion. Democrats, for example, were furious when John Kerry’s service during the Vietnam War was called into question. However, it was Kerry who chose to use his service for political capital and thereby opened it to public scrutiny.

I can only speak theoretically about the women that Coulter criticized, as I have not been keeping up with their activities.

The victims of 9/11 and their survivors are, in fact, lionized by the American people, much as they should be. Should they choose to speak out on the tragic events of 9/11, a great number of avenues are available to them so as to have their voices heard — the American media would not think twice about airing their thoughts.

In the case of these particular widows, Coulter may be correct in that they abused the pedestal that they are afforded as a result of their husbands' deaths. Coulter claims that they are using that pedestal to further their own agenda — that’s not OK. Coulter claims that they are using that pedestal to make personal attacks on President Bush’s character — that’s not OK.

By entering the political arena — or, more accurately, the ideological arena — these women have opened themselves to criticism. Being a victim does not give you the right to attack the President, but the First Amendment does. People need to remember that every American was a victim to the attacks of 9/11 and while we may not have suffered equally, we all suffered. Using 9/11 for political gains is well within everyone’s rights, no matter how repugnant that may be. In so doing, however, one should expect to be met with criticism.

Still, it wasn’t necessary to engage in personal attacks, which politicians and pundits love to do. Coulter could have simply wrote:

This group of women have prostituted their husbands’ deaths and the attacks of 9/11; that is shameful.

Had Coulter left it at that, her point would have been a valid one. Instead, Coulter also chose to prostitute the attacks of 9/11, and that is shameful.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 8, 2006 12:38 AM
Comments
Comment #155415

Coulter’s behavior is despicable and so is anyone who defends her. The wrong wing is showing once again that there is no limit to how low it will stoop.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 8, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #155416

From Scottie’s Article
“But we can’t just give everything the 9/11 widows do a free pass just because they’re widows and have endured tragedy. That much of Coulter’s primary argument is spot-on. We were all the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

From Dr. Politico’s Article:
“By entering the political arena — or, more accurately, the ideological arena — these women have opened themselves to criticism. Being a victim does not give you the right to attack the President, but the First Amendment does. People need to remember that every American was a victim to the attacks of 9/11 and while we may not have suffered equally, we all suffered. Using 9/11 for political gains is well within everyone’s rights, no matter how repugnant that may be. In so doing, however, one should expect to be met with criticism.”


Its hard to be diverse when you all get the same GOP Talking Points Memo, eh?

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #155418

Maybe we could arrange for a blind date between Anne Coulter & Ward Churchill, immediately followed by a constitutional amendament prohibiting them from marrying each other… and a congressional bill taxing their estates of all ill gotten gains.

Posted by: phx8 at June 8, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #155419

We are at war, not only oversea but right here in America. A far left U.S. is far more frightening to me than what the rest of the world can “bring on”. Ann Coulter’s views have there place and most of her views are right on, including her view of these women (if you have not followed them do a google search).

The left is trying to lull middle-america to sleep by saying the some voting issues are hot button and just a ploy to keep attention off of other things, we need the Ann Coulters. Make no mistake, we will always win abroad as we stand now, but while I watch these so called “unimportant” issues gain momentum and get passed state by state we get weaker and weaker as a country and will soon feel the results if conservatives don’t start rallying very soon.

Posted by: andy at June 8, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #155422

andy is absolutely right. Heaven forbid if Homosexuals ever get married. What will we ever do?

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #155423

Why is it that everytime we see conservatives with similiar points of view that they reading “Talking Points”. No one tells me to say or do anything and I reach my conclusions independently, no matter what the local leftists from Seattle might think.
Ann Coulter’s attack on both Hillary and the Jersey wenches was warranted: In the public eye, no matter what Democrats think, you simply don’t get to have things both ways at the same time. Its one of the reasons that Kerry lost, and a very good one.
Ward Churchill is a treasonous dog who gives comfort and aid to our shared enemies, all from the comfort and privilege of his tenured chair at taxpayer expense. Personally I find it a pity that he hasn’t shared the fate that treasonous scum in the past have recieved at the hands of a angry and righteous citizenry. I think past presidents like Lincoln or Jackson would have dealt with that piece of venemous garbage summarily. So much for squelching leftist, anti-American dissent, eh?

Both Republican and Democratic web-sites will always pepper the ether with their official points of view, but rarely do the right wing pundits directly echo the thoughts of their erstwhile “masters”. Elliot Bay pretends that the left comes of their thinking all by themselves, but in fact, the use of “talking points” is far, far, far more prevalent on their side. I should know, I recieve them everyday, courtesy of my stealth membership at a number of lefty blogs and the official democratic party websites for my state. I find it useful to know what my politic opposites are up to and gain a knowledge of how they think, or rather, “express themselves”.

Aldous, why is it that diversity has come to mean me accepting your point of view without question?
If I don’t, does that mean that I’m a mindless rightwing gay/black/fill-in-the-blank idiot? When will you acknowledge that I, and people like me, who come from a similiar point of view (usually ar religious view), have a RIGHT to that point of view. And just because you don’t care for it doesn’t mean that you “enemies” are worthy of either scorn or name calling. When I’m driving down I-5 in Seatte and watching some pretty vile stuff masquerading as “free speech”, I have a hard time believing that I once risked my life in the military to help secure that right for people who would quickly try to take it away from me if they only could.

(Go ahead, I can take it!)

Posted by: HardHatHarry at June 8, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #155425

remember sodom and gomorrah? Oh well, liberals don’t believe in the Bible or them old stories backed up by history. just child bedtime stuff.

Like no way our blood supply can be tainted and become more deadly than the need of blood in the first place.

Just remember when you bow that knee and face the maker, and you will when you die even if it is not the end of the world, there is no arguing your point and no mercy then.

this life is brought to you by your sponsor. don’t waste it on immoral life style.

Posted by: lm at June 8, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #155427

Freedom exists on more than one level. You and I are free to express the deepest desires, fears and triumphs of our lives. Remember, if you are over 35, when someone called you a name when you were a kid? Sticks and stones? The thing that Ann Coulter points out is twofold. One, political correctness has trumped common sense. To place yourself squarely in a political debate used to mean your opinion could be challenged by an opposing view. Now if liberal orthodoxy is challenged the challenger is branded, often maliciously, as a racist/bigot/homophobe/islamophobe/sexist etc.

Two, freedom also means you are free to have your feelings hurt. Sorry! Again I reference an old saying, “he can dish it out but he can’t take it”. While these women deserve the sympathy of a nation for their losses, it doesn’t make their statements sacred, their political feelings and speeches untouchable.

Where was the sympathy for the wives/daughters of fallen servicemen who wanted no mention of their beloved in anti-war demonstrations? There was no outcry for the widows and parents who asked Cindi Sheehan and her group to remove their loved ones names from crosses placed in a ditch in Texas. When they asked for it to be stopped, they were ignored. When they had the crosses removed, the anti-war group simply replaced the names on new crosses and put them back in the ditch.

Freedom isn’t one thing for liberals and another for conservatives. If you speak, you can be challenged. If it hurts your feelings, you can ask for an apology. If you don’t get one, get over it and move on. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Try it, it’s a whole lot better than being a hater.

Posted by: Jr at June 8, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #155430

I was raised fairly well and was not picked on too badly growing up, so I never did choose homosexuality for my lifestyle of choice. Having said that, yes it does show a great weakness that we give so much respect to their lobbiest.

Posted by: andy at June 8, 2006 2:48 AM
Comment #155431

“remeber Sodom and Gomorrah?”

Yes I do. Old Testament, real wrath of god type stuff.

I also remember that the New Testament was written. It was about Jesus who preached toleration, forgiveness, that one is not to sit in judgment of others, and peace.

The Right conveniently forgets that part. Better to use the Old Testament to justify war, predjudice, and intolerance rather than live by the true teachings of the Savior.

Posted by: Trent at June 8, 2006 3:00 AM
Comment #155432

I am a military wife of a veteran who has served two tours in the Iraq war. One of my husband’s best friends was killed over there in 2003. His widow was given $250,000 for the loss of her husband.

Yet, here are women using their husband’s death as a political force field that they can stand behind and voice their criticisms of our government for not “preventing” the deaths of their husbands. I agree with Coulter - you can’t attack these women, because then you are called “heartless” amongst other things. Yet, the Liberal media pushes them to the forefront and demands we give them pity for their pain and suffering and adopt their views that the death of their husbands was all the fault of our government. Sure. Right.

All the while, men like my husband are putting their lives on the line PURPOSELY in this war. These womens’ husbands just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, their widows are millionaires (thanks to an apologetic government who should have owed no apologies in the first place) who are given political credence while our military widows are given a good amount of money, but nowhere near what 9/11 widows have been given and with nowhere near the celebrity and fanfare.

Yes, I’m damn mad and I fully support Coulter’s comments. I probably wouldn’t have worded things as strongly as she did, but the whining and crying about how the government “owes them” until the government coughs up millions to shut them up (while military families get a fraction for a lost family member) and then proceeding to decry the government’s efforts? Ridiculous.

Posted by: a military wife at June 8, 2006 3:27 AM
Comment #155433

Trent

The Savior, my Savior Jesus Christ, loved the sinner but HATED the sin. He loved them and taught, as a good Jew, that homosexuality was an abomination to God. Yes, he was often seen in the company of drunkards and whores and tax collectors - because he wanted them to learn the error of their ways and find life in Him. He has called us all to be Holy - even as the Father is Holy. Don’t confuse his love for mankind with an acceptance of sin, the opposite is true. Peace be with you.

Posted by: Jr at June 8, 2006 3:30 AM
Comment #155434

a military wife,

My condolences for your friend’s husband. You’re completely on target as far as these widows go. Liberals almost always try to split society up and dictate the terms of the debate. As a man, I can’t have any say but to agree wholeheartedly about abortion because it isn’t my body or I’m a chauvanist. As a white person, I can have no say but to agree lockstep with liberal ideology about the culture of victimhood because I’m not a victim of racism. As a member of the middle class, I can’t comment on poverty except to agree with a welfare state because my parents didn’t live in poverty and niether do I.

People who have lost a loved one either in the 9/11 attacks or in combat in Southeast Asia deserve our sympathy and support. However, when they “pull a Sheehan” and try to ride their loved one’s coffins to promote thier own ideology, they lose credibility. Sympathy is not a blanket license to not be criticized.

Jr- You hit the nail on the head. Keep up the good fight!

HardHatHarry- I hear you. I currently serve in Iraq and personally, nothing makes the sacrifices I make as worthwhile as to know that the best way some people have of living the freedoms I and the rest of our servicemem and women work to protect is to skip the rational debate and namecall from Ivory Towers. I knnow full well that the freedom of speech is one of the most important rights we in the military protect, but something seems wrong when its ok for people to glorify violence, mysogeny, drug abuse, and every other anti-social behavior out there but its a faux pas to talk about Jesus.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 8, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #155436

Heh. Better read that article again. The Widows in question lost their husbands on 9/11. You know… the Towers, the Pentagon, the 747s?

Anyway, I see no reason why these widows should be upset with Bush. Its not as if Dubya had a report entitled “Al Queda determined to attack inside United States” or that the CIA knew YEARS before about the plan to use planes as kamikazes.

Them widows are out of line.

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 4:48 AM
Comment #155438

Trent,

“I also remember that the New Testament was written. It was about Jesus who preached toleration, forgiveness, that one is not to sit in judgment of others, and peace.”

It is meant if you see your brother in sin let him know about his sin, but before you talk to your brother make sure you are right with God. Basically, don’t tell your buddy he shouldn’t be getting drunk while sitting at the bar with him. Get your own house right so you don’t look like a hypocrit. Love the sinner. Hate the sin. My Lord and Savior told us to love. How can you love with your mouth closed? I don’t know if you know Him as your Lord, but I hope you do. You do know some of His teachings ever if it is a bit warped.

JR, to take it a step further:
Free speech allows you to have free criticism. If your feelings get hurt, SHUT UP!!! Quit whining and step away from the cameras and microphones.

Ann was completely right. Is she crying about what her critics say? No, she keeps on fighting. Does she ask for or expects any apologies. No, she could care less. She is living outside of politically correct liberal ideology. Political correctness is not in our constitution and therefore is not a birthright.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 8, 2006 5:07 AM
Comment #155439

Aldous,
“Its not as if Dubya had a report entitled “Al Queda determined to attack inside United States” or that the CIA knew YEARS before about the plan to use planes as kamikazes.”

How many years did the CIA know? Back the Clinton days? What did he do to ensure that it didn’t happen on his watch?

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 8, 2006 5:10 AM
Comment #155442

Ann Coulter does run very fast when pies are heading her way.

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 5:14 AM
Comment #155443

lllplus2:

Good Job ignoring the National Intelligence Estimate.

As for your question, I believe it was after the first World Trade Center bombing. An Al Queda cell was busted by the Philippine Police. Among the documents captured were plans to hijack and use planes as bombs.
I don’t remember 747’s crashing into buildings when Clinton was President. So I guess it wasn’t on his watch.

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #155449

Aldous- Do you know what I remember from the Clinton years? I remember the first attack on the WTC. I remember our embassies being bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. I remember the Khobar Towers. I remember the USS Cole. I also remember the same “we will find the people who committed these acts and punish them.” What I don’t remember is Clinton doing anything about it. He had more important things to do, like feeling our pain or some government intern. Why should he bother about national security, Reagan and Bush got rid of the Soviets so we didn’t need to worry anymorem right?

Posted by: 1LT B at June 8, 2006 5:40 AM
Comment #155452

1LT b sure has a selective memory, no doubt about it. The U.S. engaged in a number of conflicts to rescue humanity as Bush claims to have done in Iraq, and to halt genocide. Clinton, like GW Bush, had not a wit of experience with military planning and both have had to rely upon the generals for strategies, planning, and execution, as well as intelligence.

Not even Pres. GW Bush would have invaded another country after the attacks 1LT quotes, for there was no nation to be seen then as a sponsor for such attacks. Selective memory or ignorance is a convenience for some but, lacks any credibility or persuasiveness to those seeking real information and historical reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2006 5:49 AM
Comment #155456

All I can say is read this because it has alot of knowledge that isnt printed in the mass media.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Moral_Values

I am new here so I am adding my 2 cents to show that we all have problems to deal with as thinking and educated society. I dont think that one party is better than the other in morals or corruption untill someone can give me the places to find out the facts to back up what makes one way better than the other.

I see mann coulter on tv and other media but the 4 widows that she talks about I have not seen anywhere untill she brought them up. The 911 hearings are the only time I remember them on or in the media. I guess thats why people would need to look their names up on google because they dont get media coverage like mann does. If the government can be brought down by 4 widows who dont get media coverage then we have a problem with our gov. but I dont feel like they are a threat to our government. I will look up their names to see if I am missing anything or perhaps someone could do me a favor and post some links so I can see why it is that everyone thinks that mann coulter is right about the way she feels about these 4 widows. I would like to see your point of view before I make a decision because I already have a soft spot for them but it might not be justified since I really havent put much thought into till now. Thank You.

Posted by: truck doctor at June 8, 2006 6:01 AM
Comment #155458

Ding dong—the wicked witch of the middle east is gone. Zarky has assumed room temperature!!!!!!

Posted by: nikkolai at June 8, 2006 6:27 AM
Comment #155462

Funny how the media makes Celebrities out of SOME 9/11 victims (e.g., ones who hate Republicans), but not others…

Funny how the media never makes Celebrities out of people who had loved ones murdered/raped/robbed by, say, illegal immigrants.

Funny that the Media is jumping down Coulter’s throat, but seemed to give a pass to Michael Moore when he said (amongst other things) how he ~”does not want Europeans to get involved in Iraq because I [he] wants to see more Americans coming home in body bags to teach this country a lesson.” In fact, Moore soon after was given an Editorship at USA Today and sat next to Jimmy Carter at the Dem Convention … when he should be considered a pariah by all (if he has any good points, let someone else make them).

Funny how Coulter’s words are reported all over, when Moore’s statement got nearly no airtime or repeated re-runs (e.g., I saw it – did you? If you did, how many times?).

Conservatives. This is NOT FUNNY. YOU ARE DELUDING YOURSELVES if you think Left-Wing control of the press does not matter. It was key for the Nazis (“Nat’l Socialist Workers Party”), Communists, Pol Pot, and many others who feared intellectual honesty and truth (certainly some Right Wing gov’ts, too).

Yes, these countries eventually crumbled. My point. BAD for the country in the short term and long term.

We fund only Left Wing media (NPR & PBS), and we give special Rights to the Media — with Rights should be mandated responsibility (e.g., oversight that there is “Diversity” of thought and expression amongst the personnel there, and the programming).

Ditto re training / schooling children to be Leftists. THIS DOES MATTER.

Posted by: Brian at June 8, 2006 6:52 AM
Comment #155464

David Remer,

I didn’t say that Clinton should have invaded anybody, did I? We knew several times where bin Laden was but Clinton failed to act. A simple air strike or infiltration of Special Forces could have killed or possibly captured him without a massive invasion. Clinton did NOTHING productive to combat terrorism. He made empty promises and failed to act as ever escalating acts of provocation were committed against American interests worldwide.

Clinton did, however, ignore his military advisers on a constant basis. First, he gets into office and tries to overturn the ban on homosexuals, then get cold feet and puts in the even worse “don’t ask don’t tell.” Then he sends us all over the world for no reason at all. We don’t get adequate support in Somalia and dead Soldiers are drug down the streets naked and we pull out. We go to Haiti and reinstall a tin plated incompetent. We bomb Serbia because Europe is too lazy to anything about genocide in their own back yard. In none of these cases did we have any legitimate reason to be there. Almost 11 years since Bosnia and we’re still there. Any progress in Haiti? Nope, except that they kicked out the idiot Aristide again. Any progress in Somalia? Nope. Clinton wasted the military’s time on missions with no justification but whatever mood he was in at the time. He stood by and allowed an enemy to become a greater and greater menace and did nothing to protect the nation. His dereliction and the deaths it caused are his true legacy.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 8, 2006 7:11 AM
Comment #155467

1LT B,
Yikes, you do have a selective memory. Clinton did lob missiles at Bin Laden (and was criticized for it from the right).

Also, the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing were indeed caught and prosecuted. Ever heard of Ramsey Yousef?

Posted by: Schwamp at June 8, 2006 7:32 AM
Comment #155468

1LT B:

Must have been my imagination when those cruise missiles missed Bin Ladin by a few hours.

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #155469
Now if liberal orthodoxy is challenged the challenger is branded, often maliciously, as a racist/bigot/homophobe/islamophobe/sexist etc.

So being “branded” is so terrible? They still get their show on Fox or right-wing radio.

Where was the sympathy for the wives/daughters of fallen servicemen who wanted no mention of their beloved in anti-war demonstrations?

That’s free speech. They can support the war as loudly as they want, and other people can oppose it as loudly as they want.

All the while, men like my husband are putting their lives on the line PURPOSELY in this war. These womens husbands just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Gee, you make it sound like terrorism isn’t that big a deal…

I remember the USS Cole. I also remember the same we will find the people who committed these acts and punish them. What I dont remember is Clinton doing anything about it.

I remember George W Bush becoming president three months after the USS Cole was attacked. Where was his big offensive against OBL before 9/11?

We dont get adequate support in Somalia and dead Soldiers are drug down the streets naked and we pull out.

Hmm, dead soldiers…

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 8, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #155470

I see some writing but no links to any info just your opinions. post some links so I can see what you are talking about. Thank you.

To Brian

Do you think fox news is liberal or conservative ?

Posted by: truck doctor at June 8, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #155471

Speaking of prostituting 9/11, Bush and the GOP milked it shamelessly at the GOP convention.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 8, 2006 7:36 AM
Comment #155472

Who died and made the Republican the avengers of the 9/11 dead? Serious question. Were these people all brought back to life, would they approve of the Iraq war, and the way it was handled? Would they approve of folks losing their freedom and their rights for the sake of security? Would they approve of somebody using their deaths to justify the political supremacy of a party that most of them likely disagreed with in life?

I’m sure the victims of 9/11 would want us to destroy the terrorist organization that killed them, and make it to where it could never function to kill more of their fellow Americans.

But about everything else, I cannot say, and the dead of 9/11 will not tell. The questions above are questions that these people are not around to answer for themselves. The Republicans have their share of widows and widowers who share in the grief, including the man who was Bush’s Solicitor General (I forget his name.)

Who else but the family members, who knew their spouses, fathers, and siblings in life would be qualified to speak of the wishes of their dead? They knew them. If some of these people had stayed home that faithful day, would not some of these people disagree with The Bush administration today?

And even if their spouses wouldn’t, do these survivors of these people not have the right to their own opinions, and their expression of them?

The Right should slam on its brakes before it goes much further in defending Ann Coulter’s remarks. It is arrogant to assume that the GOP and George Bush hold exclusive title to the avenging of 9/11, to think that support of the effort against the terrorists and opposition to Bush, his policies and this party are mutually exclusive. Some division, some divergence of opinion was going to be inevitable. The question was whether the sides could handle that difference of opinion maturely. The Democrats were suggesting nothing more divisive, as I recall, than being sure about Iraq before we did anything about it, keeping after Osama Bin Laden as the primary target, and maintaining our civil liberties.

The Republicans responded with the campaign of 2002, where Bush politicized support for the war, despite having not yet formed a true case for war to persuade people. Iraq became the next step in the war on terror, despite the fact that the terrorist would not show up there until the security vulnerabilities in the wake of the invasion let them in.

Many legitimately believe that Bush lead us down the wrong path with this war, and think it has been an impediment both here and abroad in terms of a real war against the terrorists. We look at the rogue-state centered policy of the President, and we shake our heads in disbelief. Where is the port security? Where is the disaster relief to handle the next attack, if it occurs? Where is the security on critical infrastructure and dangerous chemicals? Why the hell is Osama Bin Laden not 6 ft under, or in the cell next to Manuel Noriega?

There are legitimate disagreements to be had with this president. Unfortunately, disagreement doesn’t seem to be something this current GOP or President takes well. In their minds, if you don’t think like them, you’re mistaken, and if you oppose them, you’re an enemy not just of them, but all they claim to represent.

The problem here is not that some widows are prostituting their grief. The problem is those of you Republicans who believe you have a monopoly of legitimate opinion on what’s good for the country, and who are willing to insult, demean, and humiliate all those who disagree with you.

You folks should have left Ann Coulter with her foot in her mouth instead of joining her in error.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2006 7:38 AM
Comment #155473

Coulter called the “Jersey Girls” the “Witches of East Brunswick”. Now that sh*t is funny!!


How about Zarqawi?!!!!! Another dead Islamic Jihadist. Awwwhhh yeahhh! Do you think he had on his “new balance” sneakers? Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 8, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #155475

To All,

Swift-boating widows?
I think some of you should go back and read some of your own posts. It’s disheartening to think that their are Americans who have lost their compassion for their countrymen. Some of the posts are so laced with venom and hatred that it saddens me.
We are all Americans. Stop allowing the Karl Roves and George Bushes of the world to continue the divide and conquering of America.
Ann Coulter is a dumbass, who’s only interest is to capitalize on the fact that this nation is vulnerable to the ignorant ramblings of M.Moore,Rush,Orielly and herself.
I’m truly ashamed at the lack of original thought and free-will in this once great nation.
It’s sad.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 8, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #155477

Stephen,

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Military Wife,

our military widows are given a good amount of money, but nowhere near what 9/11 widows have been given and with nowhere near the celebrity and fanfare.

I don’t think anyone has expressed more sympathy for the fallen then people on the left side of the political spectrum.

Now if you think the military is shorting their families financially, I refer you to Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Republican Congress.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 8, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #155478

To answer your question: Fox is more conservative than liberal.

Back Atcha’ Truck Doctor:
Do you think ~every major American newspaper is liberal or conservative.

Do you think all 3 major networks, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, MTV, … are liberal or conservative.

Do you think the Teachers’ Union is liberal or conservative?

BTW, the announcer at the Dem Convention said that 1/9 or 1/00 (I forget) of Dem Delegates are Teachers’ Union members — can you guess why our K-12 Education ‘System’ is HORRIBLE re most 1st world countries despite one of the highest spending levels, and why there is little chance of improving them through Re-Engineering or Competition?)

C’mon, Y’all. A Mean / Median can have certain characteristics, even if not every member in a set has all those characteristics (e.g., there are some very TALL (on *average*) tribes in Africa, which still have some who are not tall). Make sense?

Posted by: Brian at June 8, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #155479

Oh, also re media:
DISH Networks just started Movies On Demand (cool!).

BUT, as of today in the SF Bay Area, they had only 1 movie available. Of all movies ever made, you want to guess which one? Brokeback Mountain!! …surely a coincidence.

Posted by: Brian at June 8, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #155480

Prev post should have read “…1/9 or 1/11 (I forget) of Dem Delegates are Teachers’ Union members”

Mea Culpa

Posted by: Brian at June 8, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #155482

Haha, yeah. What are they thinking showing Brokeback Mountain in the Bay Area? Shoulda gone with Passion of the Christ.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 8, 2006 8:02 AM
Comment #155484

Brian:

Can you show transcripts where CNN, MSNBC, etc. show thier liberal bias?

I can show you plenty of Fox Crap proving their WingNutry.

Where is your proof?

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #155486

Aldous & Schwamp- A few missles lobbed immediately after an attack with no follow through is not an adequate respose to the attacks against America bin Laden perpetrated during the Clinton presidency. He tried to take out bin Laden once because Americans were pissed off at bin Laden at the time. When the polls showed interest in something else, so did clinton and nothing more was done.

Woody Mena- If you honestly believe that the left is sympathetic to Soldiers then you’re further out in left field than I thought. In college, every time I wore my uniform the looks I got from faculty and students who were liberal was always contempt, like I was some knuckle dragging baby murder like the “bring them home now” crowd from Vietnam talked about. The left is fundamentally hostile to the military and has been since the 60s. The liberals I’ve met have said the same tired bullsh*t time and again. They seem to believe that the universal love of man is a better deterent against aggression than a powerful national defense. The only times the military has been useful to the left has been for “humanitarian missions” that put us in harms way for no better reason than for Clinton to hold a press conference. They said to bring us home in Vietnam then called us baby murderers. They say they support us, then applaud traitors like Hanoi Jane. The left’s “sympathy” is nothing more than empty words with no conviction, spouted for convienence and nothing else.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 8, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #155487

I disagree with you Elliot,

I totally agree with Ann. These women should do there mourning in private and keep there political views to themselves.

Just because there husbands got killed on 9/ll doesnt suddenly make me interested in there point of views.

Its always tragic to lose a family member but alot of people died that day that didnt have anything to do with 9/11 and why didnt we take up a fund for them or throw them on TV.

I personally take offense to these women.

there actions are shameful!!!

Posted by: MacIrish at June 8, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #155489

MacIrish,

“I totally agree with Ann. These women should do there mourning in private and keep there political views to themselves.”

So what you’re saying is that they should stay at home and make brownies for the neighborhood children?

Ann Coulter is a waste of perfectly good gravity. Her rantings against those that disagree with her agenda is legendary.
This is the woman that thought the Sept. 11th attackers should have taken out the New York Times instead.
This is the woman that thinks you can only talk to a liberal with a baseball bat.

Sweet girl.

rahdigly,

“How about Zarqawi?!!!!! Another dead Islamic Jihadist. Awwwhhh yeahhh! Do you think he had on his “new balance” sneakers? Ha! Ha!”

1 down 1 billion to go, right?

Posted by: Rocky at June 8, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #155490
Its always tragic to lose a family member but alot of people died that day that didnt have anything to do with 9/11 and why didnt we take up a fund for them or throw them on TV.

All I can say is, “Wow.”

1LT,

How can I begin. To follow up on your OBL comment, again, Bush became president three months after the USS Cole attack. If Clinton should have done more about it, why didn’t Bush do it before 9/11? He had the same powers Clinton did. From what I have read, the Bushies just decided that it wasn’t their fault so they didn’t have to do anything about it.

As for the military stuff. I wasn’t even alive during the Vietnam War so I can’t answer to how people treated the veterans. I don’t have anything against the military. Their civilian leadership sucks. I imagine you felt the same way during the Clinton years.

The left was divided on Clinton’s military actions, particularly Kosovo. Purely humitarian interventions never help politically. Clinton had to know that.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 8, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #155493

Woody,

Wasn’t it something called “Wag the Dog”?

Posted by: Rocky at June 8, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #155495

Here’s Mad Libs for you all to play with:

President (Bush/Clinton) deployed the power of the US military to bring (democracy/food) to (Iraq/Somalia). The mission was poorly planned, however, and (thousands/tens) of American soldiers died. President (Bush/Clinton) is (great leader/ a dirty hippie who doesn’t respect the military).

Have fun!!!

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 8, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #155500

Ald-
Diversity? The left has no talking points? Diversity is the “differing from one another”, according to Merriam-Webster.

All of the conversations on Ann’s book are all referring to something SHE said, either agreeing or disagreeing. I have not yet heard anyone say the same thing she said without referring to her. Doesn’t seem like the “GOP talking points memo” is getting much attention, contrary to your assertion.

However, the “left talking points” get considerable play. How else can you explain how “objective” journalsits be made with all saying exactly the same thing - verbatim??? They never acknowledge that anyone else has spoken those same words. Talk about the lack of diversity…

Schwamp & Ald-
“Clinton did lob missiles at Bin Laden”. “those cruise missiles missed Bin Ladin by a few hours).
But he failed. That’s the criticism. How many times did he try? Once? What did he do after that? How firm was his resolve? If you want to idolize Clinton for failure, so be it. If there was a diligent, ongoing operation to find OBL and capture/kill him, I’d have a more favorable opinion of Clinton’s efforts. Tossing a few missles at an empty building and saying “Darn, we were close” and doing nothing else about it for the remainder of his 8 years in office is not admirable, in my opinion. Besides, if the “perpetrators of WTC #1 were caught and prosecuted”, why did Clinton need to “lob those missles” at OBL??? It’s amazing how you can speak only 2 sentences and still manage to contradict yourselves. You need to get an opinion of your own instead of blindly repeating what you hear.

Woody,
“So being “branded” is so terrible?”
Apparently so. Otherwise, why is Ann getting so much public attention from the left? She “branded” the 4 women in question and is being attacked for it. Funny thing, though…instead of challanging the issues that lead to her opinion of these women, her opponents are simply calling her names and questioning her “compassion”. Another example of how the left operates….throw out accusations, when the other side challanges the circumstances and/or specifics that were used to form the basis for the accusation, attack the integrity of the opponent. Why? Because they cannot defend their positions publicly.

“They can support the war as loudly as they want, and other people can oppose it as loudly as they want.”
True enough. However, if Cindy Sheehan has the right (she does) to exploit the death of her son to promote her political agenda as the left asserts she has the right to not be criticised (she does not), why can’t the families of fallen soldiers have the right to ask their relatives privacy be respected (they have that right) by not being involuntarily included in said exploitation - regardless of their position on Iraq?

The difference? They families you quote DON’T want to be part of the anti-war demonstrations - or pro-war demonstrations, for that matter. They have the “moral authority” (to use the left’s own words in defending Sheehan) to do so. Sheehan CHOSE to exploit her loss. Others did not, but are being forced into the public eye.

“I remember George W Bush becoming president three months after the USS Cole was attacked. Where was his big offensive against OBL before 9/11?”
I remember the attempted attack on the USS Sullivan on 1/1/2000. It failed, but no actions were taken to defend from future attacks by the Clinton administration. 10 months later, they succeeded.

Wait a minute…I see a pattern. Attack on the Sullivan fails, Clinton does nothing, attack on Cole succeeds. Kinda’ sounds like WTC, doesn’t it? WTC1 failed, Clinton does nothing, WTC2 succeeds. Here’s another…Somalia militias kill US soldiers and drag bodies thru the streets, Clinton pulls US soldiers out (Clinton does nothing). Somalian warlords think they beat the US, setting the stage for future terrorists to use the same “model” against US soldiers…”if we kill some US soldiers, they will run home and we will win”.

Posted by: Rich at June 8, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #155502

Coulter made the point poorly, but she has a point. The mere fact of being a victim (or losing someone) does nothing to improve your opinion about anything else. There is too much of this untouchable idea.

These women who lost husbands can talk authoritatively about losing husbands. There opinions about anything else are no better than your or mine just because of their loss.

Posted by: Jack at June 8, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #155507

Rich,

The words “Clinton does nothing” are meaningless to you. Whatever Clinton does is apparently “nothing” by definition.

Plenty of people use 9/11 and the Iraq War for all sorts of purposes. Nobody owns history.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 8, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #155510

I love this. Thanks to soldiers somewhere in this great beautiful country we all have the right to free speech. And the right to come up with our own opinions! Isn’t that wonderful!

But, I think it’s sad that people complain about others (that are obviously on the other side of the political spectrum) with name calling. It shows a lack of education on the subject. I lose interst quickly.

I’ve never voted straight party for anything. I’ve done some research and based on my morals and values made my own decision on who I should vote for. Lately, though I’ve noticed that the Democratic party has gone way away from any of my beleifs. The Republicans are close but so far don’t seem to stand up for what they beleive in much. Or maybe they are waiting to see what others beleive first? Hmmm

I totally beleive that if you’ve done the crime you should do the time. Doesn’t matter who you are. I am just sick of all this corruption in politics. Any chance there might be a third party? Maybe middle of the road?

Has anyone read anything about the “Fair Tax”? I thought that was rather interesting but I’ve not heard anyone comeout against it.

As for Ann Coulter and the Jersey Girls they are so lucky to live in America. Can you imagine what would’ve happened elsewhere? I don’t think they would’ve been allowed to speak against our President! Or even show their face! Ann is allowed to speak her beleifs and people are offended by it, What about some of the people that were offended by the Jersey girls? I didn’t hear them, they weren’t given a Podium. And what about the other victims wives? Did they come out in favor of Bush?

Now as for the Biblical quotes that’s great too! Shows a strong interest in church! I think more people should go. Even if it’s a nondenominational. It can only make you a better person right!

I beleive in the long run those that are ugly on the inside eventually show their true colors. Sometimes they are just spouting what some other idiot said and don’t realize how stupid they sound until it’s to late. Be good to eachother and keep up the debate. And check your facts too.

Oh have you checked this out yet? www.factcheck.org they do some intersting work themselves.

Posted by: ONEWILDCHILD at June 8, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #155523

onewildchild,

Big difference.

Coulter doesn’t believe that these “liberal” women should be allowed their point of view, because it doesn’t fit within her narrow definition of what “liberals” should be allowed to say.

Coulter also gets paid for her bilious screed, with printing of her books, and therefore her opinion, in the millions of copies.

Posted by: Rocky at June 8, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #155528

Is what Coulter said about those four women true?

Posted by: traveller at June 8, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #155532

traveller,

Aboout them being witches?
About them enjoying being widows?

Posted by: Rocky at June 8, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #155533

Ann Coulter would not be able to sell a book without the venom. Hence the venom. Name calling and finger pointing is her stock in trade. Why waste your time on her dribble, force these political writers to work and write something of value. Most of the contributers to these blogs are much better than Coulter.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 8, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #155535

To Ann Coulter: You go girl!

Posted by: Rickled at June 8, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #155537

Ann Coulter gets too much attention. She is a boring, predictable reactionary apologist who happens to be good looking. The only thing I wonder about when I see her or hear about her, which is hard NOT to do, is whether or not she squeals when she has an orgasm?

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at June 8, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #155539

Don’t know what to say to the Ann Coulter defenders about this, but I’ll try.

I was two miles from grond zero on 9/11 and it would never dawn on me to even suggest that my experience of 9/11 has greater relevance than the people inside the towers or their widows/widowers/parents/children. I feel no moral equivalence to our many neighbors whose children we babysat while they were attending funerals.

I know I have no right to judge the desperate people who wallpapered EVERY BUS STOP, in their entirety, in NYC and the surrounding area with missing posters. Out of basic human decency, why don’t some of you take a moment to imagine/picture what that was like. The smell of the ruins, even at a distance of three miles, for months afterwards.

I know a widow whose husband was out late at a party on Monday 9/10, and left for work before his children or wife were awake on Tuesday. Her most immediate concern at the wake and funeral was reaching out to everyone who was with him at the party - she wanted to know that his last 24 hours were happy.

If her grief later turned to bitterness, it was her right.

Having travelled quite a bit, I can state with absolute certainty that the people who were away from the attack sites, even with the best intentions, could not comprehend the loss for those close by.

Even more so, I am quite clear my experience is utterly insignificant when compared to those inside (the towers, the pentagon and 93) and those who lost their dearest companions.

Does my discussion above leave some of you with a sense of how present 9/11 remains for many of us??

The widows losses were greater and did leave them with a greater right to an opinion. I am sorry if some people like Ann Coulter find that inconvenient.

I agree, their use of the political arena to express their grief and rage is frustrating for some because they are unassailable politically.

Everything is not equal. Get over it.

The widows will lose their moral superiority on this subject the day they get their husbands back alive - and not one moment before that.

Posted by: CPAdams at June 8, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #155546

Most of you Coulter apologists or fans miss the point. Her attacks are vicious, ad hominem. All she has to do is attack someone’s position and point out the problems with the policy it represents.

The left doesn’t attack the victims or their parents (and supposed authors or proponents) of the various three strike or child protection laws if they disagree with the policy or broader implications behind those laws. Coulter, however, is popular with the angry who want to lash out, destroy, or dehumanize the people they disagree with.

It is far better to look at the implications of our actions and policies knowing we are not at war with each other but with those who would resort to violence and oppression to impose their views on us all.

Those who have lost someone tragically do speak with greater moral authority than the rest of us and we should listen to them. The interesting thing is they can come to opposite conclusions and so we must look beyond loss to consequences of our actions.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 8, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #155547

The point isn’t whether these widows are sacred cows. Coulter far beyond the territory of merely disagreeing with them. If folks were so hypersensitive as to jump on her for that, I would see merit in the sacred cow argument.

No, what Coulter basically said was they were engaged in the cold-blooded exploitation of their tragedy. That goes past violating them as sacred cows to essentially calling them sociopaths. And what does she say this for? Because they don’t slant in Coulter’s directions like all good relatives of 9/11 victims should in their opinion.

There are a lot of words I’m forced to hold back when I comment on these kinds of posts. These are the kinds of hateful things that pull my lips back in a snarl while I write. I was watching on 9/11, stuck to the television like everybody else. The death and destruction is seared in my memory. The anger is there, and sometimes with the right excuse, it comes out.

I don’t expect the Republicans to agree with me, but I do expect them to stop treating their fellow Americans like enemies, no matter what the depths of their disagreement are. The game plan, I suppose, was to marginalize dissenters so that the right-thinkers could run things. Only trouble is, America’s not built that way. You can’t shove an agenda down people’s throats and not get an reaction.

This latest Ann Coulter outrage is just indicative of how sick people are of the disrespect and arrogance of that kind of politics. We’re in this together, and that means together. There’s going to be no dumping the liberals off the side just so people can have the War on Terrorism and the government in general to themselves. If you want our support, be willing to talk, be willing to be practical, and be willing to hear the words “No.” and “I don’t agree.” and still keep a level of maturity in your response.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #155550

military wife said,

“Yes, I’m damn mad and I fully support Coulter’s comments. I probably wouldn’t have worded things as strongly as she did, but the whining and crying about how the government “owes them” until the government coughs up millions to shut them up (while military families get a fraction for a lost family member) and then proceeding to decry the government’s efforts? Ridiculous.”

I agree whole-heartedly that the families who were victimized by 911 get too much attention or compensation (but can never support Ann Coulter’s mouth). My respect goes out to those who choose to put their lives on the line and I want my nation to be greatful to they and their families sacrifice. Military wife is right on about that.

However, the compensation given to those victims of 911 was much more the product of politics and feelings raw and run amok than the protest of some families. I would like us to show less fear and more courage like military wife and her husband and brothers-in-arms and support them with all the resources they deserve (including better planning, VA benefits, and personal support).

The service and efforts of soldiers and their families like military wife are having and will have a positive effect for our nation’ future and I salute them.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 8, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #155557

The Women that the Nutcase Whore Ann Coulter is calling “witches” are REPUBLICANS. They just don’t like BUSH and his administration because their incompetence. They wanted the facts — and as we all know, facts are something that people like Bush and Coulter never use. Neocons stand firmly against the facts in favor of whatever bullshit nonsense they can scrape together to back up all their pre-conceived notions.
Without those four “witches” there would never have been a 9/11 Commission. They were the ones who kept the heat on Congress and demanded that an independent commission be formed to look into the circumstances of the terrorist attack which killed their loved ones.
If you’ll remember Bush fought having an independent investigation into 9/11. He wanted it confined to Congress because he claimed it dealt with “sensitive information” that could reveal “sources and methods of intelligence.” But he came under so much fire from many of the families for saying that that he finally had to act like he supported the idea. Still, he gave them a very short deadline and the smallest funding level possible. He also insisted that he be allowed to appoint the commissions chairman. His choice was Henry Kissinger. More heat from the families on Congress eventually saw Kissinger resign.
After that, Bush and Cheney blocked the release of a lot of information that the commission needed, and they refused to give interviews. Only when threatened with a supoena did they finally agree to them, but then, not without conditions. You remember those conditions don’t you?
They had to testify together. They would not be required to take an oath before their testimony. It could not be recorded or transcribed. The only record could be notes taken down by hand. And these notes would never be made public.

The 9/11 commission exposed the Bush administrations total and complete incompetence. Anything or anyone who makes them look bad, or exposes that truth is fair game for an attack. Insane, hatefilled, rightwing slut Ann Coulter’s entire career is based on attacking on the Neocons behalf. And it doesn’t matter if someone is a Republican like each and every one of the Jersey Girls are — in her book (or his, if you really look at Ann’s adams apple bobbing up and down just between her thin, smirking lips, and the edge of her perpetual cocktail dress uniform) you are a worthless “Libbbruhlll.”

Posted by: Adrienne at June 8, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #155565

Adrienne says it all! Burn Anne Coulter? Why bother? She does resemble a witch though. If we decide to, we can fuel the fire with fat from her sacred cow,George Bush,Jr. Tom Tancredo rules.

Posted by: Reddogs at June 8, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #155570


I say bravo to Ann Coulter. If the republican party is going to maintain power in this country, we must resist those who would challenge us with facts. We can let no truth go unchallenged.

Posted by: jlw at June 8, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #155576

Maybe I’m just starting to get a little jaded in my old age, but I seems to me that this is exactly the sort of “issue” conservatives need in order to hold their ground in November. I think Ann stepped into the pitch in this case in order to take focus away from the message and put it on the messengers while at the same time crystallizing right wing support. There is no way she’s going to change any minds on the left, or in the center, but this is just the thing to get the right wing’s blood pumping, and if the blood continues to pump come November we just might see a Congress-wide repeat of the California 50th. It’s all very Rove-ian.

Posted by: Christian at June 8, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #155590

Woody,
I’m struggling to locate a point in the post you directed at me.

Prove me wrong. Come on, engage in facts. Provide one thing that had the slightest possibility of taking clues from the past and applying them to attempt to prevent a future attack.

I’ll bet you cannot do it. Like I said before:
(the left will) “throw out accusations, when the other side challanges the circumstances and/or specifics that were used to form the basis for the accusation, attack the integrity of the opponent.”

That is all you did. You did not disprove or contest anything, you merely said “so you say…you don’t think anything Clinton did was meaningful…blah, blah, blah”.

Adrienne;
Clinton had 6 years since WTC1 to do something to try to prevent a future attack. What did he do? You describe Bush as incompetent because WTC2 happened less than 8 months after he took office. He’s supposed to identify the problem, devise a solution and put safeguards in place in 8 months….something Clinton was not successfull in doing in his last 6 years in office. Maybe if Monica wasn’t spending so much time under the Oval Office desk….

Posted by: Rich at June 8, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #155592
Besides, if the “perpetrators of WTC #1 were caught and prosecuted”, why did Clinton need to “lob those missles” at OBL??? It’s amazing how you can speak only 2 sentences and still manage to contradict yourselves. You need to get an opinion of your own instead of blindly repeating what you hear.

Rich,
You need an education. Not only do you comment on events you dont know about but you dont even appear to know the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 8, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #155596

“Clinton had 6 years since WTC1 to do something to try to prevent a future attack.”

You people love to spout off and point fingers, but never make the slightest attempt to get any of the facts.
The Jersey Girls have been critical of Clinton too. Although, clearly not nearly as much as they have been of Bush’s truly complete failure to try to protect the country from terrorism.

Of course, Democrats don’t do things like hire Nutcase Whores like Coulter to attack these widows in order to make excuses or try cover up for such criticsms. Maybe because liberals recognize that criticism which comes from our citizens can often lead to much needed changes that can be beneficial to all Americans.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 8, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #155600

If those women were pro-war, pro-Bush, you better believe they’d be guests of honor at the State of the Union. This administration and those who support it cannot defend their actions against the facts of the last 5 years, so they can only attack, in the most base manner, those that question their policies and speak out against them. If you’re not with them, you’re against them, regardless of whether or nto you are an American or make valid points about how you would like to see YOUR government run. The reason is they are in an indefensible position. They have screwed up everything they’ve touched. The last resort is personal attacks. The end is near. Viva la Revolution!

Posted by: David S at June 8, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #155601

Wow… what can I say?? The hypocrisy and cynicism of the right is mind-boggling. There’s nothing that I can add to this discussion on the rantings of the likes of Ann Coulter. I only hope that her blind hatred of progressives and her willingness to spread rumor and innuendo to attack and vilify those who disagree with her politically attaches itself to the conservative movement.

Her argument is that the widows cannot be responded to because they are given hands-off treatment, yet she makes a living selling lies and attacking these widows???? She must truly hate herself to be willing to go on public forums and spew hatred of all that is rational and progressive.

God help America when the likes of Ann Coulter is given air time by the ‘liberal’ media.

Posted by: LibRick at June 8, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #155602

Rich-
He did an awful lot, and an awful lot more than Bush did before 9/11. He made Counterterrorism a cabinet level office. Bush demoted it. He made Counterterrorism the focus of his administration, within what Americans would allow at the time.

Let’s not forget that 9/11 changed the rules on what Americans were willing to let their government do in terms of terrorists.

Clinton went after the intelligence Networks that did the Khobar Towers operation and burned them down. He pre-emptively attacked an operation in Sudan when evidence came back that this terrorist nation was making nerve gas (the manager would later claim baby formula or something else, but the attack was based on finding a Nerve Gas precursor near the scene) He rained missles down on a training camp in afghanistan in response to the East Africa job. His people participated in the foiling of an attack on LAX and a plot which would have used liquid explosives to detonate several planes over the Pacific. His people constantly reviewed and worked out policy on terrorism. He also caught those who were responsible for the attacks on the WTC in 1993, and they now rot in prison.

Clinton could have done more, but at least he was doing something from the start.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #155612

Dr. Politico

That you side with Ann Coulter is all I need to know about your character, Mr. PhD-wannabe.

Posted by: mental wimp at June 8, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #155613

The only prostitute here is Ann Coulter. Who intentionally creates controversy, through her use of personal attacks and innuendo in order to sell books! That any legitimate argument that she has gets lost in the fog of controversy she creates is unimportant to her, as long as she is paid. The only thing sadder than the right wing needs of the Ann Coulter’s of the world to propagate their ideas is the willingness of some so called news outlets to utilize Coulter’s controversial image that detracts from any honest forum for debate.

Posted by: Cube at June 8, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #155617


Bill Clinton is responsible for everything we have had to endure in the last six years. Except of course, the great economic recovery that is benefiting a massive 20% of our citizens.

Posted by: jlw at June 8, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #155631

mental wimp (and to all else who didn’t catch this),

Dr. Politico

That you side with Ann Coulter is all I need to know about your character, Mr. PhD-wannabe.

Did you read my post? The conclusion goes like this:

Still, it wasn’t necessary [for Coulter] to engage in personal attacks, which politicians and pundits love to do. Coulter could have simply wrote:

This group of women have prostituted their husbands’ deaths and the attacks of 9/11; that is shameful.

Had Coulter left it at that, her point would have been a valid one. Instead, Coulter also chose to prostitute the attacks of 9/11, and that is shameful.

Pay attention. Oh wait, I almost forgot your name.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 8, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #155637

Does anyone actually disagree with the sentiments of what Ann Coulter said, or just the way it was delivered?

Posted by: Aaron at June 8, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #155640

Dr Politico-

Had she left it at that, she wouldn’t be No. 1 on Amazon….

Ms. Coulter sells books; don’t forget that is her objective here.

Posted by: George in SC at June 8, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #155650

George in SC,

“Had she left it at that, she wouldn’t be No. 1 on Amazon….

Ms. Coulter sells books; don’t forget that is her objective here.”

Absolutely. That’s what I was getting at when I wrote that she prostituted 9/11, and when I titled the piece “… and the Prostitution of 9/11.”

Somehow, people on this thread are under the impression that I support what Coulter wrote. She is as guilty as Clinton, and the women that she writes of. Using 9/11 to sell books or to further a personal agenda is repugnant, which I wrote in the post. It seems that liberals realize this fact when it involves President Bush. Yet as soon as 9/11 is connected to a liberal agenda they ignore it.

A person’s values should not be tied to a political party, which I’ve written before. If peole are unwilling to condemn both sides equally, then perhaps they should rethink their own value system. When I posted on the offensive remarks of Hollywood elites, the common defense in the comments section was that they are simply exercising freedom of speech. Where are the liberals now with that same defense?

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 8, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #155654

It just makes Coulter’s blood boil that she can’t legitimately attack these women. Has she lost a loved one on 9/11 or in Iraq? Widows and loved ones have the right to question what happened on 9/11 and what’s happening in Iraq now. Why can’t she question their politics without going after them in such a shrill and insensitive way?

Posted by: Shelly at June 8, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #155668

“A person’s values should not be tied to a political party, which I’ve written before. If peole are unwilling to condemn both sides equally, then perhaps they should rethink their own value system. When I posted on the offensive remarks of Hollywood elites, the common defense in the comments section was that they are simply exercising freedom of speech. Where are the liberals now with that same defense?”

The Jersey Girls have condemned both sides — though not equally, because they believed more fault lies at the feet of the Bush Administration when it came to preventing the terrorist attack that took their loved ones.
These women are all Republicans who voted for Bush in 2000, but who chose to speak out against him in 2004. They did this not because they aren’t still conservatives, and not because they had a “liberal agenda”, but ONLY because they knew then, and still know now that Bush is doing an absolutely rotten job of protecting this country.
These women are not politicians, and they aren’t well paid scumbag rightwing pundits like Coulter, but they did choose to exercise their first amendment rights. Good for them. By pushing for the 9/11 commission to get the facts of what had happened, these women did the country a very great service. They have said time and again that the reason they speak out is because they don’t want what happened to their husbands, to themselves, and to their families to happen to other Americans.
All of us should respect this fact, and praise them for their efforts.
But sadly, and outrageously, their efforts on behalf of homeland security have been almost completely ignored. Practically none of the 9/11 commissions recommendations have been enacted (such as port or border security). Meanwhile Bin Laden remains free, Bush has claimed he’s not that concerned with getting him, and most of our troops are fighting in Iraq.
The Jersey Girls aren’t going to shut up just because the Neocons want them to, or because that Coulter whore is now trying to smear and belittle them for their actions. The reason they won’t shut up is exactly because their value system isn’t tied to a political party. Quite obviously, it’s tied to the American people — all of us. Even us hated “Libruhllls.”

Posted by: Adrienne at June 8, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #155676

How relevant and noted were these womens opinions prior to 9/11? It seems to me that these women have taken the attention given to them based on human compassion and have used it for political posturing. The only thing sleazier than grabbing attention with the “Loss” flag is making money writing books about it.

I’m sorry that these women lost their husbands, but that alone should not make thier political opinions automatically relevant.

Posted by: DOC at June 8, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #155687

“How relevant and noted were these womens opinions prior to 9/11?”

How relevant are Coulters opinions? Is hate speech noteworthy?

“It seems to me that these women have taken the attention given to them based on human compassion and have used it for political posturing.”

It seems to me that Coulter has taken the attention given to her based on hate-speech and a lack of human compassion and has used it for political posturing, and to make millions of dollars on television, in syndicated columns, as a paid public speaker, and as an author who never uses facts.

“The only thing sleazier than grabbing attention with the “Loss” flag is making money writing books about it.”

There is no one who looks or acts sleazier than Coulter — whose every opinion drips with hatred, and who then turns around and tries to call herself a good Christian while judging all Liberals as “Godless” in order to sell books to people who revel in their hatred of Liberals.

“I’m sorry that these women lost their husbands, but that alone should not make thier political opinions automatically relevant.”

Yeah, who cares about homeland security anyway? Political words are much more important than deeds, right?

Posted by: Adrienne at June 8, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #155694

I think many of you are missing the point. Coulter is saying these women are sheilded from counter-arguments due to the fact that they are grieving 9/11 widows. The problem with Coulter’s argument is that no one is saying you can’t make opposing comments on every issue these widows are raising. What Coulter wants is the ability to make personal attacks, using major media outlets, against these widows without a public backlash. This is just another example of the Republicans attacking the messenger and not the message, something our watchblog editor would not approve.

Posted by: bushflipflops at June 8, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #155725

I try to limit my exposure to Ann Coulter, just as I would try to get away from any rabid (female, in this case) dog on the street. There’s not much difference.

Seems to me she’s saying these women have an opinion about the Administration because in their view it was the Administration’s negligence and blunders that led to 9/11. Coulter thinks, though, that if you suffer a personal tragedy due to governmental negligence, you’re supposed to take your hush money and go to your nunnery.
Moreover, if you do have the gall to speak up about what it was that you think caused the death of your husband, Coulter feels that she herself should feel free to attack you in the nastiest terms. Only she doesn’t feel *quite* free to do it, because there’s that antique idea of common decency standing in her way. It’s common decency that Coulter is opposed to. It’s the contract of good manners and compassion that binds people together into communities. Thank God Coulter doesn’t live in my community. We’d all have to get Lugers just to go to the grocery store. And Coulter would stand out on the street corner selling them, snarling through those thin, frozen lips of hers, tossing that golden hair.

If the right wing of this benighted country sees itself in this distortion of a woman, God help us all.

Posted by: intelligentlife at June 8, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #155781

If someone in here accused a widow who supported the war of being a “witch” and of “enjoying her husband’s death”, every one of you wrong wingers would be all over them like a cheap suit.

The wrong wing defense of such odious, despicable behavior shows a real difference between the wrong wing and the rest of America: The rest of America would never stoop so low

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 8, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #155830

The real question about the Coulter brouhaha is why NBC even puts her on. Her cant is on a par with white supremecists and neo-nazis. Does NBC grant any of these guys a platform for their drek? Then why Coulter?

She lost credibility a long time ago. Her books are the same tap-dance over and over again with minimal variation: “NeoCons? Good! Liberals? Bad!” And never mind supporting any of these arguments with verifiable facts (or even, apparently, proofreading for grammatical errors).

Ignore her and she’ll go away. She’s only interested in gathering up as much money as she can, while she can, from the yahoos who think she buys into their odd moral universe.

Posted by: pianofan at June 8, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #155832

The lady next door lost her husband in a automobile accident about six months ago. At the time of his death she wasn’t “politically aware”. Well although her family and some neighbors felt sorry for her loss’ no one asked about her feelings on the war in Iraq. If they had Im sure she would have ventured a few comments and changed the subject as the subject was not in her expertise. Well after listening to the four mental giants refered too by Annie as witches, I feel We could have learned much more from the poor lady next door. And it wouldn’t have cost us anything. So they lost their husbands. They are not alone so have many thousands of ladies, under to them equally as tragic circumstances. They have not been lionized by the vacumn brained media. Nor is their opinion of Bush splashed all over the papers. So if the witches want to show their ignorance to the rest of the world they open themselves up (rightly so) to the criticism of the rest of us who actually have IQs.

Posted by: white bigot at June 8, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #155837

Andrew Sullivan sizes up Coulter perfectly:

“But the problem with Coulter is that she is a form of camp, is she not? The minute you take her seriously, you lose grip on her reality. She’s not a social or political commentator. She’s a drag queen impersonating a fascist. I don’t even begin to believe she actually believes this stuff. It’s post-modern performance-art. I think of Coulter in that sense as more at home on the pomo-left than the Christianist right (which is why the joke, ultimately, is on the Republicans who like her). Devoid of sincerity, detached from any value but performance, juggling rhetoric for its own sake, she is Stanley Fish’s model student. Half the time, I tend to think that a Hannity or O’Reilly or Malkin actually believes their own rhetoric. With Coulter, I don’t believe it for a second. And so her vileness cannot be taken seriously. She is worse than vile. She is just empty.”

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/06/coulter_kampf.html?promoid=rss_daily_dish

Posted by: pianofan at June 8, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #155856

white bigot,

the fact that you call four widows “witches” shows that there is no limit to how low you will stoop. ElliottBay was right.

So I assume that you’d have no problem with your wife being called a witch after you die.

Posted by: not bigotted at June 8, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #155879

white bigot:
Your argument makes no sense. The auto accident has nothing to do with the war on terror, so that widow would have no basis for critiqueing the handling of said war. The families who lost loved ones due to the attacks on 9/11 have a much more intimate connection to the war on terror, same with those who lost loved ones fighting overseas. Now if the car accident was caused by a drunk driver, then that woman would definitely have a valid voice of concern with sobriety laws and other factors that resulted in her husbands death. Or if the accident were a result of not having a stoplight at a busy intersection, then that women has every right to voice her concerns to the towns leaders for a stoplight to prevent further accidents. Try using logic sometimes buddy.

Posted by: bushflipflops at June 9, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #155898

not bigotted,

I don’t think he was calling them witches. That’s how Ann Coulter referred to them. She called them the Witches of Eastwick (or something like that anyways.)

Posted by: ONEWILDCHILD at June 9, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #155967

I want to say, dosen’t anyone read? I guess if you’re a liberal that is asking ALOT!!! First off with this thing on these widows, I agree with Ann. All they are doing is blaming President Bush for their loss when the person to blame is still out there! Instead of blaming THEIR government, they should put more effort in supporting it, no matter who is President. Thanks to the government that they are so quick to blame, they are millionares. Or did they forget where that money came from? It was truly a tragedy losing their loved ones and no amount of money can compensate that, but don’t lay blame where it dosen’t belong. If they want to blame someone how about the lieing, cheating,womanizing, fraudulent and all around scum, Bill Clinton! And don’t forget Hillary also. She’s just as bad if not worse! I don’t remember anything good coming out of this government while the two of them were in office. Just alot of scandel. Let’s talk for a minute about these missiles Clinton ordered to be dropped. From my readings it was an asprin factory and the hit was ordered conviently while Clinton was on trial!!!! Trial for what? In case all you Clinton lovers don’t remember, he was about to be impeached! Because he’s a liar, cheater and as far as I’m concerned not worthy of any part of the government at all! As for President Bush not handling things with 9/11 any sooner, if you remember, we had NO military! Thanks to you know who(Clinton) we had bases closed and most of our top command wiped out either voluntary or tossed out. Thank you Mr. Clinton!!! Besides, everyone should know that the President can’t just start bombing a country without the go ahead from the Senate. So it wasn’t President Bush who was dragging his feet. Of course none of this would have been nessacary had Clinton heeded the warnings that were provided to him. No it was easier to ignore them so it didn’t interfear with his OWN personal agenda, which was to see how many laws he could break and get away with. I commend President Bush for all that he has done and is still doing considering what a mess was left to him. The women that Ann refered to, they want to have the people feel sorry for them they best keep waiting. With all their money have they contributed at all to ANY of the tragedies that have taken place in the last year? Like hurricane Katrina? Or don’t they think their loved ones would have wanted that? Since they seem to be able to know what they wanted. All that money, Given to them by their OWN government and they sit and critize President Bush. Shame on all of you!!!!

Posted by: Heath at June 9, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #156010

Heaven forbid if Homosexuals ever get married. What will we ever do?

I’m against gay marriage because I already spend too much money on wedding presents

Posted by: bobo at June 9, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #156030

Im going to try and go about this as level headed as I possibly can. I am the epitome of a Navy Brat what with my Mom currently serving as a LT Commander on an Aircraft Carrier, my Dad having served during Vietnam, my oldest brother having served as a Nuc. Eng. for the Navy as a LT and now as a Civ. and my middle brother is currently serving in IRAQ as a F-18D NFO in the MARINES. With all of that history in my immediate family, I chose not to join up after college like both of my brothers did. That was my choice as an American. I truly believe I would not be a good soldier and hence, Im not one. Dont shower pity on our soldiers. Nobody twisted their arms to make them sign that dotted line. They joined of their free will and if they didnt think they could handle war, they chose the wrong profession. Make no mistake about it, to be in the Military is to make war your business. I dare an Liberal to look at my Marine brother and say they feel sorry for him. Tell him you pity his position in life. He would look you straight in the face and say shove it. He chose to pursue the HONOR of being a US Marine and he wants to be out there protecting all of us. But what really sickens me the most; all of you Liberals say you support the troops but you want to take them away from their JOBS. Anyone in my family would tell you, “No thanks, but youre welcome. Im glad you still have the right to free speech today. I did my job, did you?” You Liberals want to point out corruption at every turn when it isnt “your” President running the government. Again, my family would say “Youre welcome.” You Liberals want to throw stones at Ann Coulter and call her names and never back up anything you say. Once again, my family would say “Youre welcome.” See, they believe that no matter how bad the dribble is coming out of the typical Liberal’s mouth, they have the right to put it out there. And they fight for that metaphorical “podium” that so many uneducated Liberals hastly climb upon whenever the mood (or a well worded arguement from the likes of Ann Coulter) strikes them. They say “Youre Welcome” knowing full well it falls on deaf ears in places like New York and California. They know that Liberals are going to try and manipulate their lives, their reality, their happenings to suit their evil purposes. But they do their jobs anyways. Why, you might ask? Because putting up with the weak and pathetic verbal attacks of the typical Liberal is far nicer than suffering another attack like 9/11 or waiting for an attack to come from the likes of Iraq or Iran.

On that same note, too many people on here are quick to forget that terrorist attacks went unanswered by any true show of force dating back to the days of Nixon. It took a true American Hero to say no more. To stand up, next to his Soldiers, his Teachers, his Liberal counterparts and say I will not let this pass any longer. You all may not understand the gift Bush is giving this country by staying true to the path and not faltering at the sight of highly skewed polls. What a nice change of pace for us, as a country, who have had to deal with the lamest of ducks, Bill Clinton. How quickly Liberals forget that Bush is fighting for them too. And by the way, Im sure he would look at what you have to say, all those harsh names and unfounded attacks, and he would say “Youre Welcome.”

Posted by: Alex at June 9, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #156056

Alex: “What a nice change of pace for us”

Thanks, but no thanks, for my share in this “nice change of pace,” Alex.

I’d feel a lot more confident in Bush if he could string together a coherent sentence off-script without stumbling over every other one-syllable word. Who can have any confidence in a leader who seems to be either ignorant or over-medicated?

Bush’s accomplishments directly mirror his abilities - not a comforting thought, amigo.

Posted by: pianofan at June 9, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #156125

“I want to say, dosen’t anyone read? I guess if you’re a liberal that is asking ALOT!!! First off with this thing on these widows, I agree with Ann. All they are doing is blaming President Bush for their loss when the person to blame is still out there!”

Clearly Republicans have no grasp of logic, because they’re always making these sorts of dumbass comments. Read this slowly: The reason they’re blaming Bush for their loss is because he was on vacation and couldn’t be bothered when a memo came in that said “Bin Laden determined to strike in US.” Interestingly enough, had those widows not fought for the creation of the 9/11 commission (which the president fought them on tooth and nail), we’d never have even heard about that memo. As for Bin Laden still being out there, Bush has said he’s “just not that concerned about him”, after saying he wanted him “Dead or Alive.” So, Bush took the focus off the person who killed their loved ones in favor of going into a war that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and claims he doesn’t care whether he is ever brought to justice because he thinks it’s enough that Bin Laden has been “marginalized”. Those widows have every right to blame Bush — because he’s the idiot whose negligence lead to their husbands deaths, and the incompetent, senseless idiot who clearly doesn’t give a sh*t about letting the mass-murdering head of the terrorist organization who attacked America on 9/11 go free.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 9, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #156141

Well put, Adrienne. Sing it loud, sister.

Posted by: pianofan at June 9, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #156143

There’s a bit of silliness going on with the Right concerning political correctness here. This isn’t about sacred cows. It’s about there being limits to what decent people do and say. As I said early on, had folks been trying to silence Coulter for simply saying the Jersey Girls were wrong, that would be one thing.

What she did was slime their characters, and then took issue with people for thinking that sliming wrong. She compounds the injury of her words, with the insult of trying to push her verbal hostility on us as the acceptable norm. It’s a like a person who runs into the back of your car on purpose, then starts trying to convince you that she was right to do that.

Now the Republicans are taking her side. Whatever happened to civility and manners? Why do so many pundits think it necessary to make these debates personal like this?

Forget sacred cows. We got to ask what’s sacred anymore, especially the Republicans. They’re supposed to be the party of morality and everything. Whatever happened to limits on one’s behavior?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 9, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #156183

Thanks so much to Adrienne and Pianofan for proving my point about how senseless and unintelligent the dribble is coming out of Liberals mouths. Oh and by the way, “Youre Welcome.”

Posted by: Alex at June 9, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #156188

Adrienne, excellent comments. I am quite shocked and saddened by the vitriol and unwillingness to actually debate issues using facts as opposed to mere slogans, slanders and lies. It seems that as far as the far right is concerned the end justifies the means. It doesn’t seem to matter what the means are. I worry about their ends.

p.s. Bobo the post “I’m against gay marriage because I already spend too much money on wedding presents” was just genius, well said. It alarms me that conservatives seem to think they can intrude into the private lives of others and dictate who can commit to a lifetime of fidelity and love and to whom they can so commit. The phrase “destroying the institution of marriage” as applied to gays wanting to marry is about the strangest and most oxymoronic thing I’ve ever heard. Imaging people destroying marriage by wanting to get married??????????!!!!!!!!

I’m inclined to think either that Coulter does not believe what she is saying and is merely trying to sell books (quite sucessfully) or that she has no capacity to experience empathy for others. No one is saying that you can’t disagree with the 9/11 widows or debate politics or responsiblity for 9/11 with them but quite frankly it is simply disgusting to slander them (or anyone else for that matter) with totally unproven assertions (lies) on live TV. Coulter and her ilk attempt to silence the speach of others by attacking and slandering people publicly with lies about them.

Posted by: abhcoide at June 9, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #156285

P.s. the “rape” of Juanita Broaddrick was made up, she said so herself in a sworn affidavit in 1997, whatever she may have claimed on Dateline NBC was therefore (by her own admission) untrue.
Your reference to “those in glass houses” in the current context is therefore misguided.

Posted by: abhcoide at June 10, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #156286

Maybe the right would have more credibility if they didn’t base most of their accusations on lies and slanders. The ends justify the means eh? So much for the “moral majority”.

Posted by: abhcoide at June 10, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #156287

An Independent Counsel report noted that Willey “had given substantially different accounts in two sworn statements and had lied to the FBI about her relationship with a former boyfriend.” Further, “Following Willey’s acknowledgment of the lie, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard.”

Here is Ann’s other “credible” witness to Bill Clinton’s alleged “assaults” on women for which Hillary Clinton is responsible.

Yes, Bill has had extra-marital affairs. Do I find that reprehensibe? Yes, of course. Does it have anything to do with politics? No. Let’s talk about Laura and George’s marital difficulties…what stooping too low? Well try applying the same courtesy to democrats.

Posted by: abhcoide at June 10, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #156291

i love the conservative christians, you guys lie to yourselves and the rest of us too, trying to envelope yourselves in the mantle of righteousness and dignity. using your liberal religion and calling it holy, allowing your scriptures to be interpreted in new and innovative ways that jesus would never have approved of and showing the truth of your disgustingness by your willingness to fight tooth and nail anyone whom you perceive as the “other”
why do you guys get so bent out of shape when bush gets criticized ? even the republicans are starting to wake up and smell the national debt and moral bankruptcy they have presented to the world, stop using clinton as a crutch, he got some head and lied about it to the american people, so what,so would i, the only one who needed to take issue with that was his wife, you do believe in the sanctity of marriage, don’t you? do you really believe that you are righteous to the exception of all others ? i hope not, and if you are really a conservative you should be trying to reinstate the values that made this country great like slavery and indentured servitude,unbridled expansion and imperialism, neverending state of war, friday night lyncings, genocide of the native populations, and the homestead massacre, how about coolie labor on the rails, a fine example of american moral rectitude. oh wait, you guys are already working on that, looking the other way at industrial flight and illegal workers depressing the american workers wages. a prison industrial complex that outpaces the entire world, and a disrespect for the other that knows no bounds. p.s. they don’t hate you because of your freedom, they hate you because of your arrogance. there are plenty of native born americans who feel the exact same way and it is not from a lack of patriotism, it is an intelligent reaction to being attacked, or the perception that there is an unresolved evil taking place, and they refuse to stand by and be silent.

Posted by: james at June 10, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #156433

James, you fail to realize that you have no idea how Jesus would have wanted his story interpreted, just like everybody else. But what the Bible does say is that it is meant to be a set of guide lines for a moral life. Ill break that down for you, because Im sure you cant understand a truly intelligent thought. That means, that we, as Christians, are SUPPOSED to interpret the Bible every single day in an effort to use the lessons it gives us in our everyday lives. Im sorry the Bible doesnt have a clear cut story about a man in power commiting adultry, lying about it, abusing power, and killing his fellow men through a lack of concise leadership. But it does say what is right and wrong. It is wrong to cheat on your wife. It is wrong to lie. Its is wrong to seek more power than one can handle and it is wrong to sit by and do nothing it the face of injustice. If you cant clearly see those lessons, than I suggest you go back and reread the Good Book. Now, I am not saying that our leadership does not commit sins. But what it doesnt do, is say that it doesnt care about the sins it commits. I would rather have a leader who is in constant search of a better-self, one who truly wants to be a better person and one who knows when he simply doesnt have all the answers, than have leader who makes things up when he doesnt have the answer, who lobs missles as innocent people to divert attention away from his lying and cheating and one who has the quickest of tongues. Because the fact is, a great speech maker doesnt make a great President. I would rather have the stuttering honesty of President Bush than the silky smooth lies of a Clinton (that goes for both of them.)

Democrats, I just want to say thank you for being the party that you are. Thank you for attacking the average American and calling them dumb for believing what they believe. Thank you for attacking Americans who are Christians. Thank you for sticking your foot in your mouths every chance you get. Thank you for being so weak willed and childish that even me, a 22 year old college student, can see how pathetic your party is. Thank you for letting movie stars and bad country music stars do your campaigning for you. Thank you for flip flopping on every issue based on what your skewed polls say. Thank you for all of that because it makes it so much easier to see which party really has morals, and strength and the ability to truly do some good in this world. Thank you for being the way you are, and garanteeing the next election for the Republicans. You make our jobs so much easier. All we have to do is be good human beings and we look like saints next to all of you. THANKS!

Posted by: Alex at June 11, 2006 4:41 AM
Comment #156978

Democrat quotes on WMD
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Hillary’s quotes (these are funny)
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/hillary-quotes.htm

Posted by: ONEWILDCHILD at June 12, 2006 9:54 PM
Post a comment