Coulter 2005

Search

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Since Doc insists on calling me by Ann Coulters name ( a compliment to me, but that moron thinks it's an insult), I figured I post something about this wonderful and erudite woman. Following is an article from the New York Observer:



[font=Times, Times Roman][size=+1]

On Jan. 3, I met Ann Coulter at an Italian restaurant on the Upper East Side. She was glowing, stunning, radiant. Better than ever. She was wearing a powder blue shirt, black pants, black boots and a cross around her neck made of diamonds. I hadn’t seen her since the Republican convention. Since then, the President had been decisively re-elected, her book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) hit the New York Times best-seller list, where it remains, and some dopes threw pies at her during a speech she was giving at the University of Arizona and missed.

"I sort of like liberals now," she said, taking a sip of white wine. "They’re kind of cute when they’re shivering and afraid. They’re so pathetic and sad. They can’t come up with a fight. I mean, if the best you’re going to give me to argue about is Rumsfeld’s auto-pen ….

"I’m rooting for the faction of the Democratic Party—like Nancy Pelosi, quoted in yesterday’s New York Times, and I think this is the dominant faction—taking the position that our ideas are fine. That’s right, class, do not change anything about what we believe. We’ve just got to package the wine in new bottles. We need a new way of delivering our message, but the message is perfect! We just need to advertise RU-486 at NASCAR or something—that’ll do the trick!

"I think the trick is, they need to obfuscate their message," she said. "Democrats always have these open public discussions on how they can fake out the American people, so that’s one wing—let’s not tell them what we believe—and the other wing is, Our message is perfect. Ha-ha-ha-ha!"

Why was 2004 a great year?

"I’m thinking about putting up a reward on my Web page for any liberal who will mention either Afghanistan or the Kurds," she said. "I mean, 85 percent of Iraq is free, it’s beautiful—we have about 300 troops patrolling the entire Kurdish area. These poor beleaguered Kurds are free, are happy, are dancing in the streets, and liberals simply won’t mention them. I certainly thought Afghanistan was going to be a tougher nut to crack than Iraq—the Russians couldn’t take Afghanistan! They’ve basically been at war for a hundred years—even when nobody’s there, they’re at war with one another. We took Afghanistan in a month, and now they’ve had elections and women vote, and they didn’t vote for some crazy lunatic mullahs. So that’s a pretty good year."

The Iraqi people didn’t seem to have that great a Christmas.

"That’s right! But they’ll be opening Christmas presents soon enough," she said. "And then they’ll be happy. We’ll see, but things are going pretty well, and in most cases better than expected. We’re going to transform the Middle East by the time Bush leaves office, or it will be within shouting distance of there. I think Arabs flying planes into our skyscrapers will be as likely as a Japanese kamikaze pilot."

What would have to happen to make you say it was a bad idea to invade?

"That’s a good question. It would be a mistake if we just futz around and the whole country became like one long Falluja. I thought we were wasting way too much time on that. This is a war, let’s go in and win it. Just take the city! I think if it got to the point where it was going on for six, seven years, and it was just Americans patrolling without killing anyone—I’m getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."

Nuke North Korea?

"Right—and this is tied to my point that, in Iraq, let the Marines do their job. There may be some civilian casualties—that’s known as war. Americans can live with that. And when did we become the guardian of the world to prevent all civilian casualties, ever—how about our civilians?"

After we bomb North Korea, what’s the next country we should invade?

"Iran. Though that’s the beauty part of Iraq: It may well not be necessary. Because precisely what I’m saying with nuking North Korea—despite that wonderful peace deal Madeline Albright negotiated with the North Koreans, six seconds before they feverishly began developing nuclear weapons. They’re a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."

What about Mecca?

"Seriously, I think the rest of the countries in the Middle East, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they’re pretty much George Bush’s *****," she said. "I think they know we’re serious: We have a President who can do what he thinks is right, whether or not there are a bunch of liberals carping, and no matter what the letter writers to The New York Times have to say about being ashamed for their country."

What will liberals say when George Bush leaves office?

"They will say: ‘Many people would like to give George Bush credit for transforming the entire Middle East. But it was inevitable, it was going to happen anyway. It would have happened under John Kerry.’"

Have you met anyone in the administration?

"Briefly I met Gonzalez and Karl Rove years ago—very briefly, like at a dinner—and I’ve pretty much been attacking them ever since. I kind of avoid meeting politicians, because then I can’t attack them."

What would happen if you visited the White House?

"I was invited to the White House Christmas party, but I couldn’t go. I was busy. Maybe next year. But I’m not really someone who wants to meet people generally. It’s just not that big a thing for me. The one person I really want to meet and have my picture taken with is Jesse Helms. He kept America safe before Reagan came in. He was Senator No. He’s a great American."

How badly are Republicans hoping that the Dems nominate Hillary?

"It would be a lot of fun and I think they might well," she said. "The advantage Hillary has is the crazies—which is to say, the base of the Democratic party—love her, adore her, no matter what she says or does. She can come out for curbing illegal immigration. She could come out for parental notification and against partial-birth abortion and the crazies will still say, ‘No, she’s our gal. She is Madame Hillary.’"

Do you have a perverse admiration for her?

"Ewwww, no. As with John Kerry, I generally don’t admire people who get ahead on somebody else’s coattails. She’s like the anti-feminist. No, except she isn’t—because all feminists behave that way and pretend to be, ‘Oh, I’m a strong woman.’ They’re all weak and pathetic. Have you ever seen Citizen Kane? You know, he marries the nightclub singer and then wants to make her a great opera singer, because he controls all news in America; even though the audience is booing and throwing paper airplanes, all the headlines on every newspaper is ‘Susan Alexander Sweeps Chicago!’ That is what it’s like to be a liberal in America, whether you’re Susan Sontag or Hillary Clinton. No matter how pathetic and useless and everyone can be booing you, throwing paper airplanes—you can be incomprehensible like Susan Sontag, a ‘genius,’ a ‘public intellectual’! Did you try reading anything she’s ever written? What was the point of it? And Hillary, constantly voted the most admired woman."

What should we remember about Bill Clinton?

"Well, he was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten. I don’t think it’s fading. I winced when I saw him on TV today—what is Bush thinking, what is that? It reminds everyone of basically the worst episode in American history: Clinton talking on the phone with Congressmen about sending American troops to the Balkans while being serviced by Monica Lewinsky under the desk. And liberals didn’t mind that—but they’re upset that George Bush waited 48 hours to fly back from Crawford, Tex. If they’d shown half the indignation they showed at George Bush for not immediately turning over the entire United States treasury to Indonesia—where the Indonesians are all wearing Osama bin Laden T-shirts, by the way. Did you see that the Sri Lankans would not accept medical teams from Israel? ‘It’s a natural disaster, we’re dying, send help! No Jews.’ Oh-kay. Lovely people."

What’s a major flaw of the Republican Party?

"They don’t trust themselves enough and they get nervous about running a real Republican. Our problem is exactly the reverse of the Democrats, who have to prevent the American people from understanding what they really believe. The more they know about what we really believe, the more they like us, as opposed to the image of conservative or Republican."

Would you do a TV show with Al Franken?

"No, he’s physically repulsive. TV—we’re talking about where people see you. I have friends I trust who are smart who would put together a good TV show, and they came up with some ideas. And I can tell you straight out, we’ve basically given up. There is no liberal worthy of debating me, and I won’t do a TV show unless I have a liberal counterpart."

Maureen Dowd?

"No. I promise you, she wouldn’t do it—she’s whiny, she’s not funny. What we’re looking for is good-looking, male, liberal, half a brain. They don’t even have to be smart.

"The one person I really want to sit down with and figure out why he thinks he’s a liberal is Larry David," she said. "Because that’s the most brilliant TV show—it is conservative humor, and you can’t tell me it’s not. It’s all politically incorrect. And people I know who’ve worked with him say he’s really sweet, so there is nothing about him that should make him a liberal—and yet he flew from Los Angeles to Boston to sit at the Democratic National Convention.

"He can’t be a liberal! It’s got to be a generation thing. I’m sweeping the youth of America. I just noticed that most of my fans are college kids, I mean, it’s striking. And all these old people who ought to be conservatives still think of themselves as liberals. I would bet you anything if Larry David were 20 years old, he would be a right-wing lunatic."

Will Rudolph Giuliani ever be President?

"I love Giuliani, but I just think he needs to switch his position on abortion. We’re a pro-life party. And I don’t think half the country realizes he claims to be pro-choice. He’s a Catholic kid from Queens, he was in the opera club—c’mon! These New York Republicans, they don’t have a feel for the red states like I do. I give all of my speeches out in the red states—I know America and it is not New York. And they say, ‘Oh, now, we could run a pro-choice candidate and that would get moderates in the Northeast to vote for us—and those right-wing Christians, they’ll vote for us anyway.’ No, they won’t!"

She said she’s not a big fan of the current Mayor.

"I think anyone would be better," she said. "Michael Bloomberg is Marie Antoinette in all senses. He has no constituency to respond to, he’s raising taxes through the roof, he will not cut any programs, and by cutting out smoking … I mean, the tax base that has been hurt, the bars, the restaurants that have been hurt—it’s totally Marie Antoinette. In New York, people live in apartments the size of this table. Our dining room is the restaurant community of New York. We’re not all Michael Bloomberg, where we can invite people over to our huge hall and dining room. And to not allow people to smoke in our dining room is so Marie Antoinette. Oh, I loathe him."

Why do liberals often say violent things?

"Forget what they say, they are violent," she said. "They were slashing tires on Election Day. I was physically attacked this year. I hear MoveOn.org has a bounty for anyone who throws a pie in my face. Neither of those guys hit me. I think one is still in prison. It is a funny thing, that they ended up in prison—enjoying the benefits of gay marriage. One guy with a broken shoulder and one with a broken nose. And that was when I was traveling totally unprotected. Let ’em try it again, they’ll end up dead."

Condoleezza Rice being appointed Secretary of State is a huge deal, right?

"Yes, liberals are going to have figure out a way to cut her out of all the pictures. It’s going to be like Stalinist Russia: ‘Say, who’s that black woman standing next to Bush? No, never mind—it’s probably someone he’s arresting! It’s the maid!’ No, they’re going to start to notice. And it is I think curious, the issue Democrats have with blacks: They do not attack Spanish conservatives the way they attack black conservatives. With black conservatives, Democrats immediately go to the old racist stereotypes. It’s instantly that ‘they’re incompetent, they’re stupid.’ Look at the attacks on Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice. They try to refuse to recognize her. They’re specifically engaging in racist attacks on her: ‘Oh yeah, not up to the job. She’s not competent. She’s a dummy.’ Bush, they tell us, is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. He is the puppet and the puppet master is Dick Cheney, or it’s Donald Rumsfeld and he’s just being run around by these wily neocons. But when it comes to Condoleezza Rice, she’s the puppet of the dumb guy—that’s how dumb she is."

Could she say something about black conservatives?

"During the gay-marriage debate, these black ministers would come on TV and say things no white conservative would say. ‘Sodomy? You’re going to burn in hell for that!’ And I realized to my delight that if we can get blacks to be conservatives, we have an entire race of Ann Coulters. They do not care about politically correct. It would be so much fun. And they are conservative! I’m going to specifically appeal to them. I decided it’s the only free speech I’m willing to give this year. I will go to a black church and talk about gay marriage. The brothers aren’t big on queer theory. The four groups most opposed to gay marriage are blacks, Hispanics, old people and blue-collar workers—i.e., the four pillars of the Democratic Party."

How was her Christmas in New York?

"Oh, it was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘**** you!’ I’ve said it to everyone. You know, cab drivers, passing people on the street, whatever. And they come up with the ‘Happy holidays.’

"‘Merry Christmas.’ I mean, it really is an aggressive act in New York."

—George Gurley [/size][/font]
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Bblight Coulter:

did someone at the Hitler, sorry Bush, Youth Rally point this article out to ya?

Ya can tell a lot about someones character by the folks they cherish as heroes ... one of yours is Coulter and even REPUBLICAN JOE SCARBOROUGH has had it with her embarrassing, screaming act
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
<CENTER>Screed: With Treason, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in America's political debate

By Brendan Nyhan
June 30, 2003

</CENTER>With her new book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, syndicated pundit Ann Coulter has driven the national discourse to a new low. No longer content to merely smear liberals and the media with sweeping generalizations and fraudulent evidence, she has now upped the ante, accusing the entire Democratic Party as well as liberals and leftists nationwide of treason, a crime of disloyalty against the United States. But, as in her syndicated columns (many of which are adapted in the book) and her previous book Slander: Liberal Lies Against the American Right, Coulter's case relies in large part on irrational rhetoric and pervasive factual errors and deceptions. Regardless of your opinions about Democrats, liberals or the left, her work should not be taken at face value.

Context: The syndicated column and Slander



As we documented back in July 2001, Coulter's writing is not just inflammatory but blatantly irrational. Liberals are indiscriminately denounced as a group as "terrorists" or a "cult" who "hate democracy." Slander quickly became notorious for its errors and distortions of the facts, which we detailed in our examination of the book. From deceptive footnotes to mischaracterized quotes to outright lies, Coulter broke all standards of reasonable political debate in her quest to paint a picture of a media that is unambiguously hostile to conservatives. Jargon: How Coulter blurs distinctions in her rhetoric

In Treason, similar techniques are employed with aplomb. Consider her use of language. The accusation of treason is, of course, one of the most grave that can be made against a citizen of any country. Article III of the United States Constitution specifies that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

In latching onto a powerful word with a specific legal meaning and casually leveling the charge as a blanket accusation against a wide array of people (as she did with slander, which is a defamatory verbal statement), Coulter is attempting to smear virtually anyone who disagrees with her views on foreign policy as treasonous. "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason," she writes on the first page of the book. "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." (p. 1)

At times, Coulter portrays liberals and the left as engaged in a grand conspiracy to destroy the United States:

While undermining victory in the Cold War, liberals dedicated themselves to mainstreaming Communist ideals at home... Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth. (p. 289)​
At others, she instead insinuates that disagreeing with her about US policy toward various hostile foreign countries or taking any action that could be construed as favorable to those countries' interests is equivalent to treasonous support for those countries. Here are two classic examples of this tactic:

As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed by their cherished Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of a militarily strong America. Neither did the Democrats! (p. 171)​
Democrats always had mysterious objections and secret "better" ways, which they would never tell us. Then they would vote whichever way would best advance Communist interests. (p. 177)​
In the end, Coulter doesn't care about such distinctions, and goes so far as to specifically reject any distinction based on motive in judging her standard of treason:

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down. (p. 16)​
Of course, Coulter must engage in a complicated set of rhetorical tricks to accuse liberals of "fifty years of treason" (in a 2001 column, it was only "[t]wenty years of treason" - did inflation set in?). The book is primarily focused on the controversy over real and alleged Soviet espionage in the post-World War II era. We can certainly stipulate that Soviet agents who worked covertly inside the United States government did commit treason. But Coulter broadens the term to include virtually every liberal, leftist, Democrat or member of the media, in each case obscuring distinctions between individuals and stereotyping the entire group.

To do this, she condemns the left and liberals for defending the proven (and alleged) Soviet spies at the time and the Democratic Party officials for not taking the threat seriously enough. Many have offered serious critiques of the actions of individuals in this era. But Coulter implies that nearly every person left of center is culpable for failing to take action to prevent a small group of Soviet agents and their willful collaborators from infiltrating the US government (a conclusion based in part on evidence that did not come out for years, including decrypted Soviet cables released in 1995). She frequently implies that liberal attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and the alleged hysteria of McCarthyism were nothing more than an attempt to cover up this widespread treachery:

Springing naturally to their traitorous positions, the adversary press vilified HUAC [the House Un-American Activities Committee] for persecuting the charming State Department official. [Alger Hiss] (p. 20)​
By screaming about "McCarthyism," liberals would force the nation to "move on" from the subject of their own treachery. (p. 30)​
McCarthy's fundamental thesis was absolutely correct: The Democratic Party had fallen to the allures of totalitarianism. It was as if the Republicans had been caught in bed with Hitler. (p. 71)​
Stalinist spies were passing secret government files to Soviet agents, and the Treason Party sprang to action by vigorously investigating the precise words McCarthy had used in a speech to a women's Republican club in West Virginia. (p. 103)​
The primary victim of outrageous persecution during the McCarthy era was McCarthy. Liberals hid their traitorous conduct by making McCarthy the issue. They did to McCarthy everything they falsely accused him of doing to them. (p. 104)​
Adding insult to injury, Nixon had the audacity to make a campaign issue of the Democrats' treasonous stupidity. (p. 196)​
In the above quotes, the press is labeled as "traitorous" for treating HUAC unfairly, the Democrats are called the "Treason Party" and their alleged stupidity (which does not imply malevolent intent) is condemned as "treasonous." These cartoonish ad hominem attacks obscure key distinctions between individuals, particularly with regard to their involvement in these debates and the differences in motives that guided their actions. Put simply, being wrong about the scope and severity of the Soviet threat does not make one a traitor.

Coulter also salts the chapters she devotes to the post-war spy scandals with frequent and gratuitous references to President Clinton in an attempt to associate his scandals with those of Hiss and other accused or actual spies. For instance, she writes that Owen Lattimore, an alleged Soviet spy and the White House liaison to the State Department, "was the original Clinton. He stonewalled the truth, and liberals would never apologize." (p. 90) Later, she states that "The tactics used to prop up Soviet spies were later deployed to save a cheap flimflam artist [Clinton]." (p. 201)

After a long examination of this so-called "McCarthy era," Coulter jumps to Vietnam and the period since, and tries to lump liberals of this era in with those of the past due to their supposed sympathy for the enemy and attempts to undermine and weaken US foreign policy. Yet in contrast to the well-documented presence of Soviet spies in the US government, she provides no evidence that any liberals have taken actions intended to aid foreign enemies in the periods since (with a couple of possible exceptions). Instead, she attempts to leverage the McCarthy era to tar contemporary liberals and Democrats using guilt by association and innuendo.

First, she says Democratic foreign policy is essentially treasonous. "Democrats' gutless pusillanimity has emboldened America's enemies and terrified its allies." (p. 127) During Vietnam, she says liberals "[rolled] out all the usual arguments for treason ... The traitor lobby was ascendant and very loud. The media did its part, too, sowing fear and trying to undermine patriotism." (p. 129) In her opinion, Democrats in Congress undermined the war by forcing Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to cease bombing of North Vietnam and aid to the South Vietnamese in the 1973-1975 period. This is described as "the Democrats' traitorous execution of the Vietnam War." (p. 151)

After a history of the Reagan presidency and the US victory in the Cold War, she moves on to the post-9/11 era, writing, "Liberals spent most of the war on terrorism in a funk because they didn't have enough grist for the anti-war mill. They nearly went stark raving mad at having to mouth patriotic platitudes while burning with a desire to aid the enemy." (p. 14) Liberals "clamored for America to be defeated, caterwauling about the ferocious Afghan fighters and proclaiming Afghanistan a Vietnam-style 'quagmire.'" (p. 133) She even implies that Democrats secretly support the terrorists who attacked America. "Unable to root for al-Qaeda openly, Democrats lodged surly objections to the Bureau of Prisons for listening to the conversations of prison inmates suspected of plotting terrorist attacks." (p. 267)

Liberal syndicated columnist Molly Ivins is described as coming "[f]rom the traitor lobby's women's auxiliary." (p. 134) Mark Danner, a professor and journalist, is described as having written an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times "[h]oping to erode the nation's resolve." (p. 136) Notice the logic here - criticizing the US or US policy is equivalent to hoping for its defeat.

In the Iraq war, she accuses Democrats of engaging in "treasonous calculations" by insincerely voting for the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq:

When the Democrats' bluff was called in a roll call vote in Congress, many voted for war with Iraq. Inadvertently performing a great service, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd revealed the Democrats' treasonous calculations. She explained that Democrats would be forced to fake enthusiasm for the war on terror or lose the American people forever. Democrats, she said, "fear that if they approach" Iraq the same way they did during the Gulf War in 1991, "they will be portrayed as McGovernite wimps." Consequently, liberals would lie and pretend to support America. With their votes duly recorded, they went right back to attacking the war. (p. 14-15)​

Those celebrities who opposed the war are labeled "an instant sedition lobby" (p. 245). So desperate is Coulter to call liberals of the contemporary era traitors that she suggests that President Jimmy Carter's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize constitutes treason under the definition in the Constitution. When Carter was given the award, the chairman of the Nobel committee said it "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [Bush] administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States." This is Coulter's analysis of Carter's acceptance of the prize:

Carter would travel to Norway to accept the award in December 2002 - two months after Congress had authorized war against Iraq. Article III's definition of treason is narrow. But after Congress's action authorizing war, for any American to accept this award on the ground offered does sound terribly like "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (p. 257)​
During an appearance last Wednesday on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," Coulter went even further, insinuating that liberals today are collaborating with Saddam Hussein and saying their behavior is equivalent to collusion with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam in an exchange with co-host Alan Colmes:

COLMES: And who that is alive today would you accuse of treason?​
COULTER: Look, I wrote the book, let me answer the question. I understand what the question is. I'm sorry, we're going to have to wait to get the cables from Saddam Hussein to, you know, the traitors today.​
What we have now is the evidence from Stalin's agents in the United States -- evidence that was not released until 1995 and which Democrats sheltered, defended, ferociously attacked anyone who went after Soviet spies, agents of Stalin, a regime as evil as the Nazis. They were defended by the Democratic Party. It would be as if Republicans were caught in bed with Hitler.​
COLMES: Ann, I'm asking you if there's anybody today you'll accuse of treason? Apparently, you don't want to make that accusation against anyone in particular, liberal or Democrat.​
COULTER: You're consistently missing the point of this book. OK, I'm going have to wait for the Venona Project on today's traitors. But my question to you is how would liberals behave differently if they were in Saddam Hussein's pay? How would they behave differently if they were in Osama bin Laden's pay? Answer that question.​
COLMES: If you're going to say treason, which is a very serious charge...​
COULTER: Would they be screaming about a civil liberties crisis every time Ashcroft talks to a Muslim? What is the point of that?​

Ironically, Coulter approvingly cites a quote from the historian Paul Johnson saying that "Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones." (p. 292) If only she recognized how right he was. Facts: An array of falsehoods and mischaracterizations

As stated above, Coulter presents a detailed historical argument regarding the McCarthy era and how it is portrayed in the media. She appears to make a credible case against the caricature that is often portrayed, but any statement beyond this is outside the scope of this column. The specifics of her analysis require close scrutiny by an expert conversant in the wide range of scholarship that is now publicly available about the era. But those factual claims that can easily be checked, particularly those that pertain to contemporary politics, are extremely suspect. An investigation of a relatively small number of suspect references from among the hundreds of sourced and unsourced factual claims presented in Treason revealed numerous factual errors and distortions, the worst of which are detailed below.

Misleading quotation and sourcing of claims

Coulter engages in a series of deceptive practices in quoting people and sourcing her claims. Most commonly, she distorts the authorship of articles she's citing. Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include a New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as "According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by Patricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p. 97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times Magazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times reported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post magazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying multiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part, four-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post said..." (p. 92).

Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original source material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually presented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.''

Coulter goes on to denounce the New York Times for putting terms like "evil empire" in quotes, which she claims "expressed contempt for the idea of winning the Cold War." However, the article she cites as proof of the use of quotation marks is actually directly quoting Reagan saying the term. (p. 158) Later, she condemns the Times for its response to Reagan's invasion of Grenada. "The Times rages that Reagan was 'Making the World "Safe" for Hypocrisy,'" she writes, not mentioning that the quote is the headline on an op-ed by a Times columnist, not an editorial. (p. 179)

She also denounces a New York Times obituary of Joel Barr for saying he was "suspected of passing secret information" to the Soviets, writing that "Dozens of Soviet cables had identified Barr as a Soviet spy" as though this information was not provided to Times readers. (p. 53) But the obituary actually states that "John Haynes, the co-author with Harvey Klehr of a forthcoming Soviet history to be published by Yale, said that the intelligence reports show that Mr. Barr and Mr. Sarant 'were among the K.G.B.'s most valuable technical spies'" -- the same experts she cites in the footnote backing up her claim!

And in a passage focused on contemporary politics, Coulter misrepresents a personal attack against her as one on all "people who support ethnic profiling of airline passengers" (p. 261), saying Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, called such people "troglodytes 'crawling on [their] bell[ies] in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho." (brackets hers) In fact, Durbin wrote the following in a letter to a Springfield, Illinois newspaper (notice how Coulter pluralized his wording with brackets to obscure the reference):

I often wonder whether Ann Coulter's political views are just a pose.​
Having seen her on television, she is bright, witty and appears to be the product of a good education and good grooming. There is nothing about her which suggests she has spent any time crawling on her belly in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho.​
But when she opens her mouth or logs on her computer, Dr. Coulter is transformed into a political creature that could take Pat Buchanan's breath away.​
Durbin goes on to denounce her views on ethnic profiling, but to suggest that his crack represents his view of everyone who supports her stance on the issue is patently false.

Utter falsehoods and egregious factual misrepresentations

Coulter makes at least five factual claims that are indisputably false. First, she writes "When the United States made an alliance with mad mullahs in Afghanistan against the USSR, no sensible American would go sign up with the Taliban." (p. 51) However, the Taliban did not form a militia until 1994, several years after the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989) and its subsequent collapse (1991).

Later, she denounces Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA, David Bonior, D-MI, and Mike Thompson, D-CA, for their trip to Iraq in late September 2002, asking, "Weren't any Democrats the tiniest bit irritated that members of Congress were meeting with a tyrant as the U.S. prepared to attack him?" (p. 225) The group did not meet with Saddam, who is obviously the tyrant in question, though they did meet with Iraqi officials.



Coulter also offers this supposed quotation from Clinton: "Bill Clinton, the man who deployed the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in Bosnia, actually said of Muslim terrorists, 'They have good reason to hate us ... after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them.'" (p. 229) Clinton never said this according to searches of Google and the Nexis news database, nor do any sources repeat this quotation. The only clue to its source is its slight resemblance to a passage in a November 2001 speech at Georgetown University in which Clinton discusses a story from the Crusades and its enduring relevance today in far more nuanced terms. Given that the speech has been widely distorted in the media, it would not be surprising if this is Coulter's supposed source (she provides no footnote for the quote).</< p> In one bizarre case, she misrepresents the reasons for Carter's Nobel Prize, stating that it was awarded "for his masterful negotiation of the 1994 deal [the Agreed Framework with North Korea], though, in candor, he got the prize for North Korea only because the committee couldn't formally award a prize for Bush-bashing, which was the stated reason." (p. 233) But the Nobel committee's award announcement cites the award as recognizing Carter's "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," of which North Korea was only a part. In the presentation speech at the Nobel ceremony, his work on the North Korea issue was not even mentioned.

Lastly, she claims that Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General under President Johnson, "argued that Iran should be able to 'determine its own fate'" after returning from a meeting with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in 1979. "[D]etermine its own fate" is presented as a direct quote, but it turns out to be a quote from an abstract of a New York Times article, not a quote from Clark. In fact, it is an abstract paraphrase of the reporter's summary of Clark's statement summarizing the views of the Ayatollah! (The quote "determine its own fate" does not appear in any article in the Nexis news database along with Clark's name and Iran.)

In several other cases, Coulter thoroughly twists and misrepresents her source material to support her ideological agenda. Most of these are related to her claims that the media engages in "total suppression" of the religion of Muslim terrorists who kill people. (p. 279) She criticizes the New York Times for a March 5, 1993 headline about the first World Trade Center bombing, which read "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center," saying the Times was "[e]merging as al-Qaeda's leading spokesman in America." (p. 279) However, the first paragraph of the article states that the man was "described by the authorities as an Islamic fundamentalist." In addition, on the same day, the Times ran an 1100 word article titled "Suspect in Bombing Is Linked To Sect With a Violent Voice" detailing how Mohammed A. Salameh "is said by law-enforcement officials to be a follower of a blind Muslim cleric who preaches a violent message of Islamic fundamentalism from a walk-up mosque in Jersey City."

She also condemns the Times for its reporting on an Egyptian immigrant named Hesham Hadayet who went on a shooting rampage at an El Al terminal in Los Angeles. "In the past," she writes, "Hadayet had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, he had a 'Read the Koran' sticker on his front door, and he had expressed virulent hatred for Jews. The Times reported straight that his motive for the shooting may have been 'some dispute over a fare.'" (p. 279-280) In fact, all three of those facts about Hadayet came from the initial Times story on him, which straightforwardly presented two possible motives for his actions as a hate crime against Jews or a terrorist attack (El Al is the Israeli national airline). The quote "some dispute over a fare" came in a separate story that day based on an interview with Hadayet's uncle, who, the reporter summarized, "said his normally well-mannered nephew was always prickly about being taken for a fool by customers, and so he expected that some dispute over a fare had erupted at the El Al counter." This is clearly not written as though it is the reporter's opinion that it is true. It is pure conjecture and described as such (the uncle "expected" that it was a dispute).

In addition, Coulter denounces coverage of the sniper case, saying "you need a New York Times decoder ring" to find out "John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim. The only clue as to the sniper's religion was the Times's repeated insistence that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings." (p. 281) But on the same day that the suspects' capture was first reported, another "clue" might have been two separate stories that prominently described Muhammad as a Muslim. Two days later, the Times ran an entire story about the role of religion in the shootings, though it framed the issue mostly in psychiatric terms and did not speculate about the potential influence of extremist Islamic beliefs. In all four of these cases, it simply was not clear what the suspects' motives were from the facts available to the reporters writing in the earliest possible moments of the investigation. Would Coulter have them simply presume to know, as she claims to, that the the suspects' actions were driven by their religious beliefs?

And finally, in a similar accusation, Coulter claims the Times "barely mentioned" the release of decrypted Soviet cables (the Venona Project), saying "t might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of 'McCarthyism.'" The Times actually ran a 1000 word story on the declassification of the Venona cables. It did not run on the front page, but neither did the stories in the Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (among others). Among major newspapers, only the Los Angeles Times put the story on its front page.

In short, Ann Coulter has once again revealed herself as one of the most destructive forces in American politics, repeatedly making outrageously irrational arguments and demonstrably false claims.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Ya can tell its BEEN A LONG TIME since ol Bblight got laid:

"about this wonderful and erudite woman" ....
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
"So lies are okay now? When are we going to start collecting our Bibles to burn like the Nazis did? Are the neo-cons going to put out a corrected edition? I bet they are definitely going to get rid of all that bleeding heart crap that obvious liberal named "Jesus" kept whining about.

Everything about that Jesus guy is liberal if you bother to read that book, the Bible. Thank GOD most Republicans don't seem to. It's so subversive. Lots of big words too. I bet they'll get that straight in the rewrite too.

I just love this Republican stuff. I'm headed out to the mall to pick up some short skirts, high heels and hair dye. I'm supposed to be getting some work ready for a deadline, but if they ask me about it, I'll lie. I know Anne Coulter would approve. "
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Doc mullah - you talk a lot about sex and sexual orientation - a subject that most adults keep to themselves - it's just one more item that shows what socio-economic class your background and upbringing are.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Bblight:

I enjoy my sex life ... difference between you and me is my partner has a Vagina and breasts ...

We dont want to hear about your homosexual tendencies ...
fine by me if that is your choice and being your are in Massachusetts it aint that big of deal up there, so ENJOY, ENJOY, MR "PURTY MOUTH"
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Whos book would you read?

Who would you trust?
bw.jpg


michael-moore.jpg
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
coulter is schizophrenic you can tell by her writing style. everything is kind of non sensical and she uses a lot of fictional analogys that leave you scracthing your head. if you look on the cover of how to talk to a liberal she is absolutely hideous. maybe she was cuter when she was younger, most chics that sleep around dont stay hot after like 21 or 22 so i can see why.

moore is a creative film producer with a lot of political bias who presents stretched truths with a lot of shock value. I cant take this guy serious until he showers, shaves and wears a suit or at least a button down shirt when he does the late night circuit or all these HBO political shows.
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
BB's track record for today

posted an article trying to prop up some blonde air head and another one that discriminates against blacks.

are you sure youre from mass?!?!
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
patriot, you cant deny she looks hideous in that pic you posted. show one when she was 18 before she got used and abused by all those dems and muslims.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
7,379
Tokens
There are so many things wrong with that piece one hardly knows where to start. But why would anyone hold up as their idea of a strong woman anyone so abrasive, manipulative and devisive?
One point, what does this neo-con rocket scientist believe China would do if we nuked N. Korea?
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
check out part of this interview (http://www.nachos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=28061)

At the moment, she is without a boyfriend; curiously, her last beau happened to be a Muslim. "The relationship was complicated by his interest in committing jihad," she jokes. "I took away his box cutters. At first, I thought he was a terrorist. I just kept on running into this handsome Muslim on the street. He was a fan of mine."

So was he stalking her? "He was, but he was a good-looking stalker. I'd been so looking for one of those."
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
she never sounds coherent and she gets all loud like she makes sense and making a point. .it was funny as hell when those kids ran on stage and she was trying to talk about whatever drivel she was saying.

americas a great place. someone like ann can talk and write make absolutely no sense and get paid decent bucks for it.

dude, ann sounds exactly like a peace activist from the 70's. total flower child just saying some crap a few high people will clap at lol . she was just born at the wrong time the ho is confused. why hasnt she been here to respond she doesnt have anything to do, probably giving head to some nigerian.
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
I just kept on running into this handsome Muslim on the street
LMAO. .that chic is definatly just doing the stuff she has to do to get some salary and some dick
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,908
Messages
13,575,089
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com