Ann Coulter on point again

[igloo]

At Least Saddam Wasn't At Tailhook!

April 16, 2003

DESPITE LIBERALS' calm assurance that Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists, this week Abul Abbas, mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, was captured in Baghdad. This is the second time the United States has caught Abbas. But the last time, the Europeans let him go. That's why liberals are so eager to have Europeans "help" with the war on terrorism. They did a bang-up job last time.

In 1985, Muslim terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and threatened to kill the passengers and crew unless 50 imprisoned Palestinians were released by Israel. The terrorists doused American and British women with gasoline and taunted them with matches. They forced passengers to hold live grenades. When their demands were not met, the terrorists shot a wheelchair-bound American, Leon Klinghoffer, and forced other passengers at gunpoint to throw him overboard in his wheelchair.

Even as the Americans were preparing a rescue mission, the Italian and Egyptian governments made a deal with the terrorists, offering the release of the Palestinians and safe passage to Egypt to end the ordeal. The Europeans were delighted with this masterful act of diplomacy. The Americans were not so pleased.

Oliver North conceived of an operation to get the terrorists back. Contrary to Egyptian president Mubarak's assurances that the terrorists had already left Egypt, North found out the terrorists were still there. Indeed, working with Israeli intelligence, North determined the precise EgyptAir 737 that would carry the terrorists out of Egypt, even down to the flight number. He wanted to intercept the flight, modeling the operation on the extraordinary World War II interception of Yamamoto, mastermind of Pearl Harbor.

President Reagan was briefed on the daring plan – along with copious warnings from timorous State Department officials that the Europeans might have their feelings bruised, America would look like a cowboy, and it would only strengthen the hard-liners in Egypt. Asked if the operation should proceed, Reagan said: "Good God! They've murdered an American here. Let's get on with it."

Adm. Frank Kelso, the officer in charge of America's Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, ordered his men to carry out the mission. In no time flat, Tomcat fighters had taken off from the U.S. aircraft carrier Saratoga. After refueling in midair and guided by Hawkeyes, the Tomcats caught up with the EgyptAir flight. The fighters stealthily trailed their target for a while in total darkness, their lights off, even in the cockpit. Then the Tomcats swooped in on the EgyptAir flight, surrounded the plane, and forced it to land at a NATO base on Sicily controlled by the United States.

The New York Post headline the next day was: "GOT 'EM." Reagan said: "I salute the Navy."

And then Abul Abbas was released by the Europeans – whom liberals insist on approval from in this war. Abbas dashed to safety in Iraq under Saddam Hussein – whom liberals have assured us was not harboring terrorists. Republican presidents keep catching terrorists while liberals keep sending them back.

If there is a parable of how liberals support the enemy, this is it. Adm. Kelso, whose men carried out the dauntless EgyptAir interception, was cashiered out of the Navy because of "Tailhook." Feminists don't care about Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms. But they were hopping mad at Adm. Kelso for walking through the Tailhook convention to say hello to his boys – boys who captured Leon Klinghoffer's murderers.

To jog the memory of the horror that was Tailhook, Lt. Paula Coughlin was the officer who made the most lurid allegations, accusing a black Marine of molesting her. But then she kept identifying different black males as the perpetrator. Liberals managed to put their concern for racist accusations against blacks on the back burner in this one case. When liberals get going, the ironies never end.

Though Adm. Kelso was cleared of any wrongdoing after an official Navy investigation, liberals wanted him punished. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., engaged in a hysterical witchhunt of Kelso, marching with her fellow termagants to the Senate to encourage them to deny Kelso retirement with four stars. Naturally, the New York Times editorialized against him.

After a lifetime of honorable service to his country, Adm. Kelso was barely permitted to retire with four stars, in a 54-43 Senate vote. A majority of Democrats opposed Kelso, along with all the Republican women in the Senate – Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Arlen Specter, Bob Packwood and so on. Had the Senate denied him his retirement with four stars, this American hero would have received a pension of $67,000 per year, rather than the princely sum of $84,000 per year given a four-star admiral.

The left's relentless attacks on Oliver North hardly require elaboration. He was endlessly investigated, charged with crimes, indicted by Lawrence Walsh, and his Senate campaign destroyed. Al Gore compared North's supporters to Down syndrome children.

Now liberals are demanding that the Europeans be let into Iraq so they can release some more terrorists, while liberals do their part at home, carving up the colonels and admirals who capture people who murder Americans.

[siceone]

I love her

[sassa]

she is so full of hatred...she makes some good points, but a lot of her ideas are pretty biased... no wonder...

[siceone]

Originally posted by sassa

she is so full of hatred...she makes some good points, but a lot of her ideas are pretty biased... no wonder...

she is not full of hatred just fed up with liberalism

[igloo]

Originally posted by siceone

she is not full of hatred just fed up with liberalism

Yes....

Sassa's response was classic liberalism: When liberal bullshit is effectively challenged, the liberals response always contains the words "hate" or "racist", in a weak attempt to summon a delusionary elitist cover for their tired, tired views....

[vicman]

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

Yes....

Sassa's response was classic liberalism: When liberal bullshit is effectively challenged, the liberals response always contains the words "hate" or "racist", in a weak attempt to summon a delusionary elitist cover for their tired, tired views....

and look who's making the definition...a very well knowledgable right wing republican...

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

and look who's making the definition...a very well knowledgable right wing republican...

Thank you for the compliment...I always knew you dug me

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

Thank you for the compliment...I always knew you dug me

i'm surprised you didn't catch the dripping sarcasm in my comment...oh well..doesn't surprise me...again, you are a "very well knowledgable" right wing republican...

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

i'm surprised you didn't catch the dripping sarcasm in my comment...oh well..doesn't surprise me...again, you are a "very well knowledgable" right wing republican...

Uh-I believe I did, which is why I responded in the manner I did...Wow you can really displa some impressive stupidity sometimes

You need help...Me and Dnice would be more than happy to mentor you

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

Uh-I believe I did, which is why I responded in the manner I did...Wow you can really displa some impressive stupidity sometimes

You need help...Me and Dnice would be more than happy to mentor you

:rolleyes:

[normalnoises]

http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm

Ann Coulter's controversial statement in her column that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" is not the least of Coulter's sins.

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse

Coulter claims that she wasn't speaking of all Muslims:

Coulter says her line about "convert them to Christianity" has been misconstrued and was aimed at those celebrating the attacks. "I wasn't talking about Muslims generally," she says. "I was talking about the crazed homicidal maniacs dancing in the streets."

[The Washington Post, October 2, 2001]

Ann Coulter: Her Column

Let's look at the full context in which Coulter made her infamous declaration:

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

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

[Town Hall, September 14, 2001]

A fair reading could be that Ann Coulter wasn't explicitly referring to all Muslims, but that the "they" referred back to those in the streets of Arab nations who were celebrating the World Trade Center attacks.

Coulter's statement as thus interpreted is, of course, still outrageous.

Ann Coulter: Her Excuse Debunked

While Coulter can maybe get away with parsing her own text here, I wonder if any commentators on this brouhaha have taken what Coulter said in her column together with what she said on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect September 25:

Ann Coulter: What's different about Germany than here, but I think is more similar to Japan and ought to be the model, is that Germany at least had a wealth of civilization prior to the Third Reich and it had a respect for human life, something that was not as noticeable in Japan. And one of the things General MacArthur did, he considered converting the emperor to Christianity. Decided not to because he thought there would be a fight between Catholics and Presbyterians. But General MacArthur called in thousands of Christian missionaries. He distributed thousands of Bibles. It wasn't as much of a success story as the Christian missionaries were in Korea after the Korean War, but you know how it was a success story? They have unprecedented religious freedom there, something that is absent in every Muslim country. In fact --

[Transcript of Politically Incorrect, September 25, 2001, emphasis added]

This shows Coulter would like to apply her conversion concept to entire countries, such as she believes was done in Japan.

Ann Coulter: Her Ignorance

Moreover, Coulter, as the following dialogue, in relevant portions, makes clear, continues to put her foot in her mouth, with respect to her claims -- begun above -- that Arab countries have never had any "civilization," nor a history of tolerance for other religions: ("Jerry" is producer/journalist Jerry Nachman, and "Eric" is Eric Braeden, star of "The Young and the Restless."):

Eric: We have to allow the tolerant part of Islam to flourish. In other words, establish Democratic institutions and

then --

Ann Coulter: What tolerant part of Islam?

Eric: Islam has an enormous history.

Ann Coulter: Where is that in evidence in the Middle East right now?

Eric: Do you know anything about the history of the Middle East?

Bill: Islam was the most flourishing civilization in the middle ages. When Western Europeans were shivering and cowering and cast behind --

Ann Coulter: Fine, they invented the flying buttress, but they don't have a history of tolerance. That's the point --

Eric: She's absolutely wrong. Excuse me. You are wrong.

Ann Coulter: Well, then, name --

Eric: Historically, you are wrong. In all the Muslim countries, they allow Judaism to flourish and Christianity to flourish.

Ann Coulter: That's not true.

Eric: That is absolutely true.

Bill: Before --

Eric: In these kinds of countries right now, they don't. But in most Muslim countries in the past, they have allowed religious freedom.

Jerry: The Taliban is an exception, correct?

Eric: That's the problem.

Jerry: Ask any Jew who used to live in Iraq or Syria or Egypt until 20 or 30 years ago.

Ann Coulter's ignorance of history is amazing -- ignorance of the flourishing, advanced Arab civilization in the past, and of the religious tolerance toward Christianity and Judaism which was its hallmark.

Ann Coulter: not only vicious, but ignorant.

[i won't even address here Coulter's bloodthirsty analogizing to Germany in World War II in order to support her contention that we should carpet-bomb Afghanistan and not be concerned with civilian casualties. On the inappropriateness of Coulter's analogy, see Ann Coulter's Bombing Germany Analogy Not Applicable to Afghanistan.]

[normalnoises]

Blaming of the Shrew

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19833-2002Aug14?language=printer

By Richard Cohen

Thursday, August 15, 2002; Page A25

May I say something about Ann Coulter? She is a half-wit, a termagant, a dimwit, a blowhard, a worthless silicone nothing, physically ugly and could be likened to Eva Braun, who was Hitler's mistress. As it happens, these are all descriptions or characterizations Coulter uses for others in her book, "Slander." It ought to be called "Mirror."

The book is now the No. 1 bestseller in the nation. If I were writing this column as she has written the book, everything I wrote above would be footnoted. For instance, the deft Eva Braun crack was aimed at Katie Couric. Coulter calls the "Today" host "the affable Eva Braun of morning TV." You can, as they say, look it up (p. 181).

In fact, you can look up almost anything you want in this book. It has 780 footnotes and makes frequent references to LexisNexis, the computerized research service. The effect is to give the book a scholarly air, but the method is to cast as wide a net as possible for every idiotic remark made by anyone -- and I do mean anyone -- on the left or who happens to be pro-choice or, worse, a feminist.

Thus, Christie Todd Whitman, the former governor of New Jersey and the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is called a "dimwit" (p. 53) and a "birdbrain" (p. 51). Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) is a "half-wit" (p. 50). Gloria Steinem is a "deeply ridiculous figure" (p. 37) who "had to sleep" with a rich liberal to fund Ms. magazine (p. 38) -- all of which makes her a termagant, which is a shrew (p. 39). For some reason, though, someone found her attractive.

On the other hand, conservatives -- real, true, authentic conservatives like Coulter -- are the sweetest, nicest, most moral people alive. No one could put it better than Coulter herself: "The point is that conservatives are the most tolerant (and long-suffering) people in the world" (p. 204).

This may explain how Coulter came up with a really tolerant way of dealing with the Islamic world: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," she wrote last fall in her National Review Online column. For some reason, the intolerant National Review fired her.

Is it time for an intervention? I ask this because such anger, such intolerance, such rage, such a compulsion to denigrate and to distort is hardly based on any reality. If, as Coulter says, liberals control the media and much of the animal and plant kingdoms, then how is it that the president du jour and others of recent times -- Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush the Elder -- happen to be conservatives? I must be missing something here.

Such harrumphing says something not only about Coulter but about her audience. Who are the people who read such tripe, who listen to talk radio and its chorus of conservatives (nary a liberal on the air) and who buy books such as the one under examination today?

What explains their rage and, while I am asking questions, could you think of another commentator -- especially one on the left -- who could have written what Coulter did about Muslims and go on to bestsellerdom? Being conservative is like being criminally insane: You can't be held accountable.

Could it be -- is it remotely possible -- that the anger and demagoguery Coulter assigns to liberals is really what the shrinks call "projection"? I mean, almost everything Coulter says about her ideological enemies could be said about her.

She is the master of the half-fact and the semi-story. She blames the liberal press for not revealing that Bob Packwood was forever hitting on his female staffers, but then neglects to mention it was the odiously liberal Washington Post that broke the story. She uses David Brock's book on Anita Hill to skewer Clarence Thomas's critics, but fails to mention that Brock himself renounced the book.

Ah, but I am one of the people she skewers -- maybe one of the "pathetic little parakeet males" who are always liberals. (For some reason, Coulter has a need to question the manliness of liberals; against all evidence, she even refers to Bill Clinton as "IMPOTUS.") And yet, some of what she writes about me is true. I have not always been wise (pp. 16, 60-61,128,149,185) and at times I have strayed from liberal orthodoxy (pp. apparently edited from the manuscript).

I concede that at one place in the book I scribbled "good point!" in the margin (p. 108). I tell you that so you can turn to that page in the bookstore and skip the painful rest.

See, Ann, liberals can be compassionate.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

[sassa]

Originally posted by normalnoises

http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm

Ann Coulter's controversial statement in her column that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" is not the least of Coulter's sins.

she's a fucking bitch..that was my point...thank you.....

[siceone]

just like liberals to make personal attacks when they are wrong

[sassa]

Originally posted by siceone

just like liberals to make personal attacks when they are wrong

ah, i'm sure that non-liberals are guilty of this...

[siceone]

Originally posted by sassa

ah, i'm sure that non-liberals are guilty of this...

sign on so I can bitch you out woman