Ann Coulter is the Howard Stern of political pundits - all shock-jock. Hasn't she been seen stripping on Stern's show?Earlier today, the Today Show's Matt Lauer challenged fright-wing pundit Ann Coulter on this charming statement of hers:
"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."Then Matt said "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.'
She will say whatever comes to mind, if she thinks her beer guzzling, red state, red neck audience will shout out a "HELL YEAH, ANNIE!!"
So why is she on Bush's jock so much?
These are women whose husbands died so that her president could wage endless war. If anything she should be expressing sorrow at their loss and understanding their anger. Even if the government wasn't complicit in 911, at the very least the intelligence community was inept.
I mean, even Canada can foil terrorist threats within its borders...
I think those 911 widows (and military families) have every right to complain. Don't you?
13 comments:
"I mean, even Canada can foil terrorist threats within its borders..."
What terrorist threat, Nadir? Didn't you hear? Your boy, fat fuck says this no terrorist threat.
Make up your God-damn mind. EITHER THERE IS A TERRORIST THREAT, OR THERE ISN'T!!! WHICH IS IT PAL?!?
WELCOME BACK, SLINGER!!!
Nadir: She has a good point to make against the 911 widows who used their widow status to make political points, and she expressed herself using polemical rhetorical skills. How else would we be now speaking of this long-past issue? You would have a good point to make against Ann if she overlooked 911 widows who made political commercials supporting Bush.
Yes, she is the "Howard Stern" of political talk on the left, and the difference is that she uses shocking entertainment to draw attention to important matters of citizenship, whereas Stern uses such tactics to draw attention to childish matters of no interest to anybody on this sophisticated blog.
I doubt that "beer guzzling rednecks" watch cable news shows, but if they do, they will find that Ann is a highly educated, serious intellectual who makes carefully reasoned arguments, decorated as they are with indecorous "let's eat the Irish children" commentary. She graduated with high honors from UM's elite law school, and if you ever get falsely accused of rape by a white stripper (perhaps even one with children and who attends college), you could surely do no better than to have her as an advocate.
Nadir: These women's husbands didn't "die so Bush could wage a war." They died because previous presidents (including Bush I) didn't contain the islami-KKKers.
Perhaps you and Pat Buchannon are correct that the best way to have contained the islami-apartieders would have been to withdraw all US troops from foriegn lands, as well as support for Isreal, and to have permitted US citizens (even those organized as businesses) to interact freely with all dictators with no pressure to bring to the people living in those nations 0.0057% of the rights enjoyed by residents in the US who have entered illegally.
If the next president proposes employing that strategy, I would support it to see if it works, even though it directly contradicts the current policy.
Nadir: Ann is not "on Bush's jock." She employs her polemical rhetoric against Bush for many of his policies, including his immigration policy, his spending policies, and his failure to simplify the tax code and to continue pressing for privatized social security.
Nadir: Ann didn't attack "911 widows." Instead, she attacked "911 widows who used their status as widows to make political points."
Stated another way: Ann didn't "attack 911 widows", rather, she attacked 911 widows who are using thier 911 widow status as both a platform to attack Bush's 911 response, and as a sheild to protect their attacks from counter attacks. For example, since Ann attacked their position, you, Nadir, are charactorizing this as "an attack on 911 widows".
Paul,
Why are you on Ann Coulter's jock?
I think that she's very smart and often very funny. I very much like that at all times she focuses on facts and logic, and throws in some jokes. Why are you not on her jock?
Her comments are all venom with little substance. If she weren't a trash-talking blonde, she would be recognized as the irrelevant hack that she is.
Ann is an excellent writer, a writer of essays that indicate an expansive education, laser sharp analytical reasoning, and amazing wit.
Paul,
You're only on Ann's jock because she is insulting people, and that makes her your idol. You always enjoy a good insult.
Nadir: I do enjoy a good insult, but only one human knows why I like anything, and that's me. Take away all her insults, including those directed against the 911 anti-bush widows, and I believe she has a substantial argument.
Post a Comment