Willard Kerry going over "his plan" with the Rat brotha-hood
Posted on 10/08/2004 11:23:10 AM PDT by FrontPageMag.com
The Most Unpublished Writer
By David Horowitz
I've taken to reading Ann Coulter's new book How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) whenever I need respite from the cacophonies of the current campaign. After Tuesday's Vice Presidential debate it was salutary to read her chapter on "Kerry's Puppy" about his pick of ambulance chaser (and not to be corrected fibber) John Edwards for the second spot. I have to say I am getting physically ill watching a rabidly partisan press blow up a war policy that has kept 300 million Americans safe for over three years. Take a look at the actual Duelfer Report on WMDs and how Saddam was a month away from producing biological weapons for example and then compare this one fact to any account in the mainstream press and get a glimpse of how a rabid left is conspiring to mislead the public and elect a team with no position and no policy and no conviction on a war that may one day costs tens of thousands of American lives.
While reading the introduction to Ann's book, I came across her surprising comment that she is "the most unpublished writer in America." Hyperbole is Ann's métier, but there is always a heavy dose of reality in any of her claims and this was no exception. Yes, her books make her one of the best-selling authors in America today. But Ann is a columnist first and foremost and to this day, despite her prominence as a public intellectual, her biting wit and colorful prose, not a single major newspaper will carry her column. To read her you need to pick up a copy of Human Events, or go to the Internet, the media outlet the left doesn't control. This is a media which syndicates such waterflies, incompetents, gutter journalists and ideologues as Bob Herbert, Molly Ivins, Joe Conason, Julianne Malveaux, Bob Scheer, Paul Krugman, Harold Meyerson and Maureen Dowd after all. Maureen Dowd, whose base is the New York Times, is the perfect Coulter analogue -- witty, biting, and hyperbolic. The difference is that she (and all the others) is a raving leftist, hence adoptable by a leftwing press.
All this is by way of explaining an article I wrote which ran as the lead feature in my Internet magazine FrontPage on Friday. I am often asked by people why I don't write op-ed pieces for the print media -- the L.A. Times for example, which is my home town paper. Actually I have done so, but I have found that the Times for example takes so long to consider my work (dating it and making it seem stale), so often edits my columns politically and more often than not rejects them, that I have for all intents and purposes given up trying. Every few months or so I still submit a piece however. I submitted the lead FrontPage story to the Times the previous Sunday. I kept it for a week on the off chance the Times might print it if it didn't appear first in FrontPage. The piece was written in part to draw attention to my new book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and The American Left -- a common practice of authors, like appearing on Talk Radio Shows. So it was also sent to the New York Times, the Washington Post and other major papers to no avail. The fact is, I have never had a column printed in the aforesaid papers or most of the other major papers, all edited by leftists who simply hate my views. Of course this will cut down the sales of my book, but will not cut down the number of times leftists will accuse me of becoming a conservative to make money.
These observations are just another small way of looking at the phenomenon of this election campaign where the American media has become an adjunct of the DNC's Big Lie campaign designed to spin the President out of office and replace him with a man who no one is really for -- they're just against George Bush. This is a mentality asking for disaster, and unfortunately if they succeed they will probably not be disappointed.
They've got everything riding on dumping Bush. If they fail, their rage and hate will simply grow deeper.
Millions of us agree with you. There is not a metering scale long enough to measure it.
Only perhaps 15% of the GOP is actually conservative.
That's the problem.
IMO, denying the MSM our viewership and readership is not sufficient to bring them down. But sustained economic warfare against their sponsors is. You have to take away their money. IMO, that's the problem before us.
Mrs Coulter has a most interesting cut of face. She's not conventially attractive at all, which makes her all the more appealing. She really gives it to the terrorist enablers, too.
Now, if I were only 30 years younger.......sigh.
Mrs. Coulter? Don't say that, even in jest. You might bring down FR's server just thinking such a thing.
Much like the crazy aunt in the attic.
That line reminds me of one used by Henry Ross Perot of Dallas, TX. It's hard to imagine that 12 years ago some of the American people actually thought that the future of the planet rested on his slim shoulders. But the voters ultimately decided that Bill Clinton was the man for them; no, they didn't want little Ross getting under their hoods to fix the mechanical problems. They'd settle for the popular Clinton to . . . oh, well, for lack of a better metaphor.
Well, she could use a few more pounds in a couple of places, but I would be willing to fatten her up.
I think she is really beautiful I would put her up there with Lauren Green of FOX News as two of the most attractive women around.
Only perhaps 15% of the GOP is actually conservative.
It's probably 30 percent in some states, but just 13 percent in CA, at least that's the vote Tom McClintock got there at this time last year.
If only I could be that lucky.
My local SAMs warehouse had copies of Coulters new book next to Michael Moore's new book.
But I really, really like the Sunday NY Times crossword. That is the ONLY reason I get it. Cancelled the WAPO years ago.
Willard Kerry going over "his plan" with the Rat brotha-hood
Take a look at the actual Duelfer Report on WMDs and how Saddam was a month away from producing biological weapons for example and then compare this one fact to any account in the mainstream press and get a glimpse of how a rabid left is conspiring to mislead the public
But here's what the Duelfer report summaries actually say
In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level. Iraq would have faced great diffi culty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nev-ertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a signifi cant dual-use capability—some declared—readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientifi c know-how of its BW cadre. • Any attempt to create a new BW program after 1996 would have encountered a range of major hurdles. The years following Desert Storm wrought a steady degradation of Iraq’s industrial base: new equipment and spare parts for existing machinery became diffi cult and expensive to obtain, standards of maintenance declined, staff could not receive training abroad, and foreign technical assistance was almost impossible to get. Additionally, Iraq’s infrastructure and public utilities were crumbling. New large projects, particularly if they required special foreign equipment and expertise, would attract international attention. UN monitor-ing of dual-use facilities up to the end of 1998, made their use for clandestine purpose complicated and risk laden. Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course. • In spite of the diffi culties noted above, a BW capability is technically the easiest WMD to attain.
Inotherwords Iraq could have reconstituted its BW program in a short time - because it was technically relatively easy to do so - but it had absolutely no such intention.
Talk about a liar misleading the public. And I used to respect Horowitz.
The problem is that the publisher DOES understand what he is doing. He just doesn't care what you think. Therefore, he shouldn't complain when you take your business elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.