RIGHTY WRITER COULTER HURLS NASTY GIBES AT 9/11 GALS [the "Godless" counter-attack begins]

New York Post ^ | 6/7/06 | NILES LATHEM

[7thson]

List three.

[Warren_Piece]

I think the point she needs to make (and I don't know if she said this or not) is that their grief doesn't make them any more knowledgeable on national security than other people. So, if they want to join in the debate, they have to bring something intellectual to the table, otherwise, the media needs to start having other people appear on their shows with regularity.

What you just wrote is very true, very coherent, and very pursasive. Why couldn't Ann say it just like that? instead of saying the Widows were happy their husbands were dead, and suggesting they'll pose for Playboy?

[notigar]

It doesn't sell books.

[Enchante]

Yes, I hate the double-standards and the fact that only leftist moonbats like Cindy Sheehan or the "Jersey Girls" get to enjoy special media status for their losses. Yet, while I am usually a fan of Ann Coulter, sometimes she goes too far and on this one I have to criticize her. If she had focused upon the POLITICS of what the 4 "Jersey girls" did, how they turned their personal tradegies into a very dishonest campaign to blame everything on the Bush WH and whitewash the Clintons and Demagogues, then I would agree with her. But turning it into a nasty personal attack, saying they 'enjoy' the demise of their husbands, etc., is both wrong and counter-productive. Now Ann is creating a huge distraction to what the issue SHOULD be: the ways in which the Jersey girls and the MSM used 9/11 and the commission hearings, etc. to create a political circus for the Demagogues. Instead, Ann will have everyone discussing how mean and nasty she is to attack these unfortunate widows. Maybe that will help Ann sell more books, but it certainly won't help the public's understanding of the issues.

[duckln]

And you were convinced Pat Buchanan would someday be president

You have to admit, he's been more affective than W has. And when W retires, we'll still Ole Mr. conservative Pat.

[sinkspur]

I'll list three from Coulter's profession:

Mark Steyn, Michael Medved, and Charles Krauthammer.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the majority of America simply had the decency and respect to listen to them because of their unique view on the terrible events that unfolded that day.

A group of New Jersey 9/11 widows - Kleinberg, Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza and Lorie Van Auken - created headlines by pushing for a wide laser-beam focusedexamination of intelligence and security failures exclusively of the Bush Administration that eventually , by design, led to the creation of the 9/11 Gorelick commission.

In 2004, they endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, fiercely denounced President Bush and participated in political ads using images from the attacks - actions that prompted Coulter's attack.

And if you really want to find a group of whiny, self-important individuals who use the "you can't disagree with my opinion because I am __________" argument, the just replace the blank with "Christian."

If you want to attack Christians, fine - that's a nice safe target. Unlike, for example, muslims who will issue a fatwa to have your head cut off.

You undoubtedly think yourself morally superior to the institution of slavery, and think the horrible Christians of the South were uniquely evil. But understand that although Christendom did not begin to reject the institution of slavery until about the late seventeenth century, no other culture ever did.

Hindus didn't, Buddhists didn't, Confuscians didn't, atheistic Communists were and are big time slavers of their own countrymen, pagan Greeks and Romans didn't - and if you think muslims ever did, you are smoking something wierd. In all of history only Cristians, and they only in the past couple of centuries, ever institutionalized militant opposition to slavery.

The virtual elimination of slavery coincided with the ascendancy Christian "colonialists" in general and of the British Empire in particular. The British were so antislavery that they did not take the opportunity of the Civl War to assay to set up a convenient relationship with the Confederacy. Lincoln, desperate to keep the British from following their commercial interests and recognizing or aiding the Confederacy, promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation against the wishes of all the South and a majority in the North. It did not actually free any slaves, and it meant trouble for Lincoln - but it meant that Britain could not take sides with the South.

Against the backdrop of history it is very easy to be arrogant when you decide to take on the Christians. It evinces no courage and, generally, scant judgement.

[sinkspur]

You have to admit, he's been more affective than W has

Buchanan is a joke.

[cvq3842]

I agree with her point (very much) but not at all with some of her more hurtful ways of expressing it.

[Tax-chick]

Mine is coming as a "freebie" from "Human Events." I suppose that means we'll be way behind, but it's still faster than waiting for the library to get it!

[cvq3842]

Good point. I'd like to see the same rules apply to all.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Stinkpur, you're as predictable as MurryMom.

[papertyger]

I'll list three from Coulter's profession competition: Mark Steyn, Michael Medved, and Charles Krauthammer.

There. Fixed it for you.

And of course Coulter makes MANY converts, but they're too numerous to list ;o)

[Enchante]

re: moonbat

I would say it's a fringe leftist, in common web usage, although so much of the Demagogic Party has lurched toward the far left in their BDS ("Bush Derangement Syndrome") that it has gotten pretty tough to say where 'fringe' begins and ends.

In my usage, it's any leftist who is so blinded by hate and/or ideology that they cannot consider obvious facts in a semi-rational manner. We may still disagree at the end of the discussion about policy but at least there has been a serious attempt at rational discussion. With 'moonbat' leftists that is simply not possible. For the "Jersey Girls" I term them moonbats because of their despicable behavior surrounding the 9/11 Omission-Commission hearings, where they were totally uninterested in any objective inquiry to improve our national security and instead preferred to make themselves into political tools supporting the absurd proposition that all security vulnerabilities related to 9/11 were the fault of the Bush WH and none were related to the 8 years of the Clinton administration or the decades of dominance of the Demagogic Party in Congress and the MSM. For that sordid drama they are rightly called moonbats, but I would never suggest they enjoyed anything about their husband's deaths, etc.....

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat

The term was originally rendered as 'Barking Moonbat', suggesting that certain issues seem to trigger a reflexive response from some people much like wolves howl at the moon (i.e. the term evokes the traditional association between the moon and insanity). It now enjoys great currency in the conservative and libertarian blogosphere as an all-purpose label for modern liberals (in the American sense of the word), war protesters, and other ideological opponents. It is similar to the epithet Idiotarian and like that term can also be applied to people anywhere on the political spectrum (for example both terms have been used to describe US conservative Pat Buchanan).

According to de Havilland, a moonbat is "someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be". Adriana Cronin defines the term as "someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency". This term has long been used to describe protesters on the political Left, but was originally coined to also describe commentators on the political Right as well as certain libertarians.

Moonbat has frequently been used to refer to those who believe certain conspiracy theories. Examples include those who believe that elements in the US government orchestrated the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or that these were executed under the direction of Israel.

Lately the term has come into wider use appearing in political cartoons, political forums, and blogs, oftentimes as "moonbat crazy".

[duckln]

She is not considered a serious person by most Americans, and lots of conservatives

And you think that W.F.Buckley and Geo Will are? May be there were, but they lost it long ago. Consider the attention her appearances and writings get, certainly you jest. And she gets it on her own, because the points she makes are in the 'mainstream' regardless of what the NYT's or you spout.

[youngjim]

Nah, I'll just call you both supercilious because you preen about how you're better than those you disagree with. --youngjim

You are putting words in our mouths. Neither of us said, or implied, any such thing.

Hmm, let's see. AC is a "banshee" and an "attention-seeker" who pulls out "hot-buttons to get guys like you ('sycophants') jacked up to buy her books" and "paints conservatives as a bunch of gap-toothed idiots." She "makes her living being low class and mean . . . we ought to be able to do better."

Furthermore AC "can't seem to snag a man on a bet. . . She dates, but nobody sticks around."

What part of supercilious do you not understand?

BTW, Buster (LOL) you comment that "she is not considered a serious person by most Americans, and lots of conservatives." And you know this how? I'll just add delusional to your irrational rants to go along with your psychological projections.

projection

8. a. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others:

[papertyger]

Game. Set. Match.

[sinkspur]

I'll just add delusional to your irrational rants to go along with your psychological projections.

They're opinions, tinkerbell. You can stuff your amateur psychologist act. It makes you look, well, supercilious.

[Enchante]

Oops, I guess I responded to the question of a troll, silly me......... :^(