Defending Ann Coulter - Exposing Hillary's Temper Tantrums

NoDNC.com Commentary ^ | June 8, 2006 | Alan Caruba

[woodb01]

by Alan Caruba
 
Defending Ann Coulter who has come under attack by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) seems an oxymoron. She is the last person who needs to be defended, given the fact that she is a lawyer who presumably can defend herself and possesses a positively frightening intellect and wit.
 
It happens, however, that along with several hundred thousand other people, I have actually read her new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” I herewith stipulate that I have read her previous books as well. Oddly, while I am constantly entertained by her columns, I am frequently put off by her appearances on television in which she comes off as someone who knows she is the smartest person in the room and makes no pretense about it. A little humility, please!
 
While promoting her book on television, Coulter made reference to a group of New Jersey women whose husbands were killed in the attack on the World Trade Center because, these “Jersey girls”, having received huge compensations for their loss, then went public blaming President Bush for having failed to anticipate and prevent the 9-11 attacks. The mainstream media made much of them while ignoring some very key factors that undermined their views. Coulter, of course, did not.
 
Following Coulter’s television appearance, on June 7 the two Senators attacked her and her book. Sen. Lautenberg said, “Ms. Coulter’s shameless attack on the victims of the worst act of terrorism in American history engenders disgust.” Sen. Clinton suggested that “Perhaps her book should have been called ‘Heartless’”, and called Coulter’s comments “a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I’ve known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safely and security of our country.”
 
Noticeably missing from the press reports was any mention of what Coulter actually wrote. “The 9-11 Commission was a scam and a fraud, the sole purpose of which was to cover up the disasters of the Clinton administration and distract the nation’s leaders during wartime. Not only did the Jersey girls claim credit for this Clinton whitewash machine, they spent most of the hearings denouncing the Bush administration for not stopping the 9-11 attacks from the weak position handed it by the Clinton administration.”

The gist of what Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza claimed was that an August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing should have alerted Bush to order immediate action to prevent 9-11. Coulter notes in her book that “all the information about bin Laden in the August PDB comes from the nineties. Not one fact in the PDB is more recent than 1999.” This inconvenient fact was rarely, if ever, mentioned by the media.
 
“Mostly the witches of East Brunswick wanted George Bush to apologize for not being Bill Clinton,” was Coulter’s take on the Jersey girls, but “The rest of the nation was more interested in knowing why the FBI was prevented from being given intelligence about 9-11 terrorists here in the United States more than a year before the attack…” The answer is that Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, “had specifically prohibited intelligence agents from telling law enforcement agents about suspected terrorists in the country.” And who did the Democrats put on the 9-11 Commission? Jamie Gorelick!
 
Adding to her criticism of the Jersey girls, Coulter wrote, “Needless to say, the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president.” A whole lot of partisanship was going on! The June 8 Associated Press rendition of Sens. Lautenberg’s and Clinton’s comments contained no balancing statements of support for Coulter except to note at the very end, “Coulter’s new book was Amazon.com’s most popular selection last night.”
 
If, at this point, you want to read some vicious, mean-spirited quotes by Sen. Clinton, they and others have been gathered together in a new book, “I’ve Always Been a Yankees Fan”: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words” by Thomas D. Kuiper. In a foreword by Dick Morris, he writes, “Hillary thinks that nobody is keeping track and that her quotes will never catch up with her.”
 
Following her now classic statement that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” had been “conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president”, Hillary reportedly told her aides, “That’ll teach them to f—k with us.” History, of course, would reveal that President Clinton was guilty of having sex in the Oval Office, lying to a federal judge about it, had his membership to the bar dismissed, and, in his final hours as president, engaged in an orgy of very questionable pardons. Et cetera!
 
In a speech to religious leaders in 1997, Hillary said, “I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.”
 
The author of “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” does a very good job making her case and if some Jersey girls get a public spanking in the process, so be it.
 
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.
 
© Alan Caruba, 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additional Resources showing the ties to Clinton and 9-11, as well as the media coverup for the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden, and Terrorism.  This was all known during the Clinton Years:

· How Chinagate Led to 9/11 (Corruption, Treason, Coverup, and media complicity in terrorism)
 · Why the FBI did not stop 9-11 (How Clinton Lawyers ENSURED Terrorist Attacks)
 · 9-11 Congressional Record Challenging Gorelick and Corruption (Did the 9-11 Commission engage in a cover up to protect the Clinton administration?)
 · PROOF that the IRAQ WAR WAS JUSTIFIED (Media hatred of Bush covered up the connections and LIED to the American Public)
 · Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9-11 Plot (How the American Media engages in TREASON to support TERRORISM in the U.S.)
 · U.S. removed nuclear material from Iraq (United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq)
 · How the Democrats and the Press have LIED to the Public about Iraq WMD Claims (Their intentional lies have no other purpose but to undermine America)
 · Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq (More Evidence of WMDs in Iraq)
 · Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq (Includes Descriptions of Handbood on WMDs)
 · Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties (The National Media Knows this and REFUSES to set the record straight)
 · Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show (New Documents show 9-11 Commission MISSED Hussein - bin Laden link)
 

[SMM48]

Alan Colmes was appalled by what Ann said.

[onedoug]

Anne's got something a lot more conservatives in Congress need, guts and courage.

Exactly.

[pgyanke]

...no two ways about it.

I think there's another way about it...

[Hoffa]

COULTER'S BIGGER POINT IS CORRECT

I don't agree with the mean spirited way Coulter put things but I have long disagreed with the current common wisdom that victims are the best makers of public policy. Victims certainly have a perspective to share but, because a victim's perspective is by its nature one-sided and emotional, we should not base public policy solely or even primarily on that perspective.

We should value rationality and principle more than raw emotion when it comes to making laws that affect all of our futures. Recently, both political parties have been guilty of putting forward victims as unimpeachable/unassailable oracles on how laws should be made or how we should conduct our public affairs.

Cindy Sheehan comes to mind. Another example: Megan's law. How could any legislator oppose this law without the risk of being portrayed as against poor Megan? Or how Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Anyone who dares to oppose their increasingly draconian nanny state agenda must hate mothers, right?

Why do we now allow victims and/or their families to testify on how a crime has affected them before sentencing? This is a complete deviation from any sense of principle or evenhanded application of the law.

For example, if the victim is the mother of a sympathetic middle class family, the sentence will more likely be severe than if the victim is a homeless male drug addict with no family to testify on his behalf. So we are in effect encouraging the courts to value the life of one victim over the life of another and to apply the law unevenly based on emotion rather than principle!

In short, let's stop valorizing emotion and honoring victim hood for its own sake. We have created an incentive system that seems to inspire many to seek victim status in order to have their voices heard, to attain a higher status in society or to promote a certain political agenda.

What happened to the days when society honored stoicism, self-sacrifice, stiff upper lip and all the other qualities that got the Greatest Generation through WWII? And what happened to principle, objectivity and rationality in public discourse and law making? Unless we reverse course, we risk returning to the emotional irrationality of the Dark Ages.

[Teflonic]

Her controversial remarks are what get her invited to speak on liberal broadcasts. Without the controvery Matt Louer and his ilk would just ignore her, this way she tricks them into inviting her so she can present conservative views where they are rarely heard.

[HarleyLady27]

The slime one is no match for Ann........

First of all, Ann is class....something the slime one doesn't have, won't have and never has had....

Second, Ann knows just what she is talking about...not only is she one of the best writers around, but she is an Attorney so she knows just where she can unload and where not to....

Third, Ann has no baggage.....the slime one has only baggage not only from her but her 'hubby' and from the 'closet'....

So I think if I were the slime one, I would keep my mouth shut...because Ann will open the 'closet' door and take everything out, piece by piece and I don't think the slime one would want that.....

[Spirited]

Until those who criticize her here can show that they can do a better job of getting conservative points put on view they ought to clamp their tongues in place.

Only the dumb kill their own best artillerymen.

[Dick Vomer]

"Kristen Breitweiser told Phil Donahue:

'It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn't the Secret Service whisk [Bush] out of that school? ... [H]e is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes.'" [5] (http://homepage.tinet.ie/~gulufuture/future/breitweiser.htm) :

"It is understandable that so little time is actually devoted to the president's true actions on the morning of 9/11. Because to show the entire 23 minutes from 9:03 to 9:25 a.m., when President Bush, in reality, remained seated and listening to 'second grade story-hour' while people like my husband were burning alive inside the World Trade Center towers, would run counter to Karl Rove's art direction and grand vision." --Kristen Breitweiser's Salon review of Showtime's film "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" (9/8/2003). [6] (http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2003/09/08/dc911/index_np.html)

[Mia T]

I'LL SEE ANN COULTER'S 'BILL CLINTON RAPE CHARGE' AND RAISE HER 'ONE HILLARY CLINTON'

[GretchenM]

The Ancient Media's mantra is, Why bother with the truth when your spin is going to sell so many more commercials and maybe even subscriptions?

[HIDEK6]

Well said.

[OldArmy52]

More to the point:

Can one be a Communist and a Christian?

Or similarly,

Can one be a Democrat and a Christian?

The current mainstream Dem values are so anti-Christian, I don't see how.