Posted on 06/13/2006 3:02:44 PM PDT by Mike Bates
In the controversy over Ann Coulter's comments about the group of 9/11 widows, there is one critical question, from the point of view of ensuring standards of accuracy in the media. How does Coulter know it to be true that, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." There is no evidence whatsoever that those women enjoyed their husbands' deaths, and Coulter offers none. The only "evidence" for this preposterous and hurtful claim is that the women became activists and sought the media spotlight and took a political position at odds with that of Coulter. But what does that prove?
I think Coulter probably would have been correct to say that the women appeared to enjoy the media attention. You don't go on these shows unless you enjoy them to some degree. But enjoying a death? And the death of a loved one when fatherless children were left behind? Coulter's comments are not only false but cruel. She has also made other disparaging personal comments about the women.
In journalism, facts and truth are supposed to matter. Opinions are allowed, and Coulter, a columnist for Human Events and many other newspapers, is entitled to her own opinions.
SNIP
If the matter only involved personal opinions about people or things, Coulter's comments wouldn't really be newsworthy or significant. But she is claiming to have inside knowledge of the personal psychology of this group of women who lost their husbands on 9/11. That is why the comments have generated so much outrage—except from a few conservatives unwilling to criticize her.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
lol
"she has no idea that these women "enjoyed" their husband's deaths. "
One dictionary definition of 'enjoy' states (paraphrase) 2. to reap a benefit of...
There is no doubt these women reaped a (MANY) benefit(s) from their husbands deaths. They received millions of dollars, they have been able to have center stage anytime they want and they can spout a hatred towards their perceived villains to the acclaim of their fellow haters.
How much more 'enjoyment' can they get?
I'd like to chime in uninvited here. I think I have a plausible theory on that, because I've been wrestling with the same question.
My epiphany came when Neal Puckett, who is represented one of the Marines, gave his client's side of the story, which was, up until now, unknown to us.
I won't waste everyone's time with the details of the story here. It is available to anyone who wants to read it. The point is that their story did not match that of the official report. Somehow, someone, somewhere felt that something about the official report didn't make sense, so another investigation was launched. According to Puckett, the Marines told the exact same story they said they told before, and the investigators (as well as Gen Hagee) realized the stories these Marines told and the one that was the "official" version (that the "civilian" casualties were the result of the roadside bomb) didn't match, so the people responsible for approving the official version were relieved of command.
The investigation as to exactly what happened is still underway, and it pays for them to do it right, given the appearance that the original commanders may have given by filing a false report.
The other lawyers, who did not give a joint statement with Puckett, said this story matches what their clients told them.
I don't know what the answer is, but neither does anyone else here. That explanation, however, seems just as if not more likely than the one that is being hawked by the likes of John Murtha.
She's such a smart person I can't believe she doesn't realize that while this is red meat for some people here it's playing right into the MSM's hands. They love to portray Republicans as heartless, so what does she do? She says widows enjoyed their husbands' deaths. Great.
Please, as I've posted before, enough with the "definition of 'is' is' crap.
That sounds right. But I wonder how to react when, say, Micheal Berg praises Zarqawi for his courage to look his son in the eye or Cindy Sheehan praises terrorists, although the Jersey Girls haven't gone that far. I do agree that Ann did worse than make her point poorly by (marring an interview in which she otherwise completely destroyed Matt Lauer) questioning what she had no right to question, although I haven't read her book and people I respect such as Michael Medved have said she sets up her point so that it's clear she's not questioning their grief and sincerity. But my point is that at some point, it seems to me it becomes legitimate to even question the purity of grief. Mr. Berg in particular seems sick. I guess I should pity him and leave it at that.
The context provides the complete statement that says exactly that. The problem is that there are those who want to ignore the rest of the chapter...even the rest of the paragraph... to make it seem Ann was saying the women were overjoyed when their husbands were murdered.
But their favorite description is
The ultimate epithet in the liberal lexicon
I would simply leave the grief out of it and bash them on the issues.
I wouldn't say that nobody agreed with her. I wasn't sold on him at first either. Early returns are mostly positive, though. Give him a couple of years and a few important cases, and I may have cause to admit being wrong.
Point number two: some people can "get" a joke and "take it" as a joke and others can't.
Life is a lot more fun when you can laugh at the "word-herders" that entertain us with humor that has a strong basis in reality (the best kind).
If you can't see the humor in this, there's really no way of explaining it.
Yeah, every debate with a lib will lead them to say something like "So you don't care if people starve in the street" or "So it's OK with you that people will be hurt," blah blah blah. Forget the legal justification for the actions, forget liberty and individual freedom, once you get them on the legality or legitimacy of a point, they turn to the "You're heartless and don't care, but *I* do!" tactic, at which point, zzzzzzz...
Hmmm..interesting- and unfortunate.
Well said. The other element is the fact that they do so with impunity. Nobody dare call them on it. Until now.
That's how they "maintain the moral high ground."
Honestly, now.....IF SHE WAS a Democrat pundant...we would be all over her like a wet suit. When it's one of ours...hey..it's ok.
I wasn't pleased with the meanness of some of the things she said. Sorry, but BECAUSE OF THAT , and her hardness in the aftermath when questioned, she may sell books, but isn't going to WIN others to her way of thinking because of her attitude.
Millee, what do you think?
I do not think that the widows and widowers of Flight 93 got much money, certainly not anywhere near the $1.6 Million the Jersey gals received. But of course they complained that it was not enough. See: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/12/231923.shtml?s=lh
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.