[Mike Bates]

Not to stir things up or anything. . . . :)

[ConorMacNessa]

At the outset I note that she is not reporting "news" but is rather engaged in polemics. A little hyperbole never hurt anyone and is a legitimate rhetorical device.

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"In journalism, facts and truth are supposed to matter. "

Facts ONLY matter according to who the "journalist" is.

[Darkwolf377]

Let's call a spade a spade--Ann doesn't know how these women feel, and she has no idea that these women "enjoyed" their husband's deaths.

Her point--about the way these women are point out there to spout anti-Bush rhetoric but are unable to be criticized because of their personal loss--is a valid one. But she has no idea about these women "enjoying" their husband's deaths.

[DoughtyOne]

You... you... you stirrer!

[KarlInOhio]

In journalism, facts and truth are supposed to matter.

[Steve_Seattle]

I have often been a critic of Coulter, and this controversy illustrates my point: Are we discussing the substantive issues she raises in her book, or has this just turned into an argument about Coulter? The latter, obviously, and that is the problem. As for the outrage of liberals, I'd like to see their outrage at some of the over-the-top claims that liberals make about Bush, conservatives, etc. Someday, when pigs fly and hell freezes over . . .

[UB355]

Cliffy's undies are in a knot

[lepton]

Coulter's comments are not only false but cruel. She has also made other disparaging personal comments about the women.

Unfortunately, nothing really beyond comments that these women themselves have made about others, while appearing to revel in their circumstance.

[Sam Hill]

Coulter: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

Kincaid: "[S]he is claiming to have inside knowledge of the personal psychology of this group of women who lost their husbands on 9/11."

++++++

Accuracy In Media?

LOL

[johnny7]

I'm surprised Cliff is taking this view... usually, he's on-target with his analysis.

[Kenny Bunkport]

They certainly enjoyed the spotlight and the celebrity. I think that's beyond dispute.

[VRWCmember]

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. But why would someone offer an opinion about what was supposedly going through the minds of these women when the most obvious conclusion, based on the nature of the horrendous 9/11 attacks and the deaths that resulted, is that such a loss was a terrible tragedy that caused incredible suffering for all of those concerned.

1. Coulter is not a journalist; she is an opinion writer and an entertainer.

2. She was not offering an opinion about what was supposedly going through their minds, but rather was making, in very acerbic language, a valid point about the common practice of the left to hide behind sympathetic human shields and using these tragic figures as spokesperson for their agenda. While criticizing the way Coulter said it, this girly man fails to even address her point and the context of what Coulter said. To that end, Coulter was entirely right even if one disagrees with some of the phrasing she used to make her point.

[Tom Bombadil]

All Coulter was talking about was the propensity of the left to use tragedies as a lever to innoculate politically active people against open debate.

These women were taking advantage of their husband's deaths to gain an advantage in a political debate.

Coulter is correct.

[Berlin_Freeper]

"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.


What Coulter is saying is that they are enjoying the notoriety that they have actively worked to garner for themselves, from their husbands deaths.

And Coulter is saying she has never seen this from people before, so there is a degree of perplexity there.

The desperate attack against Coulter is sheer spinning and manipulating what she said into what she did not say.

So it is correct that "There is no evidence whatsoever that those women enjoyed their husbands' deaths." And it is nothing but spin to imply that is what Coulter meant.

[RobRoy]

Actually, I think the word "enjoyed" does apply. Look at the second definition of the word below from dictionary.com:

en·joy v. en·joyed, en·joy·ing, en·joys
v. tr.
1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.

They literally "enjoyed the benefits" of the way their husbands died in ways no other women whos husbands died that day "enjoyed" their husbands death. Ann was spot on.

[MikeA]

Coulter was voicing an opinion, not reporting this as being fact-based news. She was merely stating for women is such grieving, they seem to be making the most of a tragedy using it to run off on some heady partisan crusade. I think it's a reasonable observation even if you think her opinion is wrong.

Now maybe AIM could stop wasting its time on opinion which pretends to be nothing but opinion and get to work on all the opinion masquerading as journalism that said Rove was about to be indicted and that the offing of Zarqawi is meaningless.

[olezip]

The four Jersey women became millionaires (or significantly increased their wealth) as a result of their husband's deaths. They have chosen to become activists as though they were representing all widows and widowers as a result of 9/11. They are fair game in the political arena. Going around stinking up the country with their unsubstantiated assertions, claims and charges against the current administration just serves to demonstrate their ignorance of the political process and their disdain for other victims of 9/11 who disagree with their very public assessments, IMHO.

[roses of sharon]

LOL, well since the Jersey girls have spent 4 years roaming the US calling the President of the US and his cabinet murders, corrupt, sinister, liars, and inhuman, I'd say these girls can take it, and dish it out.

As can Coulter.

[EDINVA]

Mr, Kincaide should note, being the literary gury he obviously thinks he is, that Coulter was saying "I have never seen," she did not say "there have never been," and her "evidence" would be her own perception, would it not? This guy is really torturing the quote and his reading of it.

Surprised to see that Accuracy in Media put this out .. or that AIM is still around, come to think of it.

[Sloth]

There is no evidence whatsoever that those women enjoyed their husbands' deaths

Sure there is. These women exult in it, just like Jesse Jackson waving his bloody shirt around in 1968. The only thing Ann has said wrong is when she backpedalled and qualified her comments.