Posted on 06/17/2006 8:42:22 AM PDT by marc costanzo
The left-leaning Newsweek magazine lied about what she wrote in her book, an indignant Ann Coulter said during an appearance on Thursday night's Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News Channel.
"I'm sitting in a Fox studio in L.A.," Coulter said. "I don't know why there's a copy of Newsweek here rather than Human Events. Here is Newsweek describing Ann Coulter as saying '9/11 widows enjoyed their [husbands'] deaths.' That is simply a lie . . . That is a lie. If you can't deal with the facts and you refuse to say what the argument is, I think that's a total lack of confidence in your position and it certainly shows a complete lack of understanding [that] Americans can find out the truth these days - that it's not the mainstream media monopoly it was 10 years ago."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Around and around we go. We've already gone through this.
The reporter's question was stupid. The MM weren't even on the border yet.
If the president had responded to the question by saying that the MM weren't vigilantes, then the president would have been wrong if the MM subsequently came down and did something wrong.
If the president had responded to the question by saying that the MM were vigilantes, then the president would have been wrong because he would have been making an accusation before the fact.
Simply put the question was a put-up job by the MSM. Not getting any of the two answers that they wanted, the MSM then ignored in pathetic fashion the full context of the President's response by removing the word "vigilante" completely from his full context. The MSM falsely created the idea that the President made an accusation.
You don't have an trouble with that, fine. I don't think that it's fine.
One more thing. Myself being a supporter of indepenent-from-government citizens going down to the border, I would never ask my president to guarantee to the rest of the country that my future actions would be within the law.
LOL! If I wanted the president to guarantee my actions I would simply join a government run watch group.
If that's what you think, fine. I believe his response, "I decried potential vigilantism", isn't Wookies in Endor.
Is a non-sequitur a non-sequitur or not?
A straight answer would have been: " I don't know of any actions by the MM to date that would constitute vigilantism (in the American sense of the word), but there is always the potential". How difficult would it be to communicate that type of thinking?
Discussion of Waco just brings up mental pictures of the militarization of domestic LE.
There is a reasonable belief by many that W considers the MM to be vigilantes, (presently and in the future). W is content to let that perception stand. That's the way it is based on communications from the top to date. No attempts at re-interpretation by you can change it. Only W (or Mr.Snow) can, but apparently won't, even though he seems to be well aware of the issue.
At the airports ann's book is universally displayed. no more "we don't carry coulter".
Sales Talk.
>>They've never done it before, why would they start now? Spin to the 'right' is acceptable right?<<
I do not know what you are talking about !
I lost you, you lost me, in this ever growing thread !
>>Of course they lied. All of these liberal scum are proving Ann is right in her fantastic new book. I have read all of her books, and this one is by far the best. I hope all freepers get a copy and read, read, read!
<<
Yes, everyone should get a copy, but if you order one thru NewsMax, then be prepared to waite at least 4 weeks for delivery ~
Coulter is Coulter; she has her own style. Her speech in person is rapid-fire in a way that I for one could not, would not dare to try to, do. That is not an excuse for what is in an edited book, but it is an explanation of the fact that she trusts her own rhetorical skills. It is a kind of high-wire act. She is trying to make people think things through, and she not unreasonably considers that sometimes you have to use a stick of dynamite to break people out of the fog which allows them to accept all the points in her argument yet reject the only logical conclusion from those facts.IMHO she was wrong about little else in her book, but wrong to include the line about posing for Playboy. The only reason I can see for it is to use a gauche statement to attempt to emphasize how gouche is the use of the "Jersey Girls'" loss to promote a partisan political agenda, which is actually a replay of the 2002 "Wellstone Memorial" Democratic Party pep rally. But the line really doesn't work.
Look up the word 'enjoy'. The second definition means ...to derive benefit from.
Okay, Word Nazi time.
In addition to "take pleasure from," enjoy may be defined, "to have the use or benefit of" (Dictionary.com). You cannot apply the "benefit" definition of "enjoy" and still parse a grammatically correct sentence. Context is everything, and if she meant benefit, she wrote it wrong. In order for the sentence to mean what you would like to pretend it means, the direct object should have described the benefits themselves (fame, fortune), not the event that conferred them (their husbands' deaths).
These 4 broads have certainly benefited, not only monetarily (over $1,300,000) but in perceived stature.
So construct a sentence out of that. "These four broads are enjoying monetary gains and an increase in perceived stature from their husbands' deaths." I doubt they took pleasure from their husbands' deaths. But Coulter's phrasing leaves no other interpretation.
That you would go to such lengths defending this sentence is instructive.
Well, add to it the fact that she describes them as "revelling" in the previous sentence and I think that's the clincher. Unless we're going to try to dig up some alternative meaning of "revel" as well.
I apologize for the delay.
"I thought you were kidding. . . You were kidding weren't you?"
I reacted before having time to read through all the posts.
"He has been for most of the day."
Hopefully, then, someone learned something.
Hopefully, it was me.
I apologize for the delay.
"I thought you were kidding. . . You were kidding weren't you?"
I reacted before having time to read through all the posts.
"He has been for most of the day."
Hopefully, then, someone learned something.
Hopefully, it was me.
OOPS.
>>A sloppy headline does not make a lie, although it can certainly be a good excuse for hysteria.<<
A deliberately sloppy headline is the same thing as a lie !
For crying out loud we're talking about Newseek!
The rag that sustains itself on fabricating untruths, including it's own circulation numbers.
OKAY !
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.