Coulter: If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again

OMG! 27 seconds?? You have to wait 27 seconds?? 27 seconds gone forever??

Unless you’re 102 years old and on life support, I don’t see anything to whine about.

Best line: “The left’s favorite veteran since Benedict Arnold”!

Can’t beat the classics.

Ouch.

Then you can read the Post just above yours. Maybe one of those links will open faster than 27 seconds.

Heck, I have LSD, whoops DSL and some sites take me more than 27 seconds to load!

This woman makes me proud of the “haters” on OUR side. I love the way her sense of irony sends them into foot-stamping hissy fits.

If Ann is the best they can come up with when they refer to “right wing haters” we are well ahead in THIS game.

...and I’m getting a little tired of Bill Orielly’s lack of courage in standing up for her when dimwits like Lanny Davis attack her...

You have FReep-mail.

Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector valiantly defending poor, misunderstood Saddam Hussein from George Bush’s imperialistic war to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OUCH!

Man. Anne knows how to throw a jab, or is it a right cross?

Anne's theisis on the Dem anti-war crowd also has an historic basis. The same dynamic destroyed pro Nazi sympathizers: Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and flyboy Charles Lindhberg. They were caught up in a world which left them way behind, because they chose the side of inhumanity.

Anne shows us now that the same dynamic is at work now, as was in 1938, 1939, and 1940.

Soon perhaps even the Dems will get it, but hopefully not in time to make a difference in 2008.

If the Dems don’t reign in their anti-war crazies, there will be protests in the streets

Rein them in? They're feeding them! They are going to their conventions and their "special" tv channels and encouraging the crazies. Let's hope Ann's premise applies presidential candidates and "they" turn on them like wolves. Before the election!

“But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them.”

Why is Coulter preemptively smearing the widow of Daniel Pearl?

It is not available where we live, either. I have wireless at work, but not at home. Heck, my cell phone doesn't even work at my house! But I thank God every day that I don't live in a city.

Carolyn

Last we heard, Gen. Clark was on the alternate list for "Dancing With the Stars."
Zing!

But I thank God every day that I don't live in a city.

Me too!

I lived in subdivisions of one type or another all my life. Retired to the country and never want to go back. Peace and quiet. What a blessing!

...Suspiciously, Daniel Pearl’s widow is suddenly being lavishly praised by the Treason Lobby. Jane Mayer, co-author of the discredited hit-book on Clarence Thomas, "Strange Justice," published an article in The New Yorker last week recounting that Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales in March with the news that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had admitted to American interrogators that he had personally beheaded her husband and they were going to release the transcript to the press. Mayer wrote: "Gonzales’ announcement seemed like a publicity stunt."
Frank Rich followed up with an article in The New York Times saying of Gonzales’ call: "Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it." - Ann Coulter
Here is that Frank Rich article from the New York Times, via www.commondreams.org:

Published on Sunday, August 12, 2007 by The New York Times

Shuffling Off to Crawford, 2007 Edition

by Frank Rich

THE cases of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were ugly enough. So surely someone in the White House might have the good taste to draw the line at exploiting the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. But nothing is out of bounds for a government that puts the darkest arts of politics and public relations above even the exigencies of war.
As Jane Mayer told the story in last week’s New Yorker, Mariane Pearl was called by Alberto Gonzales with some good news in March: the Justice Department was releasing a transcript in which the long-incarcerated Qaeda thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of her husband. But there was something off about Mr. Gonzales’s news. It was almost four years old.
Condoleezza Rice had called Ms. Pearl to tell her in confidence about the very same confession back in 2003; it was also reported that year in The Journal and elsewhere. What’s more, the confession was suspect; another terrorist had been convicted in the Pearl case in Pakistan in 2002. There is no known corroborating evidence that Mohammed, the 9/11 ringleader who has taken credit for many horrific crimes while in American custody, was responsible for this particular murder. None of his claims, particularly those possibly coerced by torture, can be taken as gospel solely on our truth-challenged attorney general’s say-so.
Ms. Pearl recognized a publicity ploy when she saw it. And this one wasn’t subtle. Mr. Gonzales released the Mohammed transcript just as the latest Justice Department scandal was catching fire...
CLICK HERE for the rest of that article

“Not only did (Wilson) fail to debunk the Niger yellowcake story, he also forgot to bring home the quart of milk his wife had requested.”

Has Joseph C. Wilson IV EVER gone back and gotten that quart of milk? Or is he still too busy trying to find his man-pants?

Valerie still has them hidden.

Why is Coulter preemptively smearing the widow of Daniel Pearl?

What are the possibilities? 1) She is thinking of doing so, in which case it is not a smear, or 2) She is not thinking of doing so, in which case it is not a smear.

Best column she’s written this year.

Support JWR!!! Please, folks. It is voice in the wilderness and excellent journalism.

And no, I’m not Jewish and I have absolutely no ties to JWR.

We wouldn't trade it for anything!

Carolyn

"But if Ms. Pearl is toying with the idea of becoming the latest liberal cause celebre, she might want to consider the trajectories of the rest of them." - Ann Coulter
"Why is Coulter preemptively smearing the widow of Daniel Pearl?" - dervish
I trust Ann's instincts on this one.

As Ann has noted previously, in her "doctrine of infallibility" analysis, the Left LOVES to use "victims" to present their side of an issue, in the hopes that no one on our side will counter them.

It is not (yet) clear if Mrs. Pearl is a WILLING accomplice in this instance, but it certainly appears that the Left is TRYING to exploit her story for their purposes.

It is not (yet) clear if Mrs. Pearl is a WILLING accomplice in this instance, but it certainly appears that the Left is TRYING to exploit her story for their purposes.
See, for example, this rather harsh review (from the conservative film site Libertas) of the recent Angelina Jolie movie about the Daniel Pearl story:

LIBERTAS Review: A Mighty Heart

By now everyone’s certainly familiar with the horrific story of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl’s beheading at the hands of jihadists in 2002. It’s a seminal moment in the ongoing War on Terror and was at the time a sobering reminder of the cold, efficient, madness found in the determined enemy we face. It’s not unreasonable to question Pearl’s judgment in choosing to leave his five-month-pregnant wife behind to follow a dangerous lead regarding "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, but it will always come down to that videotape and the sound of a husband, son, and father-to-be screaming in agony.
A Mighty Heart is based on a book by the same name written by Daniel’s widow Mariane (Angelina Jolie) about the aggressive spiderweb of an investigation that kicked in hoping to find her kidnapped husband before he’s executed...

-- snip --
...The only "terrorist" behavior shown on screen is done by our side. Our government teams up with the Pakistan anti-terrorism squad to find Pearl and along the way the "good" guys torture, threaten, and even talk about how much they enjoy it. We only see Daniel Pearl through photographs sent by his kidnappers. Their treatment of him is never dramatized and Winterbottom doesn’t even bother to let us hear Pearl’s execution videotape, much less see it. The camera is on the horrified faces of those watching. (Hey, at least its not on their backs.)
Is it unreasonable to wonder if the failure of A Mighty Heart is due to an agenda-driven approach to the film? What else explains the conscious decision to not let us feel something for Daniel Pearl? For Mariane Pearl? To not dramatize his ordeal or let us get a sense of his suffering? To only show our side brutalizing others?

It’s all so cold and efficient you have to wonder if the people involved in crafting it weren’t so worried about ginning up support for the War on Terror that they decimated their own film by ripping any human emotion from a story that should’ve been filled with it...
CLICK HERE for the rest of that review