Coulter on Hannity and Colmes tonight...

FOX

[Havoc]

After playing a clip of a John Kerry speach in which Kerry mouthed the standard liberal line of 'we should only attack after a billion years of handwringing' the discussion of the Iraq situation continued. A discussion with Ann Coulter and Ann Lewis.

[Havoc]

After playing a clip of a John Kerry speach in which Kerry mouthed the standard liberal line of 'we should only attack after a billion years of handwringing' the discussion of the Iraq situation continued. A discussion with Ann Coulter and Ann Lewis.

This was the usual debate one sees with liberals stating we must wait and build a coalition (so long as the President is Republican). The giveaway as usual is that the Republicans are not only seen as better on foriegn policy, they are better. Thus Democrats would rather not give Republicans an opportunity to shine at the one thing they do best - understand the Constitution and discharge it.

The theme of overriding importance on the liberal side was coalition building and is only supported on the liberal democrat side with pleas to what France, Germany and Turkey think along with pleas over how much rebuilding Iraq might cost. And the best lines of the night belong, as always, to Coulter. Lewis spoke to the notion that we should have a coalition and nearly came across as stating that we should subordinate national soverienty to UN coalition building and the opinion of the UN; but, salvaged herself on transparency to some extent. Overall, not a bad exchange.

Though I don't have a transcript and didn't tape it due to time constraints, the lines that stole the show for me are these: "The last time the French mobilized for anything it was to load trains with Jews..(and send them to Germany)", "Who needs the French? If we want to surrender they might be good to have with us"

After the loud belly laughs to these lines, the rest of the conversation was a blur. I apologize for not giving more details; but, I trust others who saw can help fill in as usual.

Show repeats at 2am Eastern. For those who watch for Coulter, set your VCRs, it was well worth the watch as usual.

Thread on latest book: Treason, Thread on latest article from coulter

And here is the requisite picture ;)

[Doctor Raoul]

A little green around the gills, but what gills......

[PokeyJoe]

Who's she dating?

[MarkDel]

Sadly, Ann Coulter is now married. She is one fineeeeeeeeeeee looking woman. And she's a genuis...and she's really funny.

[The Great Satan]

I can't wait to hear Ann's commentary on the Ritter debacle.

Great pic, BTW. I'd meet Ann for a Happy Meal any day of the week.

[Havoc]

I like the pic :) It shows her just being her. Thoughtful; but not staged. Personal - probably more personal than most I've seen of her. A quiet moment of reflection from a truly unique person. This is the type of image I look for as a portrait artist. This is one of those looks you would imagine capturing in private.

[dk/coro]

My God !! I am 72 years old now...and I would still walk across the Sahara barefoot to have a cup of coffee with Annie !! What a gal !!

And, a Conservative to boot !! Can't get any better than that.

Kindest Regards to all from the Birthplace of Naval Aviation. DKP

[Alissa]

"The last time the French mobilized for anything it was to load trains with Jews..(and send them to Germany)", "Who needs the French? If we want to surrender they might be good to have with us"

Just wanted to repeat this line. It's priceless!!

[eeriegeno]

One thing for sure, good old Alan Colms is no match for the likes of Miss Ann.....

She would eat him alive....

[John Lenin]

Sadly, Ann Coulter is now married

And I thought I had a shot at her, oh well, I'm depressed now. :-)

[Alissa]

I have a problem with the picture. Anne has an Adam's apple. Real women have NO Adam's apple. I think the problem is with the picture, not Anne.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

She is!??!? When? Who?!?!?! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Sadly, Ann Coulter is now married"

You drop this bombshell and then no details?? Who is the lucky guy?

[PokeyJoe]

ditto

[Havoc]

Sorry Alissa, it is the picture - not her. The bright studio lights create pretty harsh shadows that chisel contours out that aren't there. The Quality of the image just exaggerates that.

[OKSooner]

Poor Ann has an eating disorder. That's why the Adam's apple. Cute as she is, her legs are not much bigger around than her arms.

It's really a pity; maybe her new husband can get her to eat.

[Havoc]

When did it happen and to whom? I could find no mention of it on the web at all. Not even on her site.

[The Great Satan]

I am irresistably reminded of Gustav Klimt's "Pallas Athene."

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Nor could i ... don't toy with our emotions!

[Shermy]

Democrats for Regime Change (A MUST-MUST READ)

"...Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Emphasis added.)

Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.

Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

John Kerry was equally hawkish: "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said back on February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush?