New Year, Same Ann Coulter

It's 2005, and Ann Coulter is still Ann Coulter, cuttingly witty, always ready with devastating comments about liberals and Democrats, who she says are pretty much the same, and still capable of inflicting deep wounds in the twisted psyches of both species.

In a recent interview with the New York Observer published in the current issue, Ann displayed her utter contempt for political correctness, firing verbal salvos at the nation's most sacred cows and complimenting Bill Clinton on being "a very good rapist."

On liberals - "I sort of like liberals now. They’re kind of cute when they’re shivering and afraid. They’re so pathetic and sad. They can’t come up with a fight. I mean, if the best you’re going to give me to argue about is Rumsfeld’s auto-pen ..."

On the peace-loving left - "Forget what they say, they are violent. They were slashing tires on Election Day. I was physically attacked this year. It is a funny thing, that they ended up in prison—enjoying the benefits of gay marriage. Let ’em try it again, they’ll end up dead."

On Democrats - She's rooting for the Nancy Pelosi faction of the Democratic Party ("I think this is the dominant faction," she says) taking the position that Democratic ideas are fine - no need to change anything, even though the Dems got stomped on Election Day. Mocking Pelosi, Coulter lampoons, "We just need to advertise RU-486 at NASCAR or something — that’ll do the trick!"

"Democrats always have these open public discussions on how they can fake out the American people, so that’s one wing — 'Let’s not tell them what we believe' — and the other wing is, 'Our message is perfect.'"

On why 2004 was a great year - "I’m thinking about putting up a reward on my Web page for any liberal who will mention either Afghanistan or the Kurds. I mean, 85 percent of Iraq is free ... Kurds are free, are happy, are dancing in the streets, and liberals simply won’t mention them. They’ve had elections and women vote, and they didn’t vote for some crazy, lunatic mullahs. So that’s a pretty good year."

On Iraq, where Christmas wasn't very merry - "We’re going to transform the Middle East by the time Bush leaves office, or it will be within shouting distance of there. I think Arabs flying planes into our skyscrapers will be as likely as a Japanese kamikaze pilot."

On North Korea - "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning ... despite that wonderful peace deal Madeline Albright negotiated with the North Koreans, six seconds before they feverishly began developing nuclear weapons. They’re a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."

On another invasion - "Iran. Though that’s the beauty part of Iraq: It may well not be necessary."

On President Bush - "We have a President who can do what he thinks is right, whether or not there are a bunch of liberals carping, and no matter what the letter writers to The New York Times have to say about being ashamed for their country."

On Hilary Clinton - If the Dems nominated her for president "it would be a lot of fun. The advantage Hillary has is the crazies — which is to say, the base of the Democratic party — love her, adore her, no matter what she says or does. She can come out for curbing illegal immigration. She could come out for parental notification and against partial-birth abortion and the crazies will still say, ‘No, she’s our gal. She is Madame Hillary.’"

Asked if she had a perverse admiration for Hillary, Coulter shrieked: "Ewwww, no. As with John Kerry, I generally don’t admire people who get ahead on somebody else’s coattails. She’s like the anti-feminist. No, except she isn’t — because all feminists behave that way and pretend to be, ‘Oh, I’m a strong woman.’ They’re all weak and pathetic ... "

On a possible TV show - With Al Franken? "No, he’s physically repulsive. I have friends I trust who are smart who would put together a good TV show, and I can tell you straight out, we’ve basically given up. There is no liberal worthy of debating me, and I won’t do a TV show unless I have a liberal counterpart." With Maureen Dowd? "No. I promise you, she wouldn’t do it — she’s whiny, she’s not funny. What we’re looking for is good-looking, male, liberal, half a brain. They don’t even have to be smart.

Who, then? "The one person I really want to sit down with and figure out why he thinks he’s a liberal is Larry David [co-creator of "Seinfeld," star of HBO's hilariously nasty "Curb Your Enthusiasm"] ... that’s the most brilliant TV show — it is conservative humor, and you can’t tell me it’s not. It’s all politically incorrect. And people I know who’ve worked with him say he’s really sweet, so there is nothing about him that should make him a liberal — and yet he flew from Los Angeles to Boston to sit at the Democratic National Convention. He can’t be a liberal! I would bet you anything if Larry David were 20 years old, he would be a right-wing lunatic."

On what to remember about Bill Clinton - "Well, he was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten. I don’t think it’s fading.

"Clinton talk[ed] on the phone with Congressmen about sending American troops to the Balkans while being serviced by Monica Lewinsky under the desk. And liberals didn’t mind that — but they’re upset that George Bush waited 48 hours to fly back from Crawford, Tex." to make any announcements about tsunami relief.

On Rudy Giuliani - "I love Guiliani, but I just think he needs to switch his position on abortion. We’re a pro-life party. And I don’t think half the country realizes he claims to be pro-choice. These New York Republicans, they don’t have a feel for the red states like I do. They say, ‘Oh, now, we could run a pro-choice candidate and that would get moderates in the Northeast to vote for us — and those right-wing Christians, they’ll vote for us anyway.’ No, they won’t!"

On what it was like to spend Christmas in New York - "Oh, it was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘F... you!’ I’ve said it to everyone. You know, cab drivers, passing people on the street, whatever. And they come up with the ‘Happy holidays.’ ‘Merry Christmas,’ I mean, it really is an aggressive act in New York."

I would merely like to examine a few of your assumptions that underlie such a position.

I'm not trying to squash discussion, merely point out that, though there are complex political and moral questions, abortion is not one of them. Many issues have arguments on both sides; this one does not. The defenses of abortion are unique in that they have no logical validity whatsoever, and people on both sides know this.

I say this to say there is only one assumption that underlies the abortionist position, always, and that is: the baby is not a person.

The baby is not a person. That is the single, naked (and indefensible) assumption you are asking for.

So there are no assumptions, plural, there is only one. Anybody who wants to carry it off must: 1. define "person"; 2. describe the baby; 3. demonstrate how the products of conception lack the sine qua non quality of "person".

They can't do it and they HATE being asked to do it, because the mental pain of having to think it through is what they work, march, talk, and shout to avoid.

The entire abortionist position is one huge chunk of sophistry, designed to hide the awful truth: they believe in abortion for no other reason than that it is USEFUL. And what it is used FOR is to make casual sex risk-free. The baby is not a person (until some magical point) simply because they don't WANT to be responsible for it. It's not a moral argument; it is the same as when a 2 year old says "No. Nonononononono."

The rest, as I say, is sophistry.

/ rant

"Oh well - I'm sure they -- and millions of Muslims -- probably feel that you & your family dying a horrible, painful burning radioactive death is 'inconsequential' too and would probably be 'fun' for them too."

You have captured it precisely. They indeed seek the slaughter of ANY non-believer as the only acceptible alternative to conversion. It is a matter of religious belief, and it makes Islam unique in the world in that respect.

The Islamic faith is the ONLY faith that calls for the slaughter of unbelievers. What is so deceptive about Islam is that there are two diametrically opposite philosophies contained within the same religion. Generally, they are referred to as "Mecca" and "Medina" Islam.

Mecca Islam is the more peaceful, tolerant, submissive side of Islam, and Mecca is the more stridant, militant, and frankly - dangerous - side of Islam. Mecca Islam shows a tolerance toward other 'people of the book', including of all people Jews. Medina calls for the slaughter or conversion of unbelievers. Christianity has the Old and the New Testaments, but one fulfills the other without contradicting it.

So, for not having any grounding in the Islamic faith, you quite succinctly capture the attitudes of Muslim countries like North Korean, and of late, Indonesia, toward the Great Satan and all other Christian nations.

I'll point out, once again, two things.

1. We are at war, real war with new rules called 'assymetry' - a style of war we didn't invent.
2. They started it, and when I say they, I'm not referring to Iraqis or Afghanis, I'm referring to Muslims.

If the Muslim's of North Korea love their kids as much as I love mine, then they will impress upon their leadership somehow that most people that come up against the US tend to lose.

As long as the Muslims of North Korea have the intent to kill me and mine, and they continue to prepare and foment and encourage violence against us, then I say we wage war in the only manner known to be effective. It is our responsibility to our own kids that we do this. It is our responsibility to our troops that we kill as many of the enemy as we can without jeopardizing them.

Strategic neutron weapons are perfect for the job, and should be deployed without further delay in Iran (over strategic military installations and nuclear sites) and in North Korea almost everywhere. I think, especially in the case of North Korea, that we have gone far beyond exhausting all diplomatic means of mending fences with them. They simply can't keep a treaty, and we've got long proof of that.

We have the same evidence from Iran.

You're trying to make it a values issue. North Korea has all but declared war against the US, and is putting itself in a position to make good on its promises to cause us harm. That's a policy issue.

As a Christian, we are called upon to do two things.

1. Forgive those who ask forgiveness of us.
2. Turn the other cheek.

We did both of those things. Christianity doesn't require us to forgo the protection of our homes and our families.

We have the right to protect us in the most effective, convenient, and life preserving means possible.

You start, one city at a time in NK, and you bomb one every three days until the Islamic faith surrenders world wide. Until Islam renounces the call to destroy or convert non-believers we must assume that war is declared, and we aren't safe.

The fate of North Korean children and other innocents lie squarely in the hands of the North Koreans. I refuse to pay the price of Seattle or San Diego in exchange for the moral courage to fulfill the principle tenent of the Constitution (provide for the common defense).

I'll wager a paycheck that if we lose a major city to North Korean ballistic missile or other WMD, you'll be one of the people calling for their blood. I'm not prepared to wait for that.

I'll be even more frank. As a party, we are vulnerable on this issue. Talk to soldiers on the ground in the Sunni triangle, and they will tell you we did too good a job invading Baghdad. For the most part, the war didn't cause all of the destruction, horror, and famine that other wars have. Sunni's retain the will to fight.

We may have Iraq, but as long as the enemy, and I'm being extremely specific when I single out Sunni Muslims, retain the will to fight, then the US is still at war.

The Russians learned that the hard way in Afghanistan, and we learned it in Viet Nam.

Victory is the will to do whatever is necessary to drive the will to fight completely out of your enemy.

I can see a Democrat very correctly pointing this out, and calling for precisely what I'm calling for, knowing its only a matter of time before he or (much worse) she is going to be proven prophetic, and possessive of the precise leadership qualities necessary in the aftermath of such a slaughter by virtue of that prescience.

There is a gaping hole in our foreign policy on the issue of assymetrical warfare. Nixon had Detente, Reagan outspent the Russians. The Bush Doctrine doesn't go far enough. "You are with us, or against us, even if you merely support, finance, or even acquiescently permit terrorism." It lacks a policy of disproportional response.

Muslim's say they are ready to die for Allah. I say we systematically and relentlessly test that theory in the next 60 days in North Korea and Iran until Islam declares a cessation of hostilities toward non-belivers world wide.

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.