Ann Coulter: Newsweek Lied - -Newsweek lied, the Truth dies !

NewsMax ^ | Friday, June 16, 2006 12:57 a.m. EDT | NewsMax.com Staff

[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."

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

I haven't read the Newsweek article in question, but your inclusion of an article in Forbes (which I generally perceive as a more objective publication) does not prove Newsweek was similarly honest.

[ahayes]

It was an AP article if that helps. ;-)

I actually just googled under News and grabbed the first with the headline most similar to what it sounds like this Newsweek article has. If you Google these and read through the articles every one I've read so far mentions these comments were aimed at a handful of the 9/11 widows for political reasons.

[Spyder]

How do we put that obnoxious rag out of business?

I've done my part. I canceled our subscription fairly early in the Iraq war when Newsweak's cover implied quagmire already, while US News was showing how well our troops were doing. Same war, entirely different perspective.

[KJC1]

It's funny that the two people (you and me) who got beat-downs for lousy reading comprehension are the two people actually searching for the article.

[ahayes]

That's cause we're such dummies we don't have the ability to receive the content by telepathy, silly. ;-) Everyone else already knows what it says!

[Spyder]

I think some people are interpreting what you've put as a quote from someone else as something you yourself have said. They seem to think you're the one that started the enjoy/enjoying thing.

[Phsstpok]

This isn't that tough:

Definitions of enjoy on the Web:

1. derive or receive pleasure from; get enjoyment from; take pleasure in; "She relished her fame and basked in her glory"
2. have benefit from; "enjoy privileges"
3. love: get pleasure from; "I love cooking"
4. have for one's benefit; "The industry enjoyed a boom"
5. delight: take delight in; "he delights in his granddaughter" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I think it's important to realize that the 2nd definition is the most relevant and clearly what Ann meant, but if you simply read the first definition I think you'll find that the example given clearly could apply to the Jersey Girls, or Cindy Sheehan.  When their loved ones died did they feel pleasure?  No one is suggesting that, least of all Ann.  Rather it is the simple and undeniable fact that these women are deriving benefit from those deaths, and in all likelihood they are having a good time along the way. 

The deaths of their family members were not enjoyable, but these women have taken those deaths and ridden them to fame and, in some cases, fortune.  They wallow in those deaths.  They use those deaths as their entry cards to the world of fame and glamor, invitations to parties in New York and Los Angeles with all the right (leftist) celebrities.  Book deals, TV appearances, speaking fees, ad nauseum.  They have turned those deaths into a successful franchise and the Democrats are using them as their unassailable mouth pieces.

Ann Coulter is proved right in every particular by posts like yours, or the comments by blogger's such as Captains Quarters Blog or Hugh Hewitt.  Any criticism of these women is immediately turned into a "mean and vicious attack" and Ann's critics, particularly those who should be her allies, don't bother to examine the actual substance of the charges.  They're to busy distancing themselves from the "pariah." 

Of course, it's not a "mean and vicious attack" if she's right.

Now, does that matter to you?

I applaud your motivation.  You are reacting to what you've been told Ann Coulter's comments were and what they mean.  Unfortunately you, and many others, don't seem to take the time to actually work through the tough work of analyzing the rhetoric and logic, nor examine the underlying facts.

I did not benefit from a Jesuit education, to my great detriment, and have had to largely educate myself on topics such as rhetoric and logic.  I did get a couple of good history teachers in college (both products of Jesuit educations) who concentrated on these basics and, regardless of their own political leanings, they gave me a grounding in skeptical analysis that has served me well, at least IMHO.  They were two particular professors, both ultra liberal in the era of the end of Vietnam, who were still close enough to not yet being members of the Establishment that they were still teaching critical analysis in an honest fashion.  I have continued to apply their lessons and owe much of my conservatism to those techniques I learned from them.

But it takes honest, critical analysis, not just emotional responses.

 

[ahayes]

Thanks for the long post, but it's off-base. I initially thought that Ann Coulter was complaining they were lying by saying Coulter said they enjoyed it, which is ridiculous because she did say that. That's not a point of conflict--Ann Coulter says they enjoyed it, I agree that Ann Coulter says they enjoyed it. You may rationalize that however you like, I personally think it's horribly gauche, but that's neither here nor there. It ends out that Coulter's really complaining they're lying by saying she lambasted the whole lot of widows, which actually by all of the evidence I've seen is not true.

[Fudd Fan]

The "Jersey Girls" are only four of the many (unfortunately) 9/11 widows. They aren't ALL of them.

geez

[ahayes]

You are reacting to what you've been told Ann Coulter's comments were and what they mean. Unfortunately you, and many others, don't seem to take the time to actually work through the tough work of analyzing the rhetoric and logic, nor examine the underlying facts.

No, I've read the dozen pages or so in Godless covering this topic and her criticisms of the "Jersey Widows." Your condescension is noted and dismissed.

[Crazy Larry]

Coulter Wrestling

That appears to be the activity of every single coulter post now. I find it very useless, and would much rather discuss the relative merits of what Ann's points were, rather than mincing her words to determine if she was nice enough.

If I may paraphrase some of the general arguments from conservatives against Ann:


She is not nice. She has attacked some grief stricken 9/11 widows, which is not proper no matter what they are saying.

She does not always say the exact truth in her books and statements. We have reviewed every word and we found some things that we don't believe are true. Therefore, anything she says should not be considered.

She is so mean that we as conservatives think that she does not do the conservative message a service by speaking about them. Since she is a net-negative, better to fight all of those who support her, regardless of the bigger points she is making.

In my opinion, all of these arguments are simply ways to stop discussing anything else she is saying. Do those of you who don't like Ann agree or disagree with here larger points? Many of her points are not being made by many other people. The Jersey girls are not the only examples of the main point of that paragraph. Look at Murtha for instance. If you respond and disagree with Ann, please answer whether you think it's OK to criticize them or not.

And why do Ann's defenders continue to take the bait? Mincing words is exactly what Ann has been finding the many libs interviewing her so far. What does "is" really mean?

What about the church of liberalism?

[ahayes]

She is not nice. She has attacked some grief stricken 9/11 widows, which is not proper no matter what they are saying.

Not exactly. I think her criticisms of these particular widows have some validity, although I also think that we would not see anything wrong with it if these widows were conservative and had supported Bush instead of Kerry. I need to do some more thinking about this since I am not comfortable with the philosophy, "It's ok for me to do this, but not for you." However her particular mode of attack was morally wrong.

She does not always say the exact truth in her books and statements. We have reviewed every word and we found some things that we don't believe are true. Therefore, anything she says should not be considered.

Again, not exactly true. She definitely doesn't stick to the exact truth, it's not interesting enough. But throwing out anything she might say because of this is committing a fallacy known as "poisoning the well." If her ideas come up for discussion they should be discussed on their own merits.

She is so mean that we as conservatives think that she does not do the conservative message a service by speaking about them. Since she is a net-negative, better to fight all of those who support her, regardless of the bigger points she is making.

Guess what--not exactly true! I do think she's not doing conservativism any favors, but I don't see the sense in fighting all who support her (how dramatic!) But occasionally I get sucked in. ;-)

Regarding the rest of her book, I've only read snippets so far. I think chiefly it is overblown. Her decision to make anti-evolutionism a requirement for conservativism was a mistake, and her one-sentence attempt to soften that failed. She seems like she's trying to make the left into this single-minded conspiracy, and I don't think that is really warranted. People are nowhere near that organized!

[Phsstpok]

So, you reject the observation that these women, the four "Jersey Girls," are benefiting from their husband's deaths? You reject it because the use of the word "enjoy" is gauche?

Ah, the logic of the foolish or willfully ignorant.

The phrase that used to apply here was "useful idiot."

Address my argument please. Examine the word "enjoy" and apply the most likely definition to what is actually happening in the real world.  Then imagine (if you can) what a truly well educated and literate writer (of best selling books) who is an expert on rhetoric and logic (as well as polemics) would mean. Do not try to apply public education ingrained knee jerk reactions to this topic, nor the lower standard of the drive by media (if a conservative says it it's bad).

Think.

Honestly ask the question: are these women deriving benefit from (one of the dictionary definitions of "enjoy") their husband's deaths? If you can refute that contention in any reasonable fashion then I'll listen. If you choose merely to say "she's mean and I won't address what you posted" then we're done.

Again, your instincts to defer to these people are correct and laudable.  That is an honest emotional response to this issue, but it is only that, an emotional response.  You cannot defend their actions in any way, shape or form.  You can attack Ann Coulter as insensitive, but you cannot say that she is wrong.  They are enjoying (the benefits of) their husband's deaths.  It's brutal, but true.  Given that undeniable fact I don't believe that they deserve your solicitude, however well intentioned.

I think you owe Ann an apology.  Truth is always a valid defense.

[ahayes]

I trust you also think that her suggestion that they go pose for Playboy before their looks entirely faded was also justifiable as rational discourse? Hmm, useful idiot indeed.

[Phsstpok]

your refusal, after repeated requests, to actually engage the arguments I posted, proves that you have an agenda that is contrary to reasoned debate, willfully ignorant of facts and more interested in visiting damage on Ms Coulter than on examining real issues.

This is most likely because you posted a poorly thought out emotional response early on this thread and don't have the guts to admit that you might be wrong. The only other alternative is that you are a minion of those who wish us ill. In either case you have failed the basic test of intellectual honesty.

You are dismissed.

[AFPhys]

Precisely. And a letter read by Mike Gallagher on his show said this so well:

Hidden dialogue revealed

Ann Coulter might be a wild woman on a keyboard, but her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism captures hidden dialogue that has been alive in kitchens, at barbecues and on ferries in New Jersey for the past four years.

As they clawed their way to center stage to blame America for 9/11, the four widows who became known as the "Jersey Girls" marketed their grief to the largest TV audiences, served as mouthpieces for John Kerry and others, and used the money donated by a nation to leave their kids home to heal themselves as they hit campaign trails and engaged in disgraceful public conduct at the most important investigative commission hearing of our time.

Coulter reveals the unspoken fact that there are a lot of people out here repulsed by the well-publicized and self-absorbed attempts by four women to achieve contrived fame off the backs of their murdered husbands and at the expense of all who suffered and died on 9/11. The debate is long overdue.

Tish Ferguson,

Point Pleasant, N.J.

[Bernard Marx]

And in the case of Libel, you do not have to prove malice ! Only that the VERBATIM quote is false, in short- if you say you heard such-in-such party make this statement 'to you' and they did not- you committed libel . In defamation of character, or slander, then you have to prove malice !

Marc, libel IS defamation of character, by definition: "libel: noun, The expression of injurious, malicious statements about someone; verb: To make defamatory statements about."

I think you'd agree Ann Coulter is a public figure, so read on -- carefully.

In re: "malice":

"malice: n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation."

Source: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1197&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

[2harddrive]

Newsweek lied, Truth died!!!