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 ...
It's revealing that you don't respond to those who answer your original question directly, and correctly.
I see the same thing over at the DUmmies site, intentional ignorance.
Surely you're not leading a double life?
Please look up the specific legal meaning of libel. This isn't libel. It's distortion, it's cant, it's malicious partisanship, it's sloppy journalism but it isn't libel. Even if it was libel, the way the law is written you have to prove "malice." That's nearly impossible unless you can find one of those mind-readers who can sort out "hate crimes" from regular crimes of the same kind.
Headline: "Coulter Draws Fire for Bashing 9/11 Widows"
Body: "In her latest book, Coulter criticizes the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed their husbands at the World Trade Center. The women also backed Democrat John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004."
Now based upon the headline Ann Coulter might try to call it libel, but if you read the actual article it specifies that it was a group of widows, not the whole bunch of them.
The "Jersey Widows" appellation hasn't caught on, "Jersey Girls" is demeaning and also hasn't caught on. Most people think of these women as 9/11 widows. Since most people think of them as 9/11 widows (albeit politically active ones) and since they are 9/11 widows, Ann Coulter doesn't really have much reason to complain besides the fact that it will boost book sales (if I were her I'd be going after the spotlight as well, just financial commonsense).
I actually didn't bother to read it because it was formatted like some kind of blank verse, and now that I do it isn't really relevant to the issue I'm discussing anyway.
I wholeheartedly agree with that line of action and wish I had some here. ;-)
Why not?
Newsweek wrote that she was referring to "9/11 widows" and left it at that.
Right now, there is a "Baptist minister" out there named Fred Phelps who not only flat out states that God wants U.S. soldiers to die but actually goes to their funerals to shout such things at their grieving families.
Do you believe that to be true?
Would you be "daft" to believed such a thing about a "Baptist minister" if you read it in Newsweek?
Why should readers that may know nothing more about Ann Coulter other than the snippets of her writings taken out of context that they read in Newsweek be "daft" for believing that Coulter is referring to all "9/11 widows" instead of a specific subset of 9/11 widows nicknamed "The Jersey Girls"?
If things in the World were right out of a Leave It To Beaver episode, where kooks such Fred Phelps could not possibly exist, the liberal news media would not be going out of its way to print sentences out of context and then deliberately substituting the inclusive phrase "9/11 widows" for the specific phrase "The Jersey Girls" in an article that is written to supposedly educate the Newsweek readership.
Face it. Newsweek's quoting the only last sentence of that paragraph out of context and then giving their readers context by deliberately substituting the inclusive phrase "9/11 widows" for the specific phrase "The Jersey Girls" was a deliberate attemp to make Newsweek readers believe that Coulter was just another Fred Phelps.
You may not want to hotlink from that website anymore as it triggered my spyware program alert.
I have noticed a hyper senstivity everywhere whenever the word 'jewish' is used, no matter what the context .
Ann remarks were sarcasm directed at Bill Clinton, not a remark against the ethnicity of Monica Blowinsky .
This hypersensitivity to the use of ethnic adjectives is 'thee Very well-spring of Political Correctness', and of the Thought Police who want to shove tolerance down our throats !
Modern Liberals = Brown Shirts
Tolerance = Censorship
we are overdosing on Ann Coulter
How do you know? Did you read the article?
I posted above a similar headline and a sentence from the body indicating that it is just a group that she was talking about.
As far as I'm concerned Ann Coulter is taking Newsweek out of context just as much as Newsweek is taking Ann Coulter out of context. Good business for both of them.
WASHINGTON - Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit with a penchant for creating controversy, caused a ruckus when she called 9/11 widows “witches” and accused them of using their husbands’ deaths for their own political gain.
It is just the latest of the high-emotion, sharp-rhetoric attacks that she has leveled in four previous books and frequent appearances on cable television programs. Her firebrand style even inspired NBC’s “The West Wing” to create a “a blond, Republican sex kitten” in her mold.
In her latest book, Coulter criticizes the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed their husbands at the World Trade Center. The women also backed Democrat John Kerry’s presidential candidacy in 2004.
Durned if I know, but if it is it does as I expected--specification of the women mentioned in paragraph 3.
>>No, it could easily be clever writing to get obvious licks in while maintaining plausible deniability.<<
Precisely the point ! ! ! ! ! ! !
She should have said "enjoying the spotlight in the aftermath of their husband's deaths."
Ann sure has her readership nailed.
At least they did not accuse her of flushing the koran down the toilet.
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.