Posted on 02/05/2003 9:41:47 PM PST by JohnHuang2
I knew the media were up to something with their wall-to-wall coverage of the Columbia space shuttle explosion. The full story is: Shuttle disintegrated during re-entry; all astronauts killed, including some very remarkable people; very sad; NASA picking up the debris to figure out what happened. It was a plane crash story, only a lot more expensive. So why was the shuttle explosion being covered like the 9-11 terrorist attack?
A quick review of the Treason Times laid bare the objective. Monday's New York Times proclaimed: "As Iraq War Looms, a New Sense of Vulnerability." American hubris blunted again! The article went on to quote a series of random Americans saying things like, "Now I'm hearing a lot of people say if we go to war, we're going to endanger a lot more than seven lives." Another classic Times' Man on the Street said that it "reinforces my belief that we should find diplomatic solutions instead of threatening other countries with war."
The Times' Man on the Street always seems to be standing on a street suspiciously close to Central Park West. For one year, I don't believe the Times has managed to interview a single person who supports war with Iraq in a nation ablaze with war fever.
And now the shuttle had presented a new argument for appeasement. Warning, Great Satan: Your money and technology and little gadgets cannot insulate you from disaster! Breathless news accounts of the shuttle blast were merely a more demure version of Islamic terrorists cheering in the street in reaction to the explosion. If it didn't violate the "wall of separation," the Times likely would be exclaiming: "It was the will of Allah!"
The Gettysburg Address of liberal idiocy was a letter to the editor from a Jim Forbes of San Francisco two days after the crash. The Times titled his contribution to Liberalthink: "A Time of Mourning for Shattered Dreams: A Period of Healing." In full-dress sanctimony, Forbes wrote: "The loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its crew of seven is a national tragedy. Time is needed for Americans to mourn. I hope that President Bush will do the right thing by slowing down his march to war and focusing instead on the healing that such a blow to national pride requires."
Here was the pithiest concentration of the multiple idiotic things liberals were saying about the space shuttle, the insincerity, the audacity, the smarminess – he even worked in "the healing process." How he must have polished that little gem! The idea that liberals feel the shuttle explosion was a tragedy is patent nonsense. They were jumping for joy at this new excuse to denounce the "march to war." The nation is marching to war at such breakneck speed, it will be two years from 9-11 before we attack.
Melancholy that their relentless nay-saying is having no effect on the president's plans for Iraq, New York Times columnists are now positing imaginary scenarios in which war with Iraq leads to a stock market crash and brings the nation to the brink of nuclear war. Nicholas Kristof has gone the Maureen Dowd route of using the op-ed page of the Times for a dream-sequence column. But instead of dreaming about Bush being retarded, Kristof dreams of catastrophe for America.
Kristof fantasized that, within the year, the North Koreans would be running riot through the Far East with their nukes. The column concluded with Bush apologizing to Secretary of State Colin Powell for invading Iraq. The strain of not having a Democrat in the Oval Office to create foreign policy disasters on his own is driving liberals to fevered fantasies of America's defeat someplace in the world.
In other appeasement news, former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter has completely vanished from the anti-war scene since news of his sex arrest broke. Three weeks ago, it was revealed that Ritter was caught soliciting sex from underage girls on the Internet in 2001. Until news of his arrest broke, the New York Times had been treating Ritter's reincarnation as a peacenik as the greatest act of patriotism since Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand. It's now Day 17 and counting of the Times' refusal to mention Ritter's arrest. Though the peace movement lost Ritter, it seems to have picked up Jerry Springer. Perhaps Springer is hoping he can get Scott Ritter's wife on the show to confront Ritter and the underage girl.
But Ritter was a free-lance peacenik. At least the Times could count on stability and permanence from John Hartpence Kerry. Poor Kerry was just on the verge of figuring out whether he was for war with Iraq or against war with Iraq when he was told he hadn't figured out his own last name. Kerry was shocked to be told that, despite years of allowing himself to be passed off as an Irish Brahmin, both his paternal grandparents were Jewish and his real name is Kohn. Upon reflection, however, Kerry said there were signs he missed, such as his longtime, recently requited desire to marry a rich shiksa. And now Kerry will need time for the healing process. We must halt the march to war.
Gary Hart was originally named Hartpence, but changed his name to be politically more popular. Coulter's point is that Kerry is 'discovering' his Jewish roots just now, in order to attract Jewish support and campaign donations for his presidential campaign. Coulter is not attacking Jews. She is attacking someone who is trying to manipulate Jews.
Oh, puh-leaze...
I've watched Ann Coulter every chance I've had, and read all her books. I've not seen a shred of "hate" in her, and no hint of being a "viper". What you're mistaking for "hate" is actually derisive *SCORN*.
And lord knows the current generation of liberals deserve all the scorn they can get.
As for "vicious", that too is off base. She's fierce in defending what she knows is right, and rooting out what she knows is wrong.
Neither am I, as I'm a happily married heterosexual woman.
I believe that history will prove her right on that one. In the end, it will be the only way to bring about lasting peace.
Plus there was one other instance when I heard her use the phrase, "You're invading my personal space!" during some interview, which...for some strange reason really made me not like her so much as I had (I think it was the PC quality of the remark coming from someone I don't associated with PC *at all*).
First, I agree with others who feel that you're missing the satirical point on that one -- Hillary had recently made "personal space" famously a topic, and ludicrously so.
Second, a recognition of "personal space" predates political correctness by several decades. There have been articles about it in the psychological literature since at least 1965. The recognition that people get reflexively uncomfortable if someone else "gets in their face" is in no way founded on PC, and despite sharing a word in common is not synonymous with the liberal touchy-feely "I need my space".
Finally, even if she had been serious, chastising someone for violating your personal space seems perfectly compatible with conservative values to me -- it's reminding them to stop being unacceptably rude and to show a little basic respect and manners.
Given the New York Times twice overlooked their child stalker hero Scotty Ritter's arrest; somehow, no matter how well documented, the Ritter story somehow finds the "editor's spike."
The best part of being a liberal mass media editor, self-serving bias: I'll decide what's news.
Otherwise known as "setting the agenda".
I like my filet mignon with a bit of horseradish--the hottest I can find.
Ann's writing is the horseradish that heats the tongue and blood and transforms the conservative message from a fine meal into an unforgettable experience.
I enjoy Noonan honey too. Each in its place; each in its own time.
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.