Is Ann Coulter the most vile person in America?
 

I think that anyone, regardless of political belief, must be disgusted that this woman's rantings are so heavily publicized. American law may guarantee free speech, but why would anyone publish this sort of thing, other than as an example of awfulness


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...how911happened

Because, of a little thing called "the freedom of press". She's well known, and its news. News generates readers, and readers generate advertising. You do realize that newspapers want to make money, and that controvertial stuff like Ann is a sure fire way to get publicity and more readers.

Sorry you don't agree with what she says. I don't agree with what she says, however, disgusted? Not so much.

Great article, thanks for the post SF.

Meh. I just ignore her. Her arguments are so biased, so obviously full of logical holes, so spiteful, that it's hard to believe anybody actually takes them seriously, and it's sad that any grain of truth in them gets lost behind her publicity-hounding vendetta against all things liberal. She gets published because she gets attention.

Aside from a nonsensical title to the thread that has nothing to do with the article, what about it is wrong?

Take your anger out on this:

http://www.thbookservice.com/bookima...c6230_full.jpg

Everything that I read in that post of her "ranting" is true, so where is the problem?

IMO, she wrongfully praises Republicans for "retaliating against terrorism". No President from Carter forward to Clinton has done anything significant to combat terrorism. The policy was one of ignoring the situation with the hope that a lack of press and reaction would diffuse the situation. Leadership involves doing things that are unpopular when you know they are right. Reagan didn't follow through with his plans and that helped to lead the US toward 9/11.

Additionally, the whole Monica Lewinsky argument is out of place and assinine.

Actually, I think he did. I do however think that George Bush Sr. didn't do enough.

Implied support of Serbian war crimes against Muslims

Apparent approval of dropping a bomb on the French embassy, which if it was a "mistake" rather than a mistake, would have been an act of war, which at very best would have caused a break down in trade between American and most of Europe which would have damaged both economies

Approval of the policy of inciting war between and arming both Iran and Iraq, a conflict that cost millions of lives - which she believes was Reagan's policy.

Constant demonising of Muslims and approval of violence against Muslim people in retaliation for any crimes carried out by unrelated Muslims 9 (for example - Libya harbors a terrorist who kills a US soldier, therefore America bomb Libya and kill Gaddhafi's daughter and this is great)

The intent of the article is to dehumanize Muslims, and to incite violence against Muslims, in all but words Coulter is calling for a holy war against Islam.

Attempting to politicize a terrorist attack against America and claim it only happened because of Clinton

Constant disregard and contempt for the Muslim victimes of the killings she lists.

An inaccurate and wrong headed understanding of current events... do we really believe, for example, the American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made Islam more friendly to America? Do we believe that the chances of American's being killed in conflict with any Islamic groups have now vastly decreased?

Strange Famous,

I've said it before and I can only say it again:

You and I live in very different worlds.

I can't even begin to talk politics with you because we can't even agree on the facts.

Where I see white, you see black.


So with all sincerity, I wish you peace.

There's no chance he did enough. The bombing of the US Marine barracks was the first significant instance of the paper tiger syndrome in the face of terrorism. Dropping a couple of bombs is not sufficient. They paid no real price for their attack and they continued their attacks against the US. They got bolder and bolder and killed more and more.

That I completely agree with.

Unfortunately, that led to the first WTC bombing which Clinton did absolutely nothing in response, which of course led to the second one.

Lets not forget Somalia, the USS Cole, and the bombings in Africa too.

All the attacks over the last several decades (and the lack of significant response) built off one another.

She's right. If only clinton hadn't made bush sit around salivating over saddam hussein with his thumb up his ass for the first nine months of his term.

Moving on. I think to be fair, and to follow the logic of the great conservashrew coulter, all future terrorist attacks including the train bombings in madrid should be blamed on the commander in chief george bush. Obviously one cannot ignore the current state of world affairs as being the sole responsibility of that one person.

Watch out! I'm getting "factual" like coulter!!

How about capturing those responsible, putting them on trial, and putting them in a 6x8 box for the rest of their lives? Or does that not factor into "absolutely nothing" because Clinton wasn't directly responsible for it?

I bet the families of the soldiers that have been killed since we "won" the war in Iraq would have something to say with this statement.

We obviously haven't won shit there.

You must have missed the "Mission Accomplished" banner from ye olde aircraft carrier.;)

Ooh yeah. Forgot all about that :p

You are right, I should have mentioned that.

But obviously it wasn't enough.

Clinton pruned a branch without going to the root of the evil: The countries and people overseas who financed and supported the bombers.

It must be nice living life looking through left leaning glasses.

What Coulter was SHOWING was the presidental responses to terrorist attacks.
When someone smacks you upside the head and you DO NOTHING you are perceived as weak.

And when 100 thousand plus foriegn troops are scattered all over your country you have been defeated in a war.

Don't forget, a successfully deposed dictator, the majority of the populace believing they are better off and a few hundred American casualities means it is "Bush's Vietnam".

Nope, an increasingly hostile occupation + tenuous grip on the future of iraq + no clear exit strategy = bush's vietnam.

Incidentally, is it still too soon to dust off "quagmire"?

It's a lot nicer than getting life on play-by-play from anne coulter.

I guess i missed how we got from her simply SHOWING the presidential response to terrorism to mindless clinton bashing. Not that i love clinton, it just seems like the right treats him like a red-headed step-child while all repubs get a pass.

I was simply showing my perception of the facts that she left out surrounding bush's responses to terrorism.

How is it that iraq is even mentioned in an article about reactions to terrorism? Bush even admitted that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He's been dry humping his iraq doll since before he was even inaugurated. That was before terrorism was a big deal to him.

I will agree that if we let the hippy crowd run things now like we did in the 60's, then it will turn into a "quagmire".

But right now, there is a strategy that involves using the force necessary to answer attacks and proceeding with our plans even though those attacks are meant to derail them.

Or maybe we could appease everyone like Spain did and win that way. It certainly seems to have worked for them...

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=508882

So, because "appeasement" (also known as "voting for the party you most agree with") gets the same reaction as pressing the attack (i.e., the continued threat of terrorism) it's a failure? What does that say about our own strategy? Is it a failure as well? I suppose not; our troops are still getting killed.

Hippies like nixon and johnson? Yes, that's right. I forgot that the hippies were responsible for planning major combat strategies and fighting a losing war against an underdog enemy. Sweet revisionism, thy taste is like honeydrops.

I know the strategy. I don't know if it will work. I hate to be pessimistic, but i don't see how this situation could possibly be under control in 90 days when we're due to hand over power.

The spanish government is pulling out of a war that most of its people didn't want to participate in. I hope you're aware that the only links iraq has to al qaeda were the ones that have sprouted up as a result of our invasion. Perhaps the people of spain want to concentrate on terrorism as opposed to sacrificing the lives of their countrymen and women for an american grudge-war. This would make sense when you take into account the fact that spain is not pulling out of afghanistan, just iraq.

To you this is appeasement? Fair enough, we're all entitled to interpret events with our own set of eyes. If you want a more accurate image of appeasement, see the u.s. alliance with uzbekistan. C'mon, how ironic is it for an american citizen to denounce another country for appeasement. We're the appeasingest appeasers in appeasington.

Furthermore, you're in no position to judge the bahavior of the spanish. For one, you don't know if they will bow to these demands. They were already going to pull out of iraq. I'd be surprised if they pulled out of afghanistan, but that's just me.

How many threats have they gotten due to their "appeasement"? I've only heard of this one. How many threats has the u.s. gotten with our philosophy of selective non iraq/afghani
appeasment?

i've read this article twice and can't for the life of me justify the title of this thread.

the article is 95% recitation of historical fact. granted, the choice of dates and events were probably tailored to support her intent, but i don't see why this contributes to the idea that she is vile.

if you can disprove the veracity of her writing, do that. if you can't and are still offended, ask yourself why the dry presentation of fact offends you so much and articulate a logically sound response... if you are able.

i must say, on a personal note, that i resent anyone that says we "haven't won shit there." to debate about the merits of our actions is one thing but to deny the efficacy of our military operations displays a lack of knowledge of the situation.

If you called say General Westmoreland or Richard Nixon a hippy, well, I'd like to see what happens. :D

And I'm not convinced that there is a strategy, except for making sure we wash our hands of it before the election, so it can be touted as another successful battleground in the war on terror.

As for your last bullet, that link is dated yesterday. The new prime minister said several weeks ago that he would withdraw troops from Iraq. But how exactly is he appeasing the fundamentalists when he says he'll be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan?

Iraq has definitely lost the war, but I dont see how America have won it? They have plunged the country into a civil war which they are themselves now hopelessly trapped in.

As usual, Coulter takes things and lays them out in a manner that fits her view of the world. There is really nothing wrong with this, we all do it to some extent, she is just more viscious than most (and more successful than most). The real thing that got my attention was the lashing out at Clarke. Clearly she got the memo from Mr. Rove and the RNC about doing whatever it takes to slur him without actually addressing the issues he brings up.

As far as being disgusted, no I am not. I am dissapointed that so many people buy into her sludge, but I am proud that I live in a country where she has the right to say these things (and things like McCarthy was a righteous hero) and I have the right to say she is a misguided, self-absorbed fool.(Who, as I have said time and time agiain, is laughing all the way to the bank.)

Strange Famous, do you know what a civil war is?

::in my best Inigo Montoya (from Princess Bride) voice:: You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

When the going gets tough, the though give up?

You live in a very different world then ANYONE I know. Its a shame you don't seem happy in it.

There are 5 MILLION Iraqis in and around Bagdad. There are weapons all over the place. If the Iraqi people wanted to kick the US out, they could do so in a matter of hours.

A small % of the militants, spurred on by Syria and Iran, does not a civil war make.

Talking point directly from Rush. Yes I was listening today.

And it was debunked by the Administration today as well. Now, this is at the press conference that was all over Cable News from 3-4, Fox & CNN and whatever. A reporter pointedly asked Rumsfeld if Iran was contributing to the hostilities in Iraq. Rumsfeld, who we can only assume has more complete intelligence reports than Rush can get his oxycontin stained hands on, said that he has no evidence that Iran is involved in either Manpower or material support of insurgents in Iraq.

Hmmm. While I don't see a civil war, I see the potential for one. But as far as percentages of population being some sort of requirement for civil war/revolution - Lenin took power in Russia with only several thousand Bolsheviks, in a country of 100 million. Our own revolutionary war was fought with relatively small numbers of men in comparison to total population.

I mean I can say either way, but looking at this all historically I'd say there is a solid chance of Iranian agents in Iraq amping the Shiite population. Thats the same reason the Iran-Iraq war was fought. So again I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was on the inside pushing for an Islamic state similar to its own.

you know i really do find it interesting that under clarke we did very little compared to today and now that wea re not going his do nothing way he has left and attacking the administration to me this just kind of sounds childish and as it turns out i have lost any respect i had for him

Mojo, I understand. And it makes sense to me too.
But it would be in the Admin's best interest to point to and proclaim evidence that Iran is spurning the uprisings in Iraq. That he made it all too clear that we have no evidence that they are providing any support means a lot to me.

I still find it funny how Vietnam was ruined by "hippies" when the guy who eventually pulled the troops out with an "honorable peace" was Nixon who if you called a hippy would...

Oh who cares fill in the blank

Nonsense and other words.

The socialists were likely to lose until those trains were bombed. The Spanish public then panicked and voted for the socialists who said they would get out of Iraq.

Well guess what, like blackmailers, once you start bargaining with terrorists you never stop.

And yes, troops will continue to get killed because the extremists will not stop.

Just the same way that civilians will continue to be killed even if we pulled out and gave in.

Simply false, before the bombings all predictions were that the Spanish election was neck and neck.

You're great at putting words in other people's mouths.

Hippies I said and hippies I meant.

It was the American public's lack of will as much as Johnson's unwillingness to commit to total war that caused us to lose in Viet Nam.

Calling it "revisionism" is BS, plain and simple.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

They haven't "sprung up" so much as there are foreign insurgents in Iraq fighting along side of what is left of Hussein's security forces. That of course and the barbarians that want a civil war so they can step into the power vacuum.

We'll see if they stay in Afghanistan or not.

And you call it a grudge war, I call it a war we should have finished over 10 years ago, but better late than never.

Hussein is gone and good f***ing riddence.

Believe it or not, I am not a puppet for the government and I agree that we shouldn't support every dictator that agrees with us.

No, I don't know, time will tell.

But I'm in as good a position to judge the Spanish as you are to judge Bush.

Considering that this threat apparently came from the same people who carried out the bombings, it would seem to me that it is plenty.

So are you saying then that we should aim for the lowest number of threats?

Or better yet, we should be happy if terrorists only kill a couple of hundred Americans instead of a couple of thousand?

No thanks.

You can hide in the flock with the rest, but I prefer to fight back.

I believe I've answered your questions in my other recent posts, but let me know if I haven't.

Not "Simply false".

If you want to be technical, the reports I saw had the incumbant party with a slight lead and it was thought they would win.

Of course, after the bombings, they lost by a landslide.

yep, but not because of the bombing, they lost because of thier actions after the bombing.

and I'm quite happy that this franco lover aznar is gone.

That I believe is your opinion, which is fine.

So far, I don't have any reason to change mine.

Massively off-topic.

This thread went off-topic after only 10 posts.

From what I see, you're talking about all kinds of other shit apart from Ann Coulter, and you're yelling at each other about hippies and Spain.

If you'd like to debate hippies and Spain, please start a new thread just for that.

oops

edit: Sorry, the problem with the quick reply box is that it doesn't disappear for moderators when the thread is closed. I had skipped down to the bottom without noticing Analog's post in order to reply to another post.

I've pulled my post to avoid being the asshole who puts his opinion in after the thread is closed.