A friend of mine sent me this and asked me for my response. I emailed it to him, but wanted to post it here as well. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi Really? Has the NYT helped terrorists to smuggle explosives, people, or weapons into the country? Have any of its staff been shown to have any connections to known terrorist groups? Have they financially supported any terrorist groups either knowingly or unknowingly? Of course not. Coulter makes baseless accusations based on "facts" that will be debunked as we get to them. Now, Coulter uses racist undertones to link "liberals" to "insane" ideas like integrating the schools. There were certainly some bumps in the road when it came to integrating our society, but appealing to the racists in this world is wrong, but sadly is SOP for people like Coulter. It is not about "probable cause," it is about warrants. If Bush wanted to tap the phones of people in Mohammed's cell phone, he could easily have complied with the law and gotten a secret FISA warrant up to three days after the fact. The Times reported on a program that very well could be illegal, which is the responsibility of the press. Even so, they held the story for OVER A YEAR, through the election cycle. If all they were interested in was "getting Bush," that information would have broken in 2004. The Times revealed a warrantless wiretapping program, something that Bush claimed we do NOT do, after it became evident that the program's secrecy was unnecessary and after they got independant confirmation regarding the facts of the program. In other words, they were responsible journalists reporting a government program that might be illegal. http://summeroftruth.org/images911_05/LS8E1165.jpg A link to a picture of the front of the Times building where there is a very large American flag right next to the New York state flag and the NYT flag. Of course, she fails to mention that the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a liberal bastion) and the Los Angeles Times reported the exact same story on the same day. In addition, any terrorist who was not aware that the US government was monitoring the financial netowrks wasn't much of a threat anyway as a result of their total lack of brains. We have not lost the ability to track terrorist's finances as a result of the NYT, LAT, and WSJ articles, we have the same ability to track money that we did before the story broke. No, it was more like the steady stream of accusations of "perjury, obstruction of justice, treason, adultery and general sociopathic behavior" that inured us. The rape accusation against Clinton was lost in the steady stream of Starr leaks where, in the absence of such idiocy, a valid rape accusation might have gotten traction. Insults and innuendos are what Coulter is really good at. Really? When exactly was the last time you heard a liberal "carry on" about Nixon's persecution of the press? As evidenced by the continuing insults and accusations about Clinton, it certainly appears that Coulter is far more caught up in past events than any liberal that I know. First of all, nobody has come remotely close to "committing treason." I suppose you are welcome to take Coulter at her word if you like, but if you do then you are exactly the same as someone who believes everything that Michael Moore writes, you are just on the other side of the same coin and are the black kettle to their equally black pot. Second, where exactly have the Times editors or columnists, much less other liberals, screamed about "intimidation?" The only people who appear to be claiming that the Times has been talking about intimidation are people like Ann Coulter, the people on Fox News, and the people silly enough to listen to that drivel. Although "insouciantly" is a great word, the claim that liberals are "plac[ing] all Americans in danger" is slander of the worst sort. The naked, unsupported, factless claims by Coulter should be shunned by anyone with the capacity to analyze information. Of course, Coulter does not often appeal to people like that. Now, this is the best line in the whole article and clearly shows that Coulter's venomous, vitriolic invective is not worth the hard drive space that it is stored on. Is she actually trying to claim that McCarthy was innocent and praiseworthy in his efforts to paint political and personal enemies as traitors? Oh, that's right, that is exactly what she does. Honestly, the method is not material to me, a traitor should be executed if convicted. However, a conviction for treason in the case of either of the situations described above would be "assured" only in the legal system concocted by Coulter's twisted, biased, and hateful mind. I also would not count on treason charges coming from this administration. However, that is because there is no reasonable cause for such accusations under our Constitution. The Rosenbergs passed nuclear weapons secrets to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Times ran a story about possibly illegal warrantless wiretapping that they held for an entire year even though the information could have hurt Bush's re-election hopes in 2004. In addition, they ran a story like the one run by two other newspapers on the same day in which they "exposed" the fact that the government tracks financial transactions to try and find terrorists. Duh, any monkey on the street could have told you that, too. The Rosenbergs were traitors. The Times is a newspaper acting as they should. Anyone who believes otherwise has very little ability to digest and analyze information.
As Al Franken said, rebuttels to Ann Coulter is like shooting fish in a barrel. It might be slightly amusing on a lazy day but it gets old quickly.
The friend of mine dismissed a recent Seymore Hersh article as being "biased, liberal trash" without once looking at the substance of the article. He admitted that he did not read the piece, but did take the time to research the author's "well documented liberal bias." Then, he sent me this gem saying that Coulter "hit one over the fence." So, I took the time to do a substantive rebuttal of every point that Coulter attempted to make.
He thought that was "hitting on over the fence??" The person is clearly delusional. You should suggest a decent shrink! It was SOP for Coulter. She's a plagiarizing extremist, working hard to appeal to the basest instincts of the far-right. Keep D&D Civil.
Does she? I've only seen a bit of her stuff. It's satire, I find. A very dry humour perhaps. I don't find it particularly funny, but I can't see how anyone could take her stuff seriously. I don't think she does.
You should see more of her, and read more of Coulter. She clearly makes things up. and delights in the money and attention she's earned from her extremism, but she's basically playing it straight, from her twisted point of view, Keep D&D Civil.
Ironically enough, most of the attention she gets (which of course leads to money) is from the left, not the right. And I'm not convinced that she's 'playing it straight' either. She says outrageous things that she knows will piss people off and then laughs all the way to the bank.
I just get the feeling she's playing a phil hendrie character. I think the toughest part of her schtick must be keeping a straight face...
People do take her bs seriously. I think that Coulter is an opportunist. She sees a market for books that play to the 25% of the population that are extreme conservatives who believe anyone who disagrees with them are by definition liberals. These extreme conservatives are not rational; they believe what they believe. Coulter to sell books to these right wingnuts does not have to be rational (and would probably lose book sales if she was).
lol...to me she is just a shock jock. i can't believe anyone actually takes her seriously or listens to her.
This analogy is directly taken from a recent television show on the History Channel about the discovered tape of discussions between Hitler and Mannerheim. The absurdity of this argument was belabored by Hitler as justification for his invading the Soviet Union. Unless Coulter has some hidden interest in obscure Northern European history (doubtful given the general neocon distaste for Europe) the only place she could have gotten this particular arguement from is directly from the mouth of Hitler via the History Channel. Heil Coulter!