It has everything to do with it-- given that you are calling her a sexist for her remarks. All this ani-Coulter stuff is just PC gone haywire. She is provocative; she is sometimes reckless maybe, but you've yet to demonstrate any fundamental racism found anywhere other than the harshest interpretation of a flippant remark she has made here or there.
Giddy there is nothing PC about anything I've said against Ann. Inferring that someone is a threat to the president based only on the fact that they are Arab is racist. Her remark boils down to not security not being so tight if they let an Arab near the president. That is racist. When someone insinuates that people of a certain race are a threat solely based on the fact that they are of that race, it is racist. How could it be anything else? To say what Coulter said isn't racist makes no sense. The whole premise behind her remarks is that Arabs are inherently a threat to the president. Please tell me a way that her remarks could be taken any other possible way. When somebody says that the whitehouse can't be serious about security because they let an Arab in the same room then it implys that Arabs are dangerous. That is racist.
Has Ann Coulter made this kind of remark when President Bush met with the King of Saudi Arabia? He's Arab, right? For cryin' out loud, it was a joke! I don't think you have any idea what a serious charge it is to call someone a racist...
Because she doesn't make the comment all the time doesn't mean she didn't make a racist comment. If it was a joke then tell me why the punch line is supposed to be funny? (I'll give you a hint)It is supposed to be funny because tight security would mean keeping Arabs away from the President, but since it isn't tight then Arabs and Jeff Gannon are allowed near the president. Apparently either Ann or her editors also agree that it was offensive since it was changed on her own website. Perhaps Coulter isn't a racist, but just writes racist comments in her columns. Is that really any better? Again if someone writes racist remarks, or jokes, then I think it is fair to call them a racist.
No kidding. Coulter based her entire "analysis" on a movie that *gasp* may not have portrayed everything accurately. What a buffoon.
The followin pieces of analysis do not come from the movie, they mostly come from a book written about Woodward and Bernstein: 1. The fictional Deep Throat knew things Felt could not possibly have known, such as the 18 1/2-minute gap on one of the White House tapes. Only six people knew about the gap when Woodward reported it. All of them worked at the White House. Felt not only didn't work at the White House, but when the story broke, he also didn't even work at the FBI anymore. 2. Deep Throat was a smoker and heavy drinker, neither of which describes Mark Felt. 3. Woodward claimed he signaled Deep Throat by moving a red flag in a flowerpot to the back of his balcony and that Deep Throat signaled him by drawing the hands of a clock in Woodward's New York Times. But in his 1993 book, Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein Adrian Havill did something it had occurred to no one else to do: He looked at Woodward's old apartment! Havill found that Woodward had a sixth-floor interior apartment that could not be seen from the street. Even from the back of the apartment complex, the balcony was too high for any flowerpot to be seen. So unless there was a "second flowerpot," visible from a nearby grassy knoll, the red flag in the flowerpot story is ... well, full of red flags. In addition, newspapers were not delivered door-to-door in Woodward's apartment building but were left in a stack in the lobby. Deep Throat could not have known which newspaper Woodward would pick up. We might have known all this before 1993 if America's ever-vigilant watchdog media had been, say, half as skeptical of Bob Woodward's claims as they were of Juanita Broaddrick's. 4. Woodward and Bernstein's former literary agent, David Obst, has always said Deep Throat was a fictional device added to later drafts of "All the President's Men" to spice it up (kind of like everything in a Michael Moore film). Obst scoffs at the notion that the No. 2 man at the FBI would have time to be skulking around parking lots spying for red flags on a reporter's balcony. "There's not a chance one person was Deep Throat," he told The New York Times."
Where did you find this out? In the article, Coulter mentions the movie, but never references any other source material (she rarely does). Are you psychic or do you have some relationship with Coulter that allows you to deduce where she came up with her "analysis?"
In that passage, it seems that Havill is disproving "facts" from "All The President's Men" just as Coulter was. You are welcome to continue defending her, but to anyone with a brain and even a modicum of ability with Google, it is clear that she is a liar, a shill, and far more partisan than Michael Moore has ever even imagined being.
Giddy here is the list I promised... Clinton - Under Clinton we had the '93 bombing of the WTC just 30 some days after he took office. Clinton's response was to capture, try in a court of laws and convict those responsible. Attacks that were planned by terrorists but thwarted under the Clinton Administration include plans to kill the pope, blow up twelve airliners at once, bomb the UN building, the FBI building, the ISraeli embassy in Washington DC, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, The George WAshington Bridge, U.S emabssy in Albania, the Boston airport, and LAX. But somehow these were all stopped while Clinton was igoring terrorism. Clinton trippled the counter-terrorism budget for the FBI, Clinton got rid of Al Qaeda cells in 20 nations, HE doubled the overall counter terrorism budget, and created a top level national security post to coordinate all counter-terrorism activity. Clinton conducted terrorist attack simulations to test city, state and federal capabilities, created a stockpile of vaccines to use in case of biological attack. One year before the OK City bombing Republicans rejected Clinton's proposal to expand wire tapping capabilities in order to fight terror. Then after the embassy bombings in Africa Clinton issued an order authorizing the assassination of OBL. Then after the Cole attack, Clinton appointed Richard Clarke in order to take the fight to the terrorists, rather than wait on attacks. That was when all the measures that Bush put into place AFTER 9/11 were created. It was finished just weeks before Bush's inauguration. To have implemented them would have started a war, that would have been handed to Bush. Clinton decided to give the information and a warning to Bush, and let him implement the plans rather than hand over a war. Clinton was probably wrong, but it is hindsight. Anyway to see that Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism just isn't inaccurate. To say that he didn't do enough is definitely accurate. To say that he didn't do anything just like Bush didn't do anything before 9/11 is false. Richard Clarke came up with the plans Bush put into play after the tragedy. He was trying to get them implemented prior to 9/11, and yet somehow he was a tool.
You need to go to summer reading camp! The section I quoted clearly references Havrill's BOOK. The one section talks about a scene from "All the President's Men" which could reference either but probably meant the movie. You have nothing but disdain for someone who disagrees with you. It is really kind of pathetic. Cheers!
<b>FranchiseBlade Giddy here is the list I promised... Clinton - Under Clinton we had the '93 bombing of the WTC just 30 some days after he took office. Clinton's response was to capture, try in a court of laws and convict those responsible.</b> Those guys were caught and tried as Criminals not Terrorists. Remember the Gorelick Wall which was erected between agencies? <b>Attacks that were planned by terrorists but thwarted under the Clinton Administration include plans to kill the pope, blow up twelve airliners at once, bomb the UN building, the FBI building, the ISraeli embassy in Washington DC, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, The George WAshington Bridge, U.S emabssy in Albania, the Boston airport, and LAX. But somehow these were all stopped while Clinton was igoring terrorism.</b> I believe I said that Clinton "ignored" Clark not terrorism. I wonder what the Bush Administration has stopped over the last 5+ years? <b>Anyway to see that Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism just isn't inaccurate. To say that he didn't do enough is definitely accurate. To say that he didn't do anything just like Bush didn't do anything before 9/11 is false. </B> I don't believe that I said Clinton did nothing. I did say that he didn't capture or asassinate OBL when he allegedly had the opportunity. <b>Richard Clarke came up with the plans Bush put into play after the tragedy. He was trying to get them implemented prior to 9/11, and yet somehow he was a tool.</b> Clarke is a "tool" for the way he was used. That's what you do with tools.
Exactly as it should be. They were tried in our legal system and put in prison for terrorism. The system worked. It is great when we catch terrorists and put them through the American Justice system like the criminals they are and they end up paying for their crimes. Far from ignoring Clarke, Clinton was the one that appointed him, and set the whole thing in motion. I didn't vote for Clinton, and I think Clinton was a liar who put ambition ahead of principle, but facts are still facts regarding Clarke. I don't believe that I said Clinton did nothing. I did say that he didn't capture or asassinate OBL when he allegedly had the opportunity. Clarke is a "tool" for the way he was used. That's what you do with tools.[/QUOTE] When did Clinton have the opportunity to capture OBL? I hope that you are not talking about the "offer" to hand him over while he was in Sudan. That has been proven to be a bogus myth more times than Steve Francis has or ever or will ever dribble off of his foot in a basketball game. Clarke was used for what purpose? Who used Clarke? Clarke formulated plans under the direction of Clinton tried to give them to Bush and put on low priority until after 9/11. He was called to testify on what happened, and he did. It is shameful that his testimony about what happened made some people feel the need to try and trash him for merely doing his duty.
