posted June 08, 2006 04:15 PM            

So I suppose Erin Brockovich should be demonized for her trial crusade to correct the injustice of PG&E polluting the water supply, and then allowing someone to make a movie about her?

I think you guys really need to put yourselves in other people's shoes from time to time and really consider whether your perceptions are right.

posted June 08, 2006 04:33 PM            

What Erin Brokovich did was collect EVIDENCE, testimony and then take on the Electric company that was depositing toxic waste into the water out in Cali.

These 4 widows are pushing their own political agenda and their hatred towards Bush. Now, I think everyone has that potential and some use it more than others after a tragedy.

So by your standards anyone that suffers a tragedy is now allowed to have a platform in which to spew hate towards someone.

So since my grandmotther died of Cancer and it hurts me deeply, I can take on Clinton - blame Cancer on him and I should be granted air time, financial incentives etc...

posted June 08, 2006 04:50 PM            

This is not apples and oranges. I compared people fighting for justice to another person who fought for justice. Just because you disagree with them politically doesn't mean that they're greedy or that they should be demonized.

posted June 08, 2006 05:15 PM            

IF something happened as a result of failure on the part of the medical community, administration, law enforcement etc.. YES, I would do something about it.

These FOUR women (and let's bring it back to that instead of trying to spin out of control and listing EVERY situation in which a person may have the right to yell about being wronged) are blaming the entire 9-11 ATTACK (and that is what is was, not just a tragedy) on BUSH - just like Sheehan and Berg. Instead of looking at failures over time, they are pointing fingers at the conservative politicians and the President as though every day before he became president was hunkey dorey. For some reason Clinton and the Liberals in congress get a pass but, like Katrina, Bush is solely responsible for OUR being ATTACKED.

posted June 08, 2006 05:50 PM            

There was a report on airline safety and security called the Gore report...came out in 1996 or 1997..final version.

That report talked about terrorist activity and how to thwart hijackers. The report was commissioned by the President of the United States...Commander Corruption.

After the Gore Report was submitted in it's final form to Clinton, it sat on a shelf somewhere in the White House gathering dust and was not implemented or even put forward to the Congress.

The 9/11 terrorist plot to strike the WTC...again was hatched in the 1998-1999 era. It didn't spring full blown in January 2001 when Bush became President.

It is entirely asinine for the 4 witches to blame Bush for the attack but it's perfectly in line with lying leftist blather.

There is no possible way for the 4 witches to reasonably blame Bush for the 9/11 attack...after he had been in office for less than 8 months.

There was every reason for the 4 witches to blame Commander Corruption who sat on his ass and ignored attack after attack on the United States but didn't have the balls to do anything about it. Oh, I forgot, waving one's finger in the air and expressing displeasure IS doing something about it in leftist circles.

The 4 witches chose to blame Bush instead so I'm not inclined to hear any bullsh*t about their so called belief it was Bushes fault.

What it is acoustic is a leftist attack on the President using their new found celebrity as victims.

This is the link to the Gore Report...termed the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

You might want to read it and then share it with your leftist friends and...the 4 witches who have those deeply held beliefs Bush was responsible for 9/11 after less than 8 months in office for a plot hatched 3 years or so before he became President.

You might also want to point out to the 4 witches that if Commander Corruption had responded to any of the attacks against the United States all through his Presidency and taken out al-Qaeda then, there wouldn't have been a 9/11 attack against the WTC.

Instead, Commander Corruption was cutting the budget of the CIA and cutting the US military about 40% in real numbers and reducing ship and miliatry aircraft numbers...this at the time the United States was under attack abroad and had been attacked at home in 1993.

Now acoustic, as I recall, no Republican blamed Commander Corruption for the 1993 attack on the WTC. Republicans blamed the terrorists but in typical lying leftist style, lying leftists...including the 4 politically motivated witches blame Bush for 9/11...to shift responsibility from Commander Corruption.

posted June 08, 2006 05:50 PM            

My argument isn't absurd. If you took 2 seconds to think about it, you'd know.

You still haven't put yourself in their shoes. Instead you yourself are falling for Coulter's trap. You're making it about suppressing opponents instead of accepting it for what it is. These women are attacking Republicans, so you're going to demonize them and try to marginalize them by saying that they are just money-grubbing opportunists. Once again, would you consider that a reasonable description of yourself if you were in their position? Whether or not they talk about Clinton is a moot point, and rationality isn't always a strong suit for activists. They still have a right to voice their injustice the way they interpret it, and they still don't deserve the labels of Ann Coulter. It's arguments like this that prove Ann Coulter's uselessness in affecting positive debate. If she's got a problem with what these wives actually address politically, she should state her case. Going after them personally, and trying to defame them isn't civilized.

quote:

---

So, do you think there are people that use tragedy to further their own career or political agenda or is it only when the Right comes out fighting that it is considered self promotion?

---

posted June 08, 2006 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

As usual acoustic, you are facts challenged...nothing new there.

---

posted June 08, 2006 07:43 PM            

The 4 witches arguments have been countered yet they persist. They persist much as other lying leftists continue with their lies long after the lies are proven to be lies.

People who do that should expect some in their faces reactions. Coulter gave them some of the same medicine they've been attempting to give Bush. Boo Hoo's and outrage from the lying left.

Suppress the opposition to what acoustic? The only ones in opposition here are those in opposition to the truth...which is where truth challenged leftists always find themselves...including the 4 witches who were not satisfied with the 9/11 Commission merely whitewashing the Clintonista bungling but had to place the blame for 9/11 on Bush.

These 4 have a large profile of leftist activity and self promotion acoustic...self promotion aided and abetted by the leftist press. Some...who don't know better believe these 4 speak for the whole of the 9/11 widows. Far from it but the leftist press isn't interested in what the other widows have to say. Those widows don't toe the leftist line that it's Bushes fault.

I despair you will ever get anything right acoustic.

Thursday, June 8, 2006 9:39 a.m. EDT
NBC News Slanders Ann Coulter

In a vicious attack on Ann Coulter and her new book "Godless,” NBC News zeroed-in on her sharp criticism of the liberal "Jersey Girls” - the four highly politicized widows of 9/11 victims - leaving the impression that Coulter had attacked all 9/11 widows instead of the four women.

In introducing the segment, NBC anchor Brian Williams said "just when you think that it seems that there are no limits on anything, someone comes along and makes a comment that goes over the line – the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things are, it turns out, still sacred.”

Sacred?

Sacred, as it turns out, are the Jersey Girls. According to NBC’s Mike Taibbi, Coulter had written about some 9/11 widows charging that they have been reveling in their status as celebrities.

He reiterated the charge that Coulter’s attacks were on "9/11 widows” instead of the four Jersey Girls.

NBC then dragged out the shopworn David Gergen, the all-purpose "former White House adviser” who has never seemed to be able to determine what side he’s on, effortlessly sliding from a GOP White House to the Clinton menagerie. On cue, Gergen spoke of the "ugliness” of the charge against Williams' sacred icons.

Last night during a televised book signing in Long Island, broadcast on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," Coulter fired back.

"[The left] sends out spokespeople, who - because of some personal tragedy - we're not allowed to respond to. Because their husbands died in 9/11, because they had a son die in Iraq. If they're making a point worth making, if they're entering the public dialogue, how about letting Howard Dean make the point.

"I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11," Coulter continued. "[But] I do not believe that sanctifies their political message. They're the ones who claim to be responsible for the 9/11 Commission - a total Clinton whitewash commission."

More Coulter: "They have attacked Bush, they have attacked Condoleezza Rice, they're cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can't respond because their husbands died . . . I think it's one of the ugliest things the left has done to political dialogue in this country - this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point . . ."

Asked if she would accept an invitation to personally debate the Jersey Girls, Coulter responde: "Sure . . . But I'm not going to treat them like victims, as with Cindy Sheehan and - oh, you can't respond to Joe Wilson."

Just who are the Jersey Girls?

Writing in The Wall Street Journal’s "Opinion Journal" in April 2004, Dorothy Rabinowitz noted that "all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York.

"In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser [of the Jersey Girls], announcing that 'President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day.'"

The four women - Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken and Patty Casazza - are scarcely representative of the hundreds of 9/11 widows.

Wrote Rabinowitz: "Others who had lost family to the terrorists' assault commanded little to no interest from TV interviewers. Debra Burlingame - lifelong Democrat and sister of Charles F. 'Chic' Burlingame III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 - did manage to land an interview after Ms. Rice's appearance.

"When she had finished airing her views critical of the accusatory tone and tactics of the Jersey Girls, her interviewer, ABC congressional reporter Linda Douglass marveled, 'This is the first time I've heard this point of view.'

"That shouldn't have been surprising. The hearing room that day had seen a substantial group of 9/11 families, similarly irate over the Jersey Girls and their accusations - families that made their feelings evident in their burst of loud applause when [Condoleeza] Rice scored a telling zinger under questioning. But these were not the 9/11 voices TV and newspaper editors were interested in.

"They had chosen to tell a different story - that of four intrepid New Jersey housewives who had, as one news report had it, brought an administration 'to its knees' - and that was, as far as they were concerned, the only story . . ."

Two years ago Rabinowitz made the point that Coulter is being chastised for making now - that the Jersey Girls status as 9/11 widows allegedly gives them immunity from being criticized.

Rabinowitz wrote: "The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn't necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual.

"All that the widows have had to say - including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant - on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration.”

The Jersey Girls actively supported John Kerry in 2004. As for the "civility" issue, NBC News, it should be noted, turned a blind eye to Al Franken's statement to Matt Lauer last October.

Then, Franken told the "Today" host that Karl Rove and Lewis Libby should be "executed." The comment drew a laugh from Lauer. Franken's comments drew no criticism from the major media, including NBC News.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/8/101032.shtml?s=lh

So much for leftist speak acoustic and so much for the whining, screeching, moaning and foot stamping of the juvenile set, in the press and elsewhere...who couldn't find their @sses with both hands.

Perhaps when leftists grow up...if that ever happens, they'll realize if they're going to dish out the criticism, they better be prepared to take it too.

posted June 08, 2006 07:50 PM            

I have taken more than 2 seconds to think about such issues. 9-11 had a huge impact on me and this nation. I lived out East at the time -with the Pentagon only being a short drive from where I lived.

It makes me outraged that these women are using the deaths of thousands to further their hate. Now they have every right to say it- but why is it "I" am called cold for calling them on the carpet, yet they are due justice because they lost their spouses and blame the current administration?

Ann Coulter has voiced what I have said off and on since 9-11 occured and these women and men started coming out of the woodwork looking to make a political point and milk the system. I am sure if we did a search of my posts we'd find other references to this affect. I am not a popular writer and therefore my words are lost in the ethers whereas Ann Coulter is published. I am falling for nothing, but I am supporting the words that mirror my beliefs.

I think jwhop laid out the entire argument for you as to why there is a valid reason to questions these women. I have been stating it throughout my posts.

I do believe what you are really fishing for, is for me to somehow say 'Oh AG, thank you for showing me the light! I really can't think on my own and allowed Ann Coulter to brain wash me".

posted June 08, 2006 08:18 PM            

Yep, we're just hypnotized, brainwashed sycophants of Ann Coulter who toes the Bush line...as do we.

But wait, what was Coulter doing criticizing Bush on the amnesty for illegals Senate bill and what the hell were we thinking

posted June 08, 2006 08:35 PM              

quote:

---

In a vicious attack on Ann Coulter--newsmax

---

posted June 08, 2006 08:42 PM              

quote:

---

Then, Franken told the "Today" host that Karl Rove and Lewis Libby should be "executed."

---

i looked it up and franken predicted that rove and libby would be executed ....

quote:

---

George H.W. Bush, the President’s father, said, as, when he was head of the CIA, that outing a CIA agent is treason. I, I agree. So I think that Rove and Libby will be executed.--al franken

---

compare this with ann coulter .....

quote:

---

she said the only real question about President Clinton was "whether to impeach or assassinate."--ann coulter
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001027.html

---

posted June 08, 2006 08:51 PM              

quote:

---

So when a tragedy happens and the family of victims make a stand against a government that didn't protect their loved ones, then they should rightfully be demonized?

---

quote:

---

I think you guys really need to put yourselves in other people's shoes from time to time and really consider whether your perceptions are right.

---

Doesnt look like they're capable of doing that AG.

quote:

---

Coulter's doesn't have it out for these wives because of their celebrity. She has it out for them, because they are critical of the administration they feel let them down.

---

posted June 08, 2006 09:03 PM              

First, I'm aware that Coulter throws the bulk of her wrath towards those particular widows. I agree with you that the media will tend to report in generalities, as it usually does, and gloss over that fact. After all, the media likes to stir up its share of sound and fury ... just like Miss Coulter.

But that's beside the point. The point is the woman is deranged. Clearly. Either that or she's nothing more than a media clown putting on a colorful show for the more impressionable among us. But a serious political pundit? A purveyor of intelligent debate? A thoughtful witness to the events of the day? I don't think so.

On the contrary, her arguments are so crude and puerile they become irrelevant. Immature and irrelevant as in ... well let's say I were to attack Coulter by making fun of her badly in need of a trim hair, or her rather protuding Adam's apple or her exceedingly odd choice of attire for a morning talk show. Like that. You'd all roll your eyes and you would all be correct to do so. It's below the belt and totally beside the point. The same as wondering if Mindy Kleinberg's husband had his divorce lawyer on speed dial prior to September 11th.

Due to the fact that I rarely turn on the TV and open wide for a mouthful of its endless barrage of bombastic, overblown pop culture, possibly I am more immune than most to Ann's silly antics.
Possibly I just have higher standards.

posted June 08, 2006 09:08 PM              

quote:

---

Coulter is known for a combative column after September 11 saying, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In one book, she wrote, "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

---

posted June 09, 2006 02:05 PM            

I don't see how anyone with a wit of intelligence can listen to the lies of Micheal Moore or Al Franken.

I watched Ann Coulter last night and I didn't see some vile degranged psychopath.

In fact she pointed out many of her arguments concerning these women and how they are using thier pulpit to push things other than looking into the perceived wrong doing of the Bush administration.

When the woman from Newsweek was asked if she felt that Ann Coulter was vile and rude in her attacks on the political motivation concerning the 4 widows, did she then think is was okay for what Cindy Sheehan said concerning the President being a furhor, baby killer, lying bas*ard..etc... basically the words spewed out of Sheehans mouth made Ann Coulter look mild. The answer from the far lefty liberal writer "Well, I think Sheehan should be allowed to say those things because she lost her son"

Does that make sense?

So, now we place weight on to what a person can say based on the nature of the death of a person they loved?

Yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Basically, in the end, it boils down to who voices what we believe and what we support. People where will look at me with contempt because I think Ann Coulter is right on in most of her topics and analysis. At the same time I am going to question a person that subsribes to such people as Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Striesand and others for the same reasons.

We will just have to disagree.

And I do want to make one thing clear, because I am already seeing this happening. I DO NOT believe that the tragedy suffered by anyone that lost a loved one in 9-11, the Pentagon or the plane in PA is invalid. I fully empathize with people that have lost loved ones and feel we are fully justified in our attacks against terror.

posted June 09, 2006 05:48 PM            

If Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, or an Al Queda terrorist said the same things Ann Coulter said, but in reference to George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or hell, even Ann Coulter, the majority of the people who currently find her comments to be out of line, would be cheering.

I find many of Ann Coulter's comments to be out of line. However, I see her as unfortunately having to stoop to the level of the extreme left to make her points. I don't always agree with it, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

I believe the Nancy Pelosi's and Cindy Sheehans of the world would like nothing more than to have no opposing voice to their rhetoric. That is scary. That is as scary as the Pat Robert's of the world wanting the same damn things.

But while the left will be the first to admit that the Pat Robert's of the world wants to silence those that don't agree with them, they fail to see that those with whom they do agree, like Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, et al, want the very same thing.

I'm just glad that women like Coulter have the opportunity to do what they do and be taken so seriously. Thirty years ago that wouldn't have been the case.

posted June 09, 2006 06:41 PM            

Also, speaking of apples and oranges earlier, wouldn't you agree that Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter are completely dissimilar? Their circumstance, their background, their position within their party, etc. is all completely different. Not everyone on the left thinks Sheehan is reasonable, but I think most people on the right think Ann Coulter is. Even who they're speaking about is completely different. One is attacking the leader of the free world, and the other is attacking 4 private citizens. If it's about calling presidents names, then couldn't we also accuse the right of presidential name-calling?

posted June 09, 2006 06:43 PM              

She looks like the mom Angela from that old show Who's the boss with Tony Danza.

Lmfao.

posted June 09, 2006 07:01 PM            

Freedom of speech not only protects insults hurled at the President, it also protects insults hurled at grieving widows. You can't have it both ways, and that is the very hypocrisy I was pointing out in my earlier post.

Either it's ok to call everyone names, or it's not ok to call anyone names. To argue that is it a good thing to call President Bush insulting names, but not ok to call for example, your mother insulting names, is hypocrisy IMO.

I personally think that both are wrong. People are human and everyone here talks smack to some degree, even those who try to come off as "enlightened" and above such things. But it doesn't make it right.

posted June 09, 2006 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

Not everyone on the left thinks Sheehan is reasonable, but I think most people on the right think Ann Coulter is

---

Well I would have to say that not everyone on the right thinks Ann Coulter is reasonable, whereas I think most people on the left think that Cindy Sheehan is.

But since I can safely assume that neither of us know "all liberals" or "all conservatives", we really have no room to make such statements now, do we?

Personally, my problem is with extremists, left or right, which is why I try to use a qualifying adjective in conjuction with the word "leftist".

I personally think that if the world were full of conservatives, few would have fun, and if the world were full of liberals, nothing would get done. I think both sides are important.

posted June 09, 2006 07:22 PM              

No war.

War is evil.

And I don't give a damn what anyone says.

Our government thinks it's the world police. But all it does is make the hate for us grow even more.

Georgy Porgy isn't gonna bring you into his bunker when they hit us big one day.

So quit licking the man's ass already.

Wake the hell up America.

posted June 09, 2006 07:30 PM            

quote:

---

The problem with extremists, like the Pat Roberts types or the Nancy Pelosi/Michael Moore types, is that they would silence their opposition. I find that far scarier than Ann Coulter calling widows "witches" or Pat Roberts implying that people are burning in hell for being gay (or even Michael Moore and his blather).

---

posted June 09, 2006 07:58 PM            

And that is the main difference between people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. Ann Coulter is an admitted opinion/editorial writer, whereas people like Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi try to pass their opinions off as "fact".

posted June 09, 2006 08:17 PM              

quote:

---

You don't think that Ann Coulter's objective is to silence the opposition? That's strange, because that's exactly what I would characterize her work as attempting to accomplish. Why else would she need to write about these women?

---