1
   

Ann Coulter's new Traitor! Sulzberger, NY Times publisher

 
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 10:36 am
Here's A Traitor!
September 17, 2003
Ann Coulter

DURING MY recent book tour, I resisted the persistent, illiterate request that I name traitors. With a great deal of charity - and suspension of disbelief - I was willing to concede that many liberals were merely fatuous idiots. (In addition, I was loathe to name names for fear that liberals would start jumping out of windows.) But after the Times' despicable editorial on the two-year anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attack, I am prepared - just this once - to name a traitor: Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times.

To be sure, if any liberal could legitimately use the stupid defense, it is the one Sulzberger who couldn't get in to Columbia University. At a minimum, Columbia has 400 faculty members who start each day by thinking about how to get their kooky ideas onto the Times' op-ed page. For an heir to the Times not to attend Columbia, those must have been some low SAT scores.

But the clincher was an editorial on the two-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attack, in which the Times endorsed the principle of moral equivalence between the United States and the 9-11 terrorists. In the Times' meandering, mind-numbing prose, it explained that the terrorists may have slaughtered thousands of Americans in a bloody attack on U.S. soil - but the U.S. has had imperialistic depredations of its own!

By not opposing a military coup by the great Augusto Pinochet against a Chilean Marxist, Salvador Allende, the Times implied, the U.S. was party to a terrorist act similar to the 9-11 attack on America. This is how the Times describes Pinochet's 1973 coup: "A building - a symbol of the nation - collapsed in flames in an act of terror that would lead to the deaths of 3,000 people. It was Sept. 11."

Allende was an avowed Marxist, who, like Clinton, got into office on a plurality vote. He instantly hosted a months-long visit from Castro, allowing Castro to distribute arms to Chilean leftists. He began destroying Chile's economy at a pace that makes Gray Davis look like a piker. No less an authority than Chou En-lai warned Allende that he was pursuing a program that was too extreme for his region.

When Gen. Pinochet staged his coup against a Marxist strongman, the U.S. did not stop him - as if Latin American generals were incapable of doing coups on their own. And - I quote - "It was Sept. 11." Parsed to its essentials, the Times' position is: We deserved it.

This from a paper that has become America's leading spokesman for the deposed Baathist regime in Iraq. Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq, there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and destruction and quagmire - along with obsessive references to the date on which Bush declared an end to major combat operations.

See if you can detect a pattern:

"Since the beginning of the Iraq war, 292 soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Kuwait, including 152 since President Bush declared on May 1 that major American combat operations had ended." (Sept. 13, 2003)

"So far, 290 American troops have died in Iraq or Kuwait since the beginning of the Iraq war, including 150 since President Bush declared on May 1 that major American combat operations had ended." (Sept. 12, 2003)

"It was impossible to watch Mr. Bush's somber speech without remembering that four months ago, when the president made his 'Top Gun' landing on an aircraft carrier and declared an end to 'major combat operations,' ..." (Sept. 8, 2003)

"The speech was Mr. Bush's first extended address about Iraq since he declared an end to major combat operations in a May 1 speech." (Sept. 8, 2003)

"When President Bush declared an official end to major hostilities in Iraq in May, Reuters moved (a reporter) to Baghdad to give him a safer assignment." (Sept. 7, 2003)

"Since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, hundreds of violent and disruptive attacks have been waged by an array of forces ..." (Sept. 7, 2003)

"Eleven British soldiers have been killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1." (Sept. 5, 2003)

Hey - does anyone know when Bush declared major combat operations had ended? Because I think there may have been one article in the sports section of the Times last week that didn't mention it. The Times is even taking shots at the war in the Arts section, stating authoritatively in a recent movie review: "And with the war in Iraq threatening to turn into a Vietnam-like quagmire ..." (How about getting some decent, impartial reporters embedded at the Times?)

Apparently, the Times' stylebook now requires all reports of violence anyplace within 1,000 miles of Iraq to be dated from Bush's speech declaring an end to "major combat" operations. How about dating everything from the number of months since Jayson Blair was fired or the number of years since Pinch Sulzberger got his SAT scores back and realized he wasn't going to Columbia?

I gather the Times is trying to convey something by the infernal references to Bush's speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq - but what? That we haven't turned a savage fascist nation into a peace-loving democracy overnight? Iraq is considerably better off than Chile was under Salvador Allende - the Times' second favorite world leader after Saddam Hussein.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,217 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 11:02 am
Re: Ann Coulter's new Traitor! Sulzberger, NY Times publishe
Ann Coulter wrote:
To be sure, if any liberal could legitimately use the stupid defense, it is the one Sulzberger who couldn't get in to Columbia University. At a minimum, Columbia has 400 faculty members who start each day by thinking about how to get their kooky ideas onto the Times' op-ed page. For an heir to the Times not to attend Columbia, those must have been some low SAT scores.


Ann Coulter wrote:
How about dating everything from the number of months since Jayson Blair was fired or the number of years since Pinch Sulzberger got his SAT scores back and realized he wasn't going to Columbia?

What is this apparent conservative obsession with one's academic credentials? Why should anyone give a rap whether the editor of the New York Times went to Columbia or some third-tier state college? After all, some here might likewise criticize a person such as Coulter who went to Cornell undergrad (couldn't get into Harvard, eh?) and Univ. of Michigan Law School (ranked only seventh in the nation).
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 02:05 pm
Well, Joe From Chicago has a point, Bill Clinton went to the best Law School in the Nation- Yale( Joe, if you don't believe the US News and World Report, I can get more proof for you) and he was a Rhodes Scholar( although it was relatively easy for him to be appointed as a Rhodes Scholar since people who know how Rhodes works know that they try to pick people from each state or region and since Clinton was from Jukes and Kallikak territory it was a pushover for him---It also helped that he was sponsored by Senator Halfbright from Arkansas.

Now, Clinton did not get a degree from Oxford. In fact, in the middle of his sojourn he took a very expensive trip to eastern Europe and to Moscow.

People still wonder where he got the money. He was only on a small stipend as a student at Oxford. He didn't get it from his Momma since she was very fond of gambling and he didn't get it from his half brother since he hadn's started selling Cocaine yet(There is some evidence to show that Bill used the stuff regularly. Clinton's half brother, when interrogated by the police, allegedly indicated that- I need to get it( Cocaine) for my brother, He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.

Well, Clinton had a Yale Law degree and was a Rhodes Scholar.

Joe is correct, A degree from a top law school is not protection from amorality. Clinton was arguably the most amoral president we have ever had.

But, Coulter may have a point.

I keep hearing how President Bush only got into Yale undergraduate school and Harvard Business School because of political influence. It appears that the Sulzberger heir was so stupid that not even political influence would help.

But then, if I have maintained all along, Politics does not play a part in being accepted in any of the top ten Universities, it just may be that Sulzberger was really very stupid.

You really have to be stupid to run the nation's greatest newspaper into the ground by hiring a dim witted minority managing editor who mentored an even more dim-witted minority plagiarist- Jayson Blair.

Poor Joe From Chicago- Haven't you learned yet.

Of course, it is not necessary to graduate from a top school to be a success but it is far more likely you will be a success if you do.

Have you ever seen the list of prominent Harvard Law School Graduates?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 02:14 pm
Italgato wrote:
Well, Joe From Chicago has a point, Bill Clinton...

Congratulations, gato, you actually went seven words without mentioning Bill Clinton. Such admirable restraint is rarely seen in conservatives these days.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ann Coulter's new Traitor! Sulzberger, NY Times publisher
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 03/06/2021 at 08:56:07