1
   

Ann Coulter: The Enemy Within

 
 
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 11:20 am
One could respect Ann Coulter's right to free speech if it were not her hate mongering PRIMARILY FOR THE MONEY! BumbleBeeBoogie

The Enemy Within
March 26, 2003
By Ann Coulter

JUST FIVE DAYS into the war in Iraq and the New York Times was hopefully reporting that despite a thrilling beginning, American troops had gotten bogged down. This came as a surprise to regular readers of the Times who remembered that the Times thought we were bogged down the moment the war began. The day after the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad, the New York Times ran a front-page article describing the mood of the nation thus: "Some faced it with tears, others with contempt, none with gladness."

Apparently some people greeted the war with gladness: The stock market had its best week in 20 years. What people do with their money is a rather more profound barometer of how people feel than any stupid poll, much less bald assertions by New York Times reporters. The Times subscribes to Arab-style proclamations in defiance of the facts. Like Saddam Hussein, the truth for them has no meaning. They say whatever honor commands them to say.

Five days after the Baghdad Times was morosely reporting that no one viewed the war with gladness, things had gotten even worse. In a single editorial, the Times said our troops were "faced with battlefield death, human error and other tragedies." The task "looks increasingly formidable." There were "disturbing events," and American forces were engaged in a "fierce firefight - an early glimpse of urban warfare." There were "downsides," "disheartening events" and "grievous blows."

We're losing this war! The Elite Republican Guard is assembling outside New York City! Head for the hills! The "fierce firefight" referred to in the editorial concerned a battle in Nasiriyah in which American troops took an entire city with nine casualties. That's what most people call a "triumphal ass-kicking."

CNN's favorite general, Wesley Clark, has also been heard to opine that our troops are getting bogged down in Iraq. His competence to judge American generals is questionable since his command was limited to working for NATO. We prefer to hear from American generals. Clark's contribution to international relations consisted of mistakenly bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In his zeal to prevent troop casualties, he ordered pilots to fly at such high altitudes that the pilots complained that they were being forced to incur unnecessary civilian casualties.

On MSNBC, Forrest Sawyer compared Iraqi forces killing our troops to American revolutionaries and said the war was likely to turn into a "nightmare." Liberals are like the Republican Guard. They never quit.

American forces have taken two-thirds of Iraq and are fast advancing on Baghdad. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered or disbanded, thousands more have been captured, and thousands more have been killed. Meanwhile, American forces have suffered less than two dozen deaths. One can gauge the success of the war by the increasingly gloomy expression on Dan Rather's face. Indeed, Saddam's lieutenants are so demoralized that they have turned to lashing out at the Jews. Saddam's Vice Despot Tariq Aziz says the war is being fought only to "create something called greater Israel." Aziz seems to be positioning himself to run for Congress as a Democrat.

Most auspiciously, the Arab League has appealed to the United Nations Security Council to stop the war. One can only hope the Security Council will agree to intervene. How would they stop us? Would France threaten us with war? Young men across America would have to enlist as a matter of honor. The Army could use as its recruiting slogan: "Are you afraid to fight the French?" Even liberals would enlist as a way to pick up glorious service with no risk of injury.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times gave Saddam's recent speech more exultant coverage than they did Bush's State of the Union address. Since the first bomb hit Baghdad, everyone at the Times had been itching to use the word "quagmire." Somewhat surprisingly, Saddam beat even Maureen Dowd to the punch, thus allowing the Times to use "quagmire" with abandon the day after his speech. Not only that, but according to Saddam - and the Times - the invading forces are "in real trouble." The Times isn't afraid we'll do badly in Baghdad; it's afraid we'll do well.

After the Arab television network al-Jazeera repeatedly ran footage of U.S. prisoners of war over the weekend, the New York Stock Exchange threw al-Jazeera reporters off the trading floor. They ought to remove the Times.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,905 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
PatriUgg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 11:59 am
Comments
Every newspaper goes about setting a "tone" to their reporting.
Apparently Ann Coulter doesn't like the tone the New York Times uses.

I'm still searching for any other usable information presented here.
(The fact that she's grumpy is not really news).
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 05:18 pm
BumbleBee<

I have posted my opinions on the Iraq conflict elsewhere on A2k so you are welcome to read them.

However, I have never had the opportunity to discuss the wicked witch of the far-right-wing Republicans known as Ann Coulter.

Now, Bumblebee, you are correct. Ms. Coulter is entitled to express her opinions. But does she have to do so by looking like a slut?

Ms. Coulter, somewhere in her late thirties I would guess, probably doesn't own a skirt or dress that doesn't rise at least five inches above her knees.

She sits on the set of a talk show and keeps her toothpick-sized legs crossed politely so the camera will not let you see (but almost :!Smile what she obviously thinks is her prettiest feature, and that's the one that hookers use to clapture their clients.

Also, Ms. Coulter must have to see a chiropractor regularly. Her slouchy, slithering posture on national TV certainly adds, thinks she, to the sex appeal she tries to exude.

Were I a hair stylist, I would remove those long, stringy hairs that Ms. Coulter flounces about with a constant swishing of her head. This head movement apparently is supposed to complement her sex appeal.

Everything about Ann Coulter -- from her highly suggestive clothing to her hairstyle -- is an exercise in sluttiness. The first time I saw her on TV
she was discussing the peckerdillos of then-President Bill Clinton. Were he in the same bed as Ms. Coulter, he would most certainly turn over and play with himself. In short, Ms. Coulter has not one single redeeming feature in her personal appearance.

Yet, she tries to act like she's a cool, hip chick co-ed who is at most self-righteous and at least vacuous.

Ms. Coulter is indeed a parody of herself and a disgrace to the right-wing of the GOP (and there are a lot of disgraceful folks on that side). She pretends to be a candidate either for the role of Virgin Mary or the next justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Her pretentiousness is transparent, and while she has a lot of hateful opinions, she could at least be attractive while espousing them.

There . . . I feel better now. Thank you, BumbleBee.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 05:42 pm
Williamhenry - and your point in relation to her JOURNALISM would be....?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 06:28 pm
dlowan wrote:
Williamhenry - and your point in relation to her JOURNALISM would be....?


That's the real shame about rightwingnut hatchet people like Coulter. Because her venomous sideshow rides under the banner of "journalism", I guess we're expected to critique it as such. If I could see her "craft" through the haze of hateful bile she's constantly spewing, maybe I would.
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 07:11 pm
dlowan<

I do not have an opinion of Ann Coulter's "journalism" because she is not a journalist. She writes opinion pieces, and they are not journalism.

A true journalist writes "just the facts, ma'am." S/he espouses no personal points of view in their writing. A journalist tries to stay out of the story, presenting both sides so the reader can make an informed opinion.

Ms. Coulter's writings do not fall under the heading of "journalism." She is, at best, a news analyst" who writes about a particular subject giving it her pre-conceived conservative bias.

My previous post here was not intended to be a critique of her writing.

Thank you.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:04 pm
So - it was a critique of her appearance, then? This relates to the quality of her opinion pieces, I take it?

Snood - I am pefectly happy to see an attack on her hateful bile! I have no knowledge of the woman - or her role - except that the example of her stuff quoted here was an appalling piece of junk.

I guess that I am in danger of taking on the care and maintenance of a hobby horse - about being weary of attacks on people with an opposing opinion based on appearance, or putative personal problems, and full of the hate and bile that this woman is being accused of.

I am probably especially sensitive to such attacks based on women's appearance and sexual attractiveness, because this is a cheap shot that has been used against women and still is - by people who would probably not dare to use such attacks based on colour, for example - but I find myself becoming increasingly disturbed by this kind of attack on whomever it may fall. My problem, perhaps.

If she, or a male "journalist", is using their looks or inappropriately sexualised behaviour to manipulate - then this would seem worthy of attack. However - how many talking heads - (almost all of whom, on American television, seem improbably buffed and puffed and techni-coloured and white toothy to Australian eyes! sorry!) would pass a NOT using their looks test - or at least more looks than brains or oomph test?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:10 pm
unfortunately dlowan you are right
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:13 pm
Damn! I hate that....feels weird.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:16 pm
i wouldn't know
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:18 pm
LOL! Someone will come along soon and make me feel normal again.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:28 pm
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:AvCp2TluYhcC:www.kathyross.com/images/heart%2520bunny.jpg
a bunny heart for a bunny
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:34 pm
Awwwwwwwwwwww....that is soooo sweet! Share?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 08:53 pm
its your heart, share as you like.
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 09:31 pm
dlowan<

I am very sorry you took offense at my remarks about Ann Coulter's appearance. They were certainly not written to demean any other person than Ann Coulter.

I can only imagine how you must have felt reading my comments about Ms. Coulter. Too many women are sensitive about their gender. Your feelings may have been hurt. I regret that.

But when a person choses a public persona, they leave themselves open to all kinds of criticism, both appropriate and inappropriate. I am wondering, how many times you have ever viewed Ann Coulter on TV? Would you want your daughter to dress like her?

That I went a bit off-topic to critique Ms. Coulter's looks had nothing to do with her gender or her writing. I am not a sexist. She may be the most eloquent writer in the world, but that wouldn't stop the fact that she looks like trash to me.

You have mistaken my criticism of one woman as being critical of all women. Such is not the case, and I commend you for expressing your opinion. Please extend to me the same courtesy.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 09:59 pm
I am vey fond of my gender, thank you, and not in the least sensitive about it! I have not mistaken your criticism of her appearance as a criticism of all women - I have seen it as a shot at HER, possibly quite accurate, I would have no idea - since I live in Australia I will not be seeing her any time soon - based, as so many shots at women tend to be, on her appearance and perceived sexual desireability.

But let us agree to differ about foci of debate.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 09:59 pm
I am VERY fond of it, too.
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 11:10 pm
dlowan<

Final point here for me:

I see nothing desirable at all, period, about Ann Coulter, especially when it comes to "perceived sexual desireability." As a late middle-aged gay male, I have no sexual desires for any woman, including you.

The name, "Ann Coulter," appears in the title of this thread, and I see her as the foci . . . wherever the foci may lead.

You should refrain from commenting on televised images which you have not seen. That lapse on your part is not fair to the person writing the post.


Thank you.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 11:14 pm
Deb, she is creepy and loud and very, very blonde. Personally I cannot stand the sound of her voice and don't even hear what she says and would never read anything she wrote. She love Geraldo Rivera if that help you understand her level of intelligence.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 12:11 am
Okay - she's not, and has never been, a journalist. She doesn't analyze, has no idea what the word editorial means. She appears regularly in online things owned by townhall.com (newsmax.com is where she makes her home). And sorry, dlowan, but while I understand what you're saying, I share the view that her appearance is part of the critique. That's partly because she deliberately makes it so. I am beginning to think that perhaps the blond hair, short black dresses, and legs are there so people will not notice that she really has little to say. When you read her stuff (and I have gone to newsmax and other places to see), she has one or two basic lines she repeats. I think most likely she's a wannabe somebody. But then, there are a lot of people out there like that. And trash talk has succeeded for so many of them. Now, when they are beginning to be finally in competition with some real journalists, they're getting even more shrill. But Coulter? One of the worst - she's a bad joke.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ann Coulter: The Enemy Within
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 07:37:15