Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

People accuse Coulter of lying when she said that "things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan."

That is absurd. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan...for the opium producers.

Isn't it strange that most of the off topic posts made after mine were by of G-hag herself? You people don't know crap about this broad. She was over at her other favorite site under an assumed name trying to stir trouble, her specialty but those lowlife knuckle draggers exposed her for what she is. That's why she can't stand yet can't stay away from the joint.
Yep G-hag is a piece of work.
My fan club needn't post any thanks because I am leaving. This place has the stench of a dump.
So long to all my fans and stalkers.

DQ, don't leave! As troublesome as you are, we need your help in keeping the troglodytes on their toes. So, please, whine away to your heart's content.

So soon? You seem like a very charming and likeable sort, and there will be a tremendous void if you don't continue to contribute here. And you made such a good first impression on everyone.

Oh well ... I suppose we'll cope.

Coulter Column Headline: 'They Shot the Wrong Lincoln'
Coulter Column Headline: 'They Shot the Wrong Lincoln'
By E&P Staff
Published: September 01, 2006 12:10 AM ET updated Friday

NEW YORK Ann Coulter periodically "jokes" about the deaths of certain liberals and other enemies but this week the killing reference appears right in the headline of her column.

The head is "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln," and the column -- posted today on Coulter's Web site -- refers to U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, now in a tough Republican primary fight in Rhode Island.

Conservative Coulter blasting a Republican? Actually, Chafee is one of the more liberal members of the GOP, which moved Coulter to frequently insult his intelligence in her Thursday piece. Some polls show him trailing in his primary contest.

The Universal Press Syndicate columnist wrote that Chafee is a "half-wit" who "made his living shoeing horses for seven years. In fact, I've often wondered if an errant kick to the head by one of his charges would account for Chafee's rudimentary cognitive abilities."

She added: "When the farrier business proved too taxing for Chafee's intellect, he went into the family business -- politics. His father died in office, and Lincoln was appointed by the governor to serve out the remainder of Pop's term in the U.S. Senate. I know Rhode Island is small, but couldn't they find someone who reads books right side up to fill the seat?"

Chafee and various other Democrats, continued Coulter, are "silver-spoon morons."

The columnist concluded: "True, Rhode Island is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and the chances of any Republican winning the general election are slim. But that's no reason for the Republican Party to debase itself by running someone dysfunctional and illiterate enough to appeal to Democrats."

Coulter may be right.

Chaffee is a former farrier. He shoed Horses for seven years before becoming mayor of Warwick. Like Slick Willie, he admitted Cocaine use.
He often voted against GOP bills on the estate tax and HMO regulations.

Bush is the one who never denied cocaine use. When asked about drug use, he only said that he had not done anything illegal since his father became VP. He was in his early thirties at that time.

His former sister-in-law begs to disagree, giving accounts of his participation in cocaine use long after that.

Regardless, if the party wishes to follow Coulter and unload Chafee, fine with the Democrats. That's one more Democratic vote in the Senate for them.

Bernard, what a big lie! Clinton never admitted cocaine use. This lying is why your credibility is zero.

Well, not really. Even if the fellow actually did write truthfully, it would be rather like ice cream covered ****.

Someone snapped the antenna off my car and the only radio I have in the house is my clock radio. Reception in that part of the house is poor, and I basically receive WBUR and nothing else. So, I've never heard Air America.

Plain, do you entertain your friends by playing music on your clock radio?

No, we generally volunteer usher to hear music or go to movies or have pot luck suppers.

You can listen online at www.airamericaradio.com

Keltic Wizard, as usual, is IGNORANT on politics and political subjects>

quote from
"The Almanac of American Politics" P. 1353

"He had not been running strong in the polls against possible Democratic opponents, and some thought he was hurt when in August 1999 he ADMITTED HE HAD USED COCAINE"

Did Clinton use Cocaine? He had a nose like a "vacuum cleaner" said his half brother when questioned by the police.

Note

DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: THE STORY OF A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
SUBSECTION: DRUGS
Revised 1/8/01





DRUGS



Roger Clinton, Clinton's half-brother, a convicted cocaine dealer, is caught on tape saying, "Gotta get some for my brother. He has a nose like a vacuum cleaner."

Retired FBI agent Gary Aldrich writes of drugs and the White House and appointees.
Sharlene Wilson talks at length about Clinton's cocaine use, suffers extreme sentence
Clinton's insistence that drug use was not bar for security clearance to work in White House
. Clinton refuses to release any medical records, despite every other presidential candidate in history having done so.
Clinton's admission of drug use though "didn't inhale."
Clinton's utensils picked-up when at a restaurant in England
White House appointee, Patsy Thomasson power of attorney to run Dan Lassater's operation while he was in prison for cocaine distribution
Murder of Jerry Parks and theft of his records about cocaine and sex.
Arkansas Development Finance Authority
Jocelyn Elders

SHARLINE WILSON:" I lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, O.K.? And I worked at a club called Le Bistro's, and I met Roger Clinton there, Governor Bill Clinton, a couple of his state troopers that went with him wherever he went. Roger Clinton had come up to me and he had asked me could I give him some coke, you know, and asked for my one-hitter, which a one-hitter is a very small silver device, O.K., that you stick up into your nose and you just squeeze it and a snort of cocaine will go up in there. And I watched Roger hand what I had given him to Governor Clinton, and he just kinf of turned around and walked off."

Fiske (former attorney for BCCI and Clifford former head of BCCI and former Defense Secretary) appointed as first Whitewater IC. Bill Clinton "The investigation of Whitewater is being handled by an in dependent special counsel, whose appointment I supported. Our cooperation with that counsel has been total."

10/30/96 Investors Business Daily editorial "..A lot of testimony has bubbled up. But is it credible? Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas and Little Rock talk show host who said she had an affair with then-Gov. Clinton in 1983, told the London Sunday Telegraph that he once came over to her house with a bag full of cocaine. ''He had all the equipment laid out, like a real pro.'' Gennifer Flowers says she saw Clinton smoke marijuana and carry joints with him when he first began visiting her in 1977. Clinton was Arkansas' attorney general from 1977 through 1979. His first term as governor ran from 1979 through 1981. He was governor again from 1983 through 1992. Two Arkansas state troopers have sworn under oath that they have seen Clinton ''under the influence'' of drugs when he was governor. Sharlene Wilson is a bartender who is serving time on drug crimes and has cooperated with drug investigators. She told a federal grand jury she saw Clinton and his younger brother ''snort'' cocaine together in 1979. Jack McCoy, a Democratic state representative and Clinton supporter, told the Sunday Telegraph that he could ''remember going into the governor's conference room once and it reeked of marijuana.'' Historian Roger Morris, in his book ''Partners in Power,'' quotes several law enforcement officials who say they had seen and knew of Clinton's drug use. On a videotape made in 1983-84 by local narcotics officers, Roger Clinton said during a cocaine buy: ''Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.'' One-time apartment manager Jane Parks claims that in 1984 she could listen through the wall as Bill and Roger Clinton, in a room adjoining hers, discussed the quality of the drugs they were taking. R. Emmett Tyrrell, editor of American Spectator magazine, has tried to track down rumors that Clinton suffered an overdose at one point. The incident supposedly occurred after the young politician lost the governorship in 1980 and fell into an emotional tailspin. Tyrrell asked emergency room workers at the University of Arkansas Medical Center if they could confirm the incident. He didn't get a flat ''no'' from the hospital staff. One nurse said, ''I can't talk about that.'' Another said she feared for her life if she spoke of the matter. The president himself has helped fuel suspicions of an overdose or some other drug problem by refusing to make his full medical records public..These mealy-mouthed explanations and non-denial denials are mirrored in White House policies that were negligent or worse. The Secret Service reports that more than 40 staffers brought in by Clinton had such serious (and recent) drug problems that they had to enter a special testing program for security reasons.."

7/18/96 AP "Some of the Clinton White House employees who were placed in a special drug testing program had used cocaine and hallucinogens and were originally denied White House security passes, Secret Service agents testified Wednesday. The testing program was created as a compromise so the new administration's workers could keep their jobs, according to Arnold Cole, who supervised the Secret Service's White House operations. "Initially, our response was that we denied them passes," Cole background said in a deposition released by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee..But he was briefly questioned about the drug issue, which came to light earlier this week, saying that despite his agency's original concerns about the workers, "at one point they did receive a pass." Asked who ultimately determined whether workers who had recently used drugs would be suitable, he answered: The issue "would be resolved at the highest levels" of the White House. Another agent's deposition revealed the background checks turned up use of hard drugs. "I have seen cocaine usage. I have seen hallucinogenic usages, crack usages," said Jeffrey Undercoffer, when asked to describe the types of drugs used by employees who were placed in the special programs. The Associated Press reported Monday that 21 Clinton White House workers had been placed in the special testing after their background checks indicated recent drug abuse."

Freeper Wright is right! 7/23/98 ".I DID receive an indication this morning from another source which quotes an MD as saying that the *problem* Clinton has is continuing.It'll come out in the end. DC sources late last night who have seen hard evidence call the situation *explosive*. "

Conspiracy Nation Vol 9 Num 06 ".To those who have read about Clinton's early days, it is clear that he grew up in a dysfunctional environment and that later he connected, at least tangentially, with the cocaine sub-culture. According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in the London Sunday Telegraph ("Clinton 'took cocaine while in office,'" July 17, 1994), Bill Clinton may have "engaged in regular use of cocaine and marijuana during his rise to political prominence in Arkansas." Evans-Pritchard bases his story, in part, on the testimony of Sally Perdue, who claims to have had an affair with the then-Governor. Clinton, on one occasion, is said to have had a bag of cocaine from which he prepared a "line" on Perdue's living room table. Says Perdue: "He had all the equipment laid out, like a real pro." .This editor has had the pleasure of innumerable conversations with Sherman Skolnick. While some may question how discerning Mr. Skolnick is regarding what his various informants tell him, I myself know that he has highly-placed sources with whom he is in regular contact. Some of these sources are in the White House. The allegations of a specific "five lines a day" Clinton cocaine habit were first conveyed to me by Sherman Skolnick earlier this summer.."

7/23/98 Freeper Doug from Upland George Putnam Show "Remember the guy who didn't inhale? Remember the guy who says he never violated American drug laws? Remember the guy who tried it once but didn't like it? Remember the guy who told that an MTV audience that if he had it to do over again he would inhale? Remember the guy who told a NEW YORK TIMES reporter a week before the 1996 election that he has never used mind-altering drugs? Yes, we remember him. That is the same man who has had to GO TO REHAB THREE TIMES FOR HIS COCAINE PROBLEM! . On the George Putnam show today, Larry Nichols chronicled a meeting he was at with Bill Clinton and Witt Stephens, brother of Jack Stephens. Larry says that Witt told Clinton that they would give him 100K in support for another run for the governorship (after he was defeated)but he had to "dry out on the white stuff." Betsey Wright has admitted to Nichols that on two other occasions Bill had to go to rehab for cocaine. In discussing this with Nichols in the past, he has told me that he has been unsuccessful in locating the place where Clinton was treated. He believed it was somewhere in Minnesota. .."

A Letter to Ann Coulter
A Letter to Ann Coulter
by Kristen Breitweiser
09.06.2006

Dear Ann,

But for the murder of our husbands on 9/11, we would not have gone to Washington to fight for an independent 9/11 investigation. Our involvement in national security would have begun and ended at the voting booth, like most citizens. But for the initial failure of our leaders and elected officials to create an independent 9/11 Commission to investigate the terrorist attacks, we would not have not been forced to publicly fight for it.

An important part of that fight required us to demand the attention of our elected officials by speaking out in the media. Sadly, in many cases, such public pressure (and its possible effect on Election Day) is needed to inspire elected officials to do the right thing. That is not my opinion. That's reality. Had President Bush and Congress impaneled an independent commission on their own, we would not have needed to lobby Washington. Likewise, had Congress thoroughly investigated the attacks and not limited its investigation into intelligence-only areas, we would not have needed to fight for the 9/11 Commission.

We wanted the 9/11 attacks investigated thoroughly and competently so that fewer terrorist attacks would succeed in the future and more lives would be saved on the day of the next attack. When you study the events of 9/11, you learn that many more lives should have been saved, and many damages and injuries could have been mitigated. We wanted to hold the government accountable so that, going forward, our nation would be better prepared for future attacks and disasters.

Fighting for national security--securing the homeland or wanting to make the nation safe--ought to be an unassailable objective, similar to the Amber Alert, Megan's Law, and providing body armor for the troops. Regardless of who the messenger raising these issues might be, the goals are inarguable because they are pure, true, and right. Will these issues receive more focused attention if the message is delivered by people who speak passionately because they have been personally affected? Yes, absolutely. But it's the issue that is unassailable--not the people espousing that issue. If your conservative Republican friends are on the wrong side of the issues, that's their problem.

Ann, the Jersey Girls are moms. We have children. Perhaps one day if you have a child, you may understand the sense of duty and obligation that parents feel toward their children to provide them with a safe and secure environment, both in the present and the future. There were many, many times when we wanted to give up. We were tired and frustrated. But we didn't. The reason? Our children. We were left as their sole protectors; we wanted them to know that even though their fathers were brutally killed, they could be and would be safer living in America.

You complained to many interviewers that they hadn't taken the time to read your book. But did you take the time to look at the Family Steering Committee Web site (www.911independentcommission.org)? You might discover that we shared some of the same disappointments, concerns, and grievances that you have expressed with regard to the 9/11 Commission. The difference is that we made those concerns known while the Commission was doing its work--that is, when it could have made a difference. Why didn't you?

We could have used some more support back then, when we were fighting against individual commissioners' apparent and very possible conflicts of interest and the need for more hard-hitting hearings. We needed more help in fighting for an extended deadline, so as to remove the Commission's final report from the politics of the 2004 election, and a budgetary increase so the Commission could complete its unfinished work on questions about Able Danger. (You see, I did read your book.)

But frankly, I wonder how much you really know about the 9/11 Commission. You don't seem to understand that President Bush picked Tom Kean to be the chairman--not the "co-chairman." You don't seem to be aware that Philip Zelikow was the Commission's staff director or of why that position was so important. You also seem ignorant of the fact that Zelikow had served previously on the Bush National Security Council transition team and on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. (Do you even know who the current members of PFIAB are or what PFIAB does? Probably not.) I wonder whether you even know that Zelikow is currently serving as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Special Counsel. Finally, and most important, are you aware that the White House exercised the "final edits" on the Commission's report? Tell me, Ann, how does that add up to a Democratic whitewash?
Because I was one of twelve family members who lobbied fiercely for an independent commission, I was invited to meetings in the White House and on Capitol Hill. I testified before Congress, as well. I wish you knew about the battle that occurred behind the scenes because then you might not make silly statements such as "nobody could ever debate the Jersey Girls." Ironically, it is because we kept most of those meetings confidential that you probably don't know how nastily certain elected officials behaved behind closed doors. Trust me, we were countered, rebutted, and challenged in almost every meeting we attended. Did we go on the record about those incidents? No. We could have, and I can assure you that some of your conservative Republican friends would not have come off well.

When I kept my mouth shut about the way a certain Republican official spoke to me merely because it would have made people in your party look bad, was I being "political"? I'm sure there are some Democrats who would say yes. Did that mean I was being manipulated by your right-wing friends? No. It meant that I had a job to do and I found no reason to distract attention from our cause by dragging people through the mud. There was plenty that I could have spouted off about then, and there still is to this very day. But I don't--mostly because my mother and father taught me to rise above bullies rather than stoop to their level.

You branded the Jersey Girls media whores, a bunch of celebrity-seeking widows who enjoyed their husbands' deaths. Had your friends--including many elected officials in the Republican Party and conservatives in Washington--not put up a fight, and a very nasty fight, we wouldn't have needed to raise public awareness through the media. So if you want to blame anyone for our appearances on television, you should blame your own coterie, not us. We simply wanted to inform the nation about what needed to be done. And we still intend to do that.

Earlier this year, some of us were invited to appear on television to discuss the verdict in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. We agreed to do that because the U.S. has in custody three individuals with a more direct connection to the 9/11 attacks than Moussaoui. To us, it is important to show the world that we are a nation of laws and that the U.S. can successfully bring terrorists to justice. Does that matter to you, Ann? If so, then you ought to support us in our goal of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, and Khallad bin Attash to trial. Our judicial process should hold these madmen accountable for the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.

I am truly puzzled by your accusation that we were operatives of or used by the Democrats. We were never paid for television appearances, we did not drive around in limos, we did not have publicists or PR people, and we wrote all of our own press releases, talking points, letters to the editor, statements, and testimony. (I don't know if the 9/11 family members who chose to support the Republican Party can say the same.) At any rate, your statements are false and defamatory, although that is nothing new for you.

As a public figure I'm in a poor position to hold you legally accountable for your lies. But I will take the time to set the record straight here. The Democrats were nearly the only people in Washington willing to help us. That is not my opinion; it is a fact, notwithstanding a few honorable exceptions, such as Chris Smith and John McCain. We worked with anyone of either party who supported an independent investigation.

For some unknown reason--and as a seasoned right-wing operative maybe you can enlighten us--most Republicans we encountered were completely opposed to learning any lessons from 9/11. It's a shame, too. After all, the Republican Party has been in total control of Washington for the past three years. Had they made true national security a higher priority, perhaps our cities would be better protected against terrorist attacks and disasters. Again, the sorry conditions in our cities and across our nation are a matter of fact, not opinion. Please don't blame me for that failure. Assign the responsibility where it belongs.

Similarly, one of the reasons we are still fighting for national security reforms (and encountered so much resistance in fighting for an independent commission) is that very few people actually read commission reports. They often sit on bookshelves gathering dust. Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report, along with its accompanying footnotes? Have you read the Robb-Silverman report on the Iraq intelligence failures? What about the Joint Inquiry of Congress report on 9/11? How about the Hart-Rudman report? Or even the Bremer report? Probably not. If you haven't, you should, because I think you would find those volumes illuminating.

You have expressed outrage that few of your critics actually read your books. You complain that they merely cherry-pick your most inflammatory comments while missing your overall message. Frustrating, isn't it?
You also wrongly accused us of being in the pocket of former president Clinton. The obvious reason for why we always directed our questions and requests to President Bush was simply because Clinton was no longer in office. The former president had no power to commence an investigation into the 9/11 attacks, nor did he have any power to effect change to make the nation safer after 9/11. That power lay in the hands of President Bush--you know, the guy who in your opinion has supreme authority.

Ann, I don't want to get into a debate with you. It's not because I am afraid of you or your nasty bullying tactics. I'm not going to debate you because we have many, many more important issues to deal with in our country right now.
But I will leave you with this: We live in America, the world's oldest democracy. Democracy can prevail (is that what you and your friends really fear?), but that requires hard work, as President Bush might say. Every citizen in this country is entitled to his or her beliefs, and every citizen is entitled to participate. We still have the right to speak our minds to effect change (within the parameters of the law, of course). So don't try to silence the voices of victims or anyone else, merely because you disagree with them or feel threatened by their political choices. In my opinion, your method of using intimidation and insults to "win" a debate is truly unpatriotic.

Actually, I expect that you will continue to scream and shout and smear as nastily as you want, so long as you think that that kind of behavior sells books. But we have tackled bigger bullies than you and lived through far worse circumstances than your book tour. We're not intimidated by you. We're not running away.

And under no circumstances will we be silenced by your "godless" rantings and ravings.

Kristen Breitweiser
New York City
June 2006

Roxanne - Thanks for the tip, but, I don't have internet at home.

A clock-radio sound system. No internet. I understand all this.

We have some kids kicking about now and again so our electronics are up to a less embarrassing standard, though no back-patting is due to the two of us.

A while back, we purchased a vibrator. It is still blinking 12:00...12:00...12:00...

would that be a measurement indicator?

Yes. Unfortunately, not of me.