Here’s the exact moment it became OK for Mark that Anne Coulter attack the relationship that some the 9/11 victims had with their families…

“Washington, DC, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- Five New Jersey women whose husbands were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks endorsed John Kerry for president Tuesday, saying they no longer trusted the Bush administration to identify or fix the flaws that left the country open to attack.”

Again, Mark, show me that you have some principles. Cause I’ve yet to see any examples of you acting off them.

You claim you cannot hate because of your religion. You obviously hold a reverence for September 11 and the horror our country (specifically those who lost loved-ones) went through on that day. You strongly condemned liberals who use hateful rhetoric and called on conservatives on this site not to lower themselves to their level.

Now, knowing this about you, one would like to think that when Coulter using unnecessarily harsh rhetoric that questions the relationship these woman had with their husbands, you would take exception. You would, for once, put politics aside speak as a human being, as a catholic.

Yes, these women are in the spotlight because their husband died on 9/11, but so what? But since when has it been OK to ridicule and question the relationship someone had with their dead loved ones because of how they got involved with politics?

Why can’t one simply address the substance of what these women say instead of attacking them and their dead husbands?

Mark, you say you can’t hate. Yet you condone these hateful words.

You betray your religion for you politics. You’re not a good catholic. You’re a political being, not a religious one.

Let’s look at your rationale for not condemning Coulter:

“This is offensive - but no more offensive than a very small number of 9/11 widows who have been parroting DNC talking points on 9/11 and getting all huffy when ever someone calls them on it.”

Let’s take a closer look:

“but no more offensive than a very small number of 9/11 widows who have been parroting DNC talking points on 9/11”

And yet a close look.

“parroting DNC talking points”

Here it is. Now, change the D to an R. Say Gore was president on 9/11. And a group of widows endorsed Robert Frist in ’04. Then a couple years later, in Michael Moore’s new book, he accused these women of “enjoying the deaths of their husbands” and questioned whether these husbands wanted to be married to these “harpies.”

Now, everyone reading this knows you would have gone nuts, written a long screed against Moore… and not just stopping there. You would have used this as an example of how hateful and “evil” the entire left is.

It’s clear that the reason you are defending Coulter is politics. You take politics out of this equation and you hear someone these things about 9/11 widows, and there’s no doubt that the comments are beyond the pale.

But here’s why you can’t condemn Coulter, Mark. It’s because it would expose your thesis that liberals are inherently hateful people as the BS that it is. Coulter must be different than liberals who use hateful language. She must have cause to speak like this. Liberals must DESERVE this kind of attack.

Some who condemned liberal bloggers for hateful rhetoric explains away hateful rhetoric from the right by saying these women deserve to have completely unnecessary comments made about the losses they suffered on 9/11. Mark can’t even bring himself to admit that those on the left side of the aisle deserve even the most common of decency directed toward them.

If this is OK, then what else am I to assume then that if you speak out against Bush, anything about you or your life is fair game.

Mark, think about it. Is this the kind of love a good catholic should show his “enemies”? You don’t know the meaning of “love thy enemy.” And yes, you are hateful. This proves it.

“liberals are upset over this, then they should stop for a second and think about what they say before they say it –“

Mark, what have these widows said that make them deserve these kinds of statements from Coulter? Don’t use google, approximate quotes will do…

This is the woman you defend, Mark:

Coulter appeared at a book signing in Huntington, New York, home of many who died in 9/11, on June 8, 2006, where she was handed a letter stating "Your latest comments deriding the widows of 9/11 are a disgrace to thousands who perished on that day," and that her claim that the women had profited from their husbands' death is a "nauseating misrepresentation of their struggle to keep the memory of what happened that day alive." by Huntington town board member Mark Cuthbertson, who told her "I'm here on behalf of many of my constituents. We are disgusted with your comments." Coulter tore up the letter.[9]

I find it ironic that her latest book is entitled Godless. God is nowhere to be seen in her words or actions.

Using Ann Coulter to bolster an argument in favor of creationism. Ha! Looks like somebody isn't in on the kayfabe.

Care to back up you last statement with some proof, Tom?

Yes, Ann is mean. But she is usually funny while being mean, and her meanness is usually well-directed. But I think she is off base regarding the widows. It is not their fault they were given huge settlements because the nation was in spasms of sorrow and just wanted to DO SOMETHING, while military widows get next to nothing for losing husbands in the active defense of the country. And it is not their fault that somehow a myth has been created that those whose loved ones are killed by terrorists, or in a war, suddenly magically achieve some legitimate status as experts on those topics. Having your husband eaten by a bear would not make you qualified to advise the Forest Service on wildlife management. So I see her basic premise, but agree that she has been very harsh in her approach on this topic.

However, having said that.....she does not lie. She tells the truth, is meticulously researched, and while abrasive she is also accurate. It is possible to disagree with her opinions, and even her conclusions, but not her facts.

My favorite Ann Coulter mean comment, which was funny and on the mark, was her advice to John Roberts when he was facing a grilling from Teddy Kennedy in his confirmation hearings. She suggested that if Kennedy were to ask Roberts how he would vote on any single issue, Roberts should simply reply; "I think I'll just drive off that bridge when I come to it."

Yes, Ann is mean. But she is usually funny while being mean, and her meanness is usually well-directed. But I think she is off base regarding the widows. It is not their fault they were given huge settlements because the nation was in spasms of sorrow and just wanted to DO SOMETHING, while military widows get next to nothing for losing husbands in the active defense of the country. And it is not their fault that somehow a myth has been created that those whose loved ones are killed by terrorists, or in a war, suddenly magically achieve some legitimate status as experts on those topics. Having your husband eaten by a bear would not make you qualified to advise the Forest Service on wildlife management. So I see her basic premise, but agree that she has been very harsh in her approach on this topic.

However, having said that.....she does not lie. She tells the truth, is meticulously researched, and while abrasive she is also accurate. It is possible to disagree with her opinions, and even her conclusions, but not her facts.

My favorite Ann Coulter mean comment, which was funny and on the mark, was her advice to John Roberts when he was facing a grilling from Teddy Kennedy in his confirmation hearings. She suggested that if Kennedy were to ask Roberts how he would vote on any single issue, Roberts should simply reply; "I think I'll just drive off that bridge when I come to it."

I think Ann is brilliant. In your face yes, but so are many extreme left wing "comedians" and of course, that is completely acceptable *rolling eyes*.

In regards to the widows. Their whole stance is on bashing President Bush. Not the terrorists. They blame their husband's deaths on our President which is absolutely ridiculous! They never mention the horrible terrorists who were the ones who murdered their husbands.

I find the Jersey Girls annoying and I bet their husbands would be ashamed of them.

I think Ann is brilliant. In your face yes, but so are many extreme left wing "comedians" and of course, that is completely acceptable *rolling eyes*.

In regards to the widows. Their whole stance is on bashing President Bush. Not the terrorists. They blame their husband's deaths on our President which is absolutely ridiculous! They never mention the horrible terrorists who were the ones who murdered their husbands.

I find the Jersey Girls annoying and I bet their husbands would be ashamed of them.

Almiranta said: "I think I'll just drive off that bridge when I come to it."

Okay, that was funny. Lol! I've been to that bridge, back around the time it happened, too. And let me tell ya, it was a very easy bridge to drive off of. That doesn't absolve Mr. Kennedy of anything -- it wasn't the driving off it that was the real issue, it was everything else surrounding it.

Be that as it may, what bothers me about the Coulter flap is that most people seem to think that she is either totally right or totally wrong, rather than acknowledging that she often (and certainly in this case) wraps a kernel of truth in massive amounts of hyperbole. And she often (and certainly in this case) gets personal about it. That's what I don't like about her -- she spins her attacks on the issues into personal attacks. But it's not just her, many people use the same tactic. And when they do, chances are they condone the use of it because they claim others do. Yeah, stoop to the level of your worst critic. That's the ticket. I am so thoroughly sick of it.

And I didn't understand Mark's (Coulter's) argument about evolution vs. intelligent design. Is the point that there should be more fossils of "mistakes" if evolution was more accurate than intelligent design? If so, then it's probably worth asking two questions: (1) do inviable blastocysts leave detectable fossils? and; (2) if there's an intelligent designer, why are there mistakes? What's up with that?

Tom,

I can't address the substance of their complaints because, like all critics of President Bush, there really isn't any substance behind the criticism. The proof is in the pudding - the ladies claim President Bush hasn't done enough to secure the country: this is an absurd statement to make. What, precisely, is "enough"? Who decides? Does being a widow of a terrorism victim make you an expert on national security issues?

By engaging in partisan politics - endorsing Kerry - these ladies forever lost their iconic status. The entered the political arena and instantly became something different - where a person who maintains a non-partisan stance can become a moral conscience, someone who makes a partisan statement becomes a partisan. You can't be a partisan and demand kid glove treatment.

I said Coulter's statement was rude - but if you want some other examples of rudeness, look no further than the eagerness which the left accepts any accusation of war crimes against American troops...look no further than the left accusing President Bush of creating a dictatorship...look no further than Kossacks advocating my injury or death.

Politics can be rough - I'd like it to be less rough; but don't get on a high horse and say that these particular ladies deserve an awed respect...they lost that when they endorsed Kerry.

Ann always gets under the skin of the left because she successfully mirrors their actions well.

Her point is ignored and feigned offense, something the left is well known for, takes over. Look how the left has attacked Bush, Rove, Cheney, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, whining they attacked a "decorated Viet Nam War Hero while ignoring that each and evey one of them were also highly decorated Viet Nam War Heroes themselves (must be okay for the left to attack War heroes, huh?).

But, as soon as Ann Coulter says something against 4 widows who willingly placed themselves in the Political Spotlight and who wanted more compensation for their husbands deaths than the slightly over 1 million they were to receive, and the left once again goes ballistic.

I just love their consitency.

Funnier still, just as with Cindy Sheehan and others, as soon as they no longer draw media attention, the left walks away from their useful idiots and seeks the next one.

No one is as asinine as Ann Coulter. Even "Gentle" Bill O'Reilly is lambasting her delivery. It is no suprise that our local host aka Mark defends her. She might just prove evolution is impossible. Whoever carried the ignorant gene she inherited would have been killed off long ago.

Bernard Goldberg insists she is "hurting her own" (meaning conservatives, but in reality who would want to be of the same species as Ann Coulter)

Sure she just wants to sell books. Sure she has no conscience and maybe in her perverted way she is trying to be humorous. But she has gone way beyond when she says such hurtful things to the surviving wives. Shame on her. Shame on you Mark for defending her.

I was not thrilled when I heard about Ann's comments. How could she say something so awful about women who've lost their husbands on one of the most tragic days in our country's history?

Then ... I came across this article. And, it really got me thinking (just as it did the author). I lost my mom three years ago. People ask me how she died and I reply, "She had a massive heart attack." I don't DESCRIBE how she died because anyone with half a brain can visualize it. My dad, sister, brother and I have never once talked about my mom's last moments. Never. Why? Because it is too damn painful.

I believe Ann was making a point and the Jersey girls proved her point in their rebuttal.

Here's the article:

Shoot! I used html code to put the url of the article so one could just click on it and go there but it didn't work. I'll have to figure that one out!!

Here it is:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9936

Ash is watching Fox? Shame on you!!
LOL!

Mark: What are you talking about "look no further than Kossacks advocating my injury or death"? When did this happen?

Mr. Noonan,

I've seen you sink to some pretty pathetic lows to stand behind the once-great Republicn Party and your failed idiot president, but this is by far the most pathetic and shameless act of partsianship i've seen on this site.

Being the Catholic tha you are, I thought you of all people would put politics aside and say that Ms. Coulter(who is anything but a compassionate Christian)crossed the line in claiming that the Jersey Girls were simply enjoyng their husband's death, but somehow you couldn't wait to use that piece to bash liberals yet again, which brings us to an inconveient truth that i've had about you from the begining: you're a fraud(like Coulter and the rest of the Religious Right)who hides behind the Cross to spew your vemon against anyone who dares to defy the Idiot-in-Cheif.

So a few 9/11 widiows are speaking out against the Chimp.............why do you care? These women don't hold public office or have a voice in House or Senate, they are just women who choose to speak out! Last time I checked, we were free to speak our minds, or is the rubber stamp Republican Congress debating whether or not free speech should have it's limitations?
But trust me when I say if a Democrat had the nerve to smear and accuse them of explotiating their husband's death, you would be bitching till the cows came home.

If anything, you've proven that anyone who dares to speak out against the Chimp--be it veterans, four star generals, 9/11 victims--will be smeared in order to defend your idiot president and his actions.

That's pretty damn low if you ask me, but I guess you really don't have a compassionate bone in your entire body.

Shame on you, Mr. Noonam. You're nothing but an embarassment to Christianity because REAL CHIRSTIANS stand against this type of hatred aimed at others.

You're pathetic.

I've always enjoyed Ann as a pundit. Which she is and just like any other pundit she is attacked and lampooned. That's fine, it's the job she picked and she enjoys it. I'll chuckle when I like what she does or I'll groan when I think she's off the mark, just like I do with any other pundit.

As long as she doesn't try to have any real power I'm fine with what she says. It's her right as an American.

TL> So a few 9/11 widiows are speaking out against the Chimp.............why do you care? These women don't hold public office or have a voice in House or Senate, they are just women who choose to speak out!

Odd how this line of reasoning wasn't applied to all the Decorated Viet Nam War heroes comprising the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth during the last election. Democrats have slandered them, sued them, cost them their jobs, with it still going on.

Now is your chance, Teen Lib, denounce the treatment Democrats have given over 250 highly decorated Viet Nam War Veterans, some who were even Democrats themselves.

"I can't address the substance of their complaints because, like all critics of President Bush, there really isn't any substance behind the criticism. The proof is in the pudding - the ladies claim President Bush hasn't done enough to secure the country: this is an absurd statement to make. What, precisely, is "enough"? Who decides? Does being a widow of a terrorism victim make you an expert on national security issues?"

Mark, so because I disagree with your politics, it's OK for me to attack the relationship you have with your wife? Or your step kid? Would that be acceptable?

Your saying because you disagree with these women's politics, it's OK to question the relationship they had with their husbands prior to Sept. 11 (when they died).

You wrote an entire thread about the hateful rhetoric from the left and called for an end to it.

Now you defend these statements from Coulter.

You also claim to be Catholic. You claim to love your enemies. How exactly is standing behind these words anyway related your devoutness to Catholocism?

You say I have no substance. Well, if you don't respond to anything else, please respond to these points.

Almiranta,

Coulter is a self-serving media hound, she may be funny sometimes, but I hear John Wayne Gacy was a funny guy too.

I love how she is the same side of the coin of Michael Moore, yet the right still elevates her to some special status as their own personal pit-bull.

Mainly i don't like her because of that stupid way she turns to the side while being interviewed, obviously checking herself out on the monitors (i'm telling you, watch for it the next time she is glorifying herself on TV). But as a close second, she's is a hyperbole Queen and a straight out liar...and here is my proof:

SLANDER"In a column published soon after 9/11, Frank Rich (of NYT) demanded that Ashcroft ignore Muslim terrorists and focus on anti-abortion extremists. FACT. Rich said no such thing. REBUTTAL. On Hannity & Colmes, 6/25/02, AHC said this was an "accurate paraphrase"

--an acurate paraphrase of a non-existant quote?

"SLANDER. Jim Jeffords always votes for higher taxes. FACT. Jeffords voted "nay" on Clinton's 1993 tax hike, and "yea" on Bush II's tax cut. TAP. COMMENT. In fact, he postponed his departure from the GOP so the tax cut would go through."

--I'm sure she just forgot...then didn't bother to proofread.

"The media calls only conservative women names like "ugly." FACT. Conservative uglification and derision: Rush Limbaugh on Chelsea Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ann Richards, Donna Shalala; Jay Leno, others on Janet Reno; AHC herself on Bella Abzug ("A blind man in America would think the ugliest women ever to darken the planet are Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, and Katherine Harris. This from the party of Bella Abzug.")

--I love how she proves her own point by calling Harris once of the ugliest women to ever darken the planet. LOL!!

"SLANDER. Magazines tried to undercut Reagan's reelection bid by running articles on senility: AHC cites four such articles published in 1984, of only eight to run in Presidential election years from 1976-2000. FACT. Time and Newsweek discussed Reagan's poor performance in the televised debate of October 7, 1984. Time repeatedly said that the debate was no indicator of senility. Newsweek compared Reagan favorably to Churchill, and never even mentioned the s-word. Ladies' Home Journal (yes, cited by Ann) ran a personal account of the health care received by the writer's mother, and referred to Picasso, Martha Graham, and Alfred Hitchcock as examples of people working well into their 80s and 90s. U.S. News used Reagan, William Brennan, and several others as examples of the "dynamic elderly." Moreover, WSJ, not cited by Ann, was openly questioning Reagan's competence."

--leave it to the WSJ to throw a monkey-wrench in things

"SLANDER. NYT, 3/12/2000, called Bush Jr. an "airhead." FACT. The Times was quoting a Republican, a disappointed McCain supporter."

--bang-up job with that research Ann, damn-fine!

"SLANDER. Almost every U.S. newspaper, except the NYT, carried the news of the death of Dale Earnhardt on the front page. The story that did appear, on day 2, was a down-the-nose look at sad Southern yahoos at Wal-Mart. FACT. Earnhardt died on a Sunday; the NYT did carry this news, on page 1, Monday morning. The Tuesday piece was about the impact of Earnhardt's death on his home town in North Carolina; it opened in Wal-Mart because one touching aspect of their grief was that they had bought up all the Earnhardt memorabilia, written farewell messages on them, and left them along the fence at Earnhardt's offices"

--Does she even have an editor checking this stuff?

All this from just ONE of her books, kinda makes you wonder where she gets her 'truthiness' from?

Mark, so because I disagree with your politics, it's OK for me to attack the relationship you have with your wife? Or your step kid? Would that be acceptable?

You say I have no substance. Well, if you don't respond to anything else, please respond to these points.

TS,

He can't and knows it. Don't expect decency from him. It only comes when it suits his political views. I see his likeness on both sides of the political equation and it is quite pathetic.

Ann's style and delivery are an acquired taste. I don't care for it, but she's dead on right.

Liberals use these people (Murtha, Sheehan, etc) because they don't want to be questioned.

It's the same reason why they hate Fox news. They don't want to be questioned on their beliefs.

They believe if they use these people they are somehow innoculated because "how dare you question a woman who lost a son in the war" mentality.

It's not going to work.

You're right on the money, Tom. The thing is, Coulter is pushing an angle that Mark would like to agree with, so he accepts it uncritically. When Coulter says, "liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win," it's an absurd and utterly unsupportable statement, but it goes well with Noonan's conception of things, so he simply nods his head and says, "Yes, that must be it. She's so right!" He accepts it as truth with no consideration of veracity.

Look at his statement here:

I can't address the substance of their complaints because, like all critics of President Bush, there really isn't any substance behind the criticism. The proof is in the pudding - the ladies claim President Bush hasn't done enough to secure the country: this is an absurd statement to make.

See how he just decides to dodge it? It's actually quite simple. Has Bush secured the country? Well, the ports and airports are still largely unsecured, as test after test has shown. The border? Not even conservatives are defending Bush on this one. Nuclear sites? Still as vulnerable as they ever were. Container ships? 95 percent unchecked. Homeland security funding? Slashed even for the places attacked on the rationale that there "are no landmakrs," (guess nobody cares about the Statue of Liberty).

Oh, but Bush did start a war, and that is what the supporters he has left are staking the entirety of their "protecting you against terrorism" position on.

So, naturally, Mark is wrong. He simply dodges the tricky questions in order to blithely embrace a story line that doesn't really mean anything but feels right to him. After all, it fits with his posting pattern here, so why should this be any different? To any observer, Tom, you have Noonan dead to rights--and that's why he's not going to answer any of your points. Just remember: He doesn't get Coulter's kayfabe, so he's not likely to cop to how wrong he is anytime soon.

It is quite the thing to see liberals (those hedonistic baby killers and euthanasia lovers) chastising some conservative because they are not like the liberal created version of God. They usually are atheists, agnostics, or have co-opted God into a peacenik, pacifist God, ignoring all the commandments they don't like (gay marriage anyone?)and ignoring all the stuff about having to pay in Gehenna. The just judging God is despised but thier liberal fantasy of God is okay to have around as weaponry against believers. Nice try -but it doesn't cut the mustard.

If you can dish it out you had better able to take it,
and that is the trouble with the Dems, thay can't take it.
I agree, those widows should be ashamed of them selves, as far as Ann goes yes, she is mean and
there is far more truth to what she said than we
feel comfortable with.

If you can dish it out you had better able to take it,
and that is the trouble with the Dems, thay can't take it.
I agree, those widows should be ashamed of them selves, as far as Ann goes yes, she is mean and
there is far more truth to what she said than we
feel comfortable with.

Bridgette,

maybe you should read the quotes I posted earlier in the thread, quite truthful that one...wasn't that the complain about Moore, he twists facts to his own view...isn't that EXACTLY what she is doing, please go check out the quotes and tell me how they aren't lies and twisted facts...i'll wait

It is quite the thing to see liberals (those hedonistic baby killers and euthanasia lovers) chastising some conservative because they are not like the liberal created version of God. They usually are atheists, agnostics, or have co-opted God into a peacenik, pacifist God, ignoring all the commandments they don't like (gay marriage anyone?)and ignoring all the stuff about having to pay in Gehenna. The just judging God is despised but thier liberal fantasy of God is okay to have around as weaponry against believers. Nice try -but it doesn't cut the mustard.
-DL

I don't seem to remember gay marriage being referred to in any of the 10 Commandments of which you speak, but that's just me. What I do remember is "Thou shalt not kill," which has been chipped away at over the years to "not pertain to" execution and war. It never says in the bible that it is ok to kill people in any form (Romans 1:32 does say that all sinners are deserving of death, but Romans, chapter 3 says that we should not respond to evil with evil), it only says "thou shalt not...", so why do christian conservatives support the Death Penalty? Doesn't seem to "cut the mustard" (and who cuts mustard, anyways?).

The fact that someone has to resort to personally attacking an opponent (political or otherwise) shows that they can't really answer their opponent's points (kind of like the post of DL, where he quantified all liberals as "hedonistic baby killers"). The person could have the best point in the world, but if they can't convey it in a civilized way, why listen?

"The person could have the best point in the world, but if they can't convey it in a civilized way, why listen?"

Exactly. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

Sees,

Thing is, every one of your accusations are incorrect and have long ago been demonstrated to be incorrect...these days, we on the right grow tired of proving for the 1,000th time that the liberal position is wrong - we know you won't pay any attention to what we say, and you'll just make the same accusation next week that was proven incorrect last week.

You really need to think - the terrorists would love to have a major attack, or a series of attacks, inside the US...they'd like to give the world the impression that they are really taking the fight to us...that noted, we have to understand that they are trying hard to do just that, and they haven't been able to do it for nearly five years.

So you're claiming that the airports are secure? Whoops. That the ports are secure? Whoops. The border? (Again, not even conservatives are supporting Bush on this one--nobody thinks our borders are secure.) That homeland security funding didn't get slashed? Whoops.

Basically, we are not well prepared for terrorism:

Thomas Kean, the Republican chairman of the committee, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that enacting the changes is "not a priority for the government right now.

"A lot of the things we need to do really to prevent another 9/11 just simply aren't being done by the president or by the Congress.

"What we're concerned about now is that these recommendations -- four years, more than four years after 9/11, are still not being done. People are not paying attention to them."
(emphases mine)

See what I did there, Noonan? I proved myself. I proved my point. You have never done that--you merely say you have and think that's the same thing as actually doing it. But you proved nothing. Now that you've been crushed, you should run along and prattle on about how starting a war without doing anything to make us safer has, defying all logic, made us safer.

Ash is watching Fox? Shame on you!!
LOL!

Dang, caught red handed, Kimberly. Would you believe....I saw the outtake on the Keith Obermann Show? How about Americas Funniest Home Videos? The Cartoon Channel?

*Hangs head in embarrasement, hands in ACLU card*

teen,

RE: "Mark, calm down! Da Vinci is just a movie meant to make huge money and attract a crowd.
Geez............................................."

Teen, calm down! It's just a book meant to make huge money and attract a crowd. Geez..........................................

RE: "This book was made to stir people up and make them question religion.................what's the mater with that?"

This book was made to stir people up and make them question liberalism.................what's the mater with that?

RE: "Mark, have you even seen the movie? If you haven't, then grab $8.00 ... [see the movie] and them form your own opinion."

Teen, have you even read the book? If you haven't, then grab the $4.99 ... read the book and them form your own opinion."

Guess I'll have to buy a copy and see what it's all about!

AAR

Georgia Frawg, a more accurate translation of the 10 Commandments you quote would be, "Thou shalt not murder." For many reasons, God directed the Israelites to kill and even the penalty for several crimes was death, usually by stoning.

Ash ... thanks for the chuckle! :-)

TEO, I wasn't speaking to your quotes per se, I, as
mere mortal, think some people split hairs, when the larger concept gets lost.
Thanks for waiting

I'm one of those full-fledged Bush supporters who has no use for Ann Coulter. The legtimate points that she brings up are overshadowed by her cheap shots. Sometimes I wonder if she and Randi Rhodes were separated at birth.

Bridgette,

So what you're saying is that Ann may be a meany, but as long as she is saying what YOU believe SHOULD be said, then who cares if she lies about some stuff here or there, right?

No one went on the warpath attacking that military wife who was up on stage with Bush during his 2004 campaign commercials, she was extoling the virtures of Der LEader, but if we had made her the butt of a SINGLE joke or political op-ed, we would have been crucified as anti-american and against the troops, what a bunch of hypocritical BS.

/SPIT!

Gozer said (of Coulter): "As long as she doesn't try to have any real power I'm fine with what she says. It's her right as an American."

Are you aware that Coulter considered running for congress in 2000?

Sees,

And how many attacks have there been inside the United States since 9/11?

That would be .... hmmm .... let me think a minute....well, a big, fat ZERO!!!!

Alarmists will be alarmists...proof is in the pudding.

Here is the bottom line, which Mark Noonan and other apologists for Ann Coulter ignore: there is no evidence that the four widows from New Jersey are enjoying their husbands' deaths. We are not talking about whether these widows should be above criticism, but whether it is justifiable to make baseless accusations against them and their feelings about the loss of their loved ones. What Coulter said was despicable and places her on the same level as the Fred Phelps family who show up at military funerals with their "God hates fags" signs.